16 yr old defense in DUI deaths --- "Affluenza"

To your credit, your were doing okay with the first two.

 

Deterrent?

 

Why are you hung up on this idea that there is, or must be, a benefit?

It can be a net detriment, or even undetermined, but justice still dictates that the rule of law be followed.

 

Again, all of this is based on the erroneous concept that criminal justice serves some higher purpose.

That is not the case.

Hanging a man for shooting the king's deer was criminal justice, and payback, and not at all so others could shoot te king's deer.

You are looking at this in the most narrow and modern focus, completely ignoring the evolution if criminal justice, law and governance.

 

A ton of our entire legal system exists because of what was. Everything I have listed has been a justification for what was, at some point, and it remains simply because it has always been.

You try to rationalize the noble purpose if it helps you feel better about it.

 

This is your take after several hundred years of precedent. And it's so cute.

 

I actually agree with this sentiment. I'm not really talking about this specific case, but I definitely understand what you're saying.

 

I can't emphasize enough that what you're saying is fundamentally incorrect. Every single reason that a criminal justice system exists is forward-looking.

 

If anything your focus is more narrow than my own, and mine is DEFINITELY more in line with the evolution of criminal justice in that -- and, again, I can't stress this enough -- criminal justice systems are forward-looking in their design. You're talking about sticking it to a bad dude. I'm talking about setting up rules that allow for a functioning society.

 

Please try to write something that makes sense.

Crime, punishment, law, justice, payback, retribution, authority, justness, penalty, fairness, blame, float, writes, words.

 

No, I explain a purpose that isn't "make the bad guy feel the pain that he's inflicted", which is your stated purpose, and which has for ten pages continued to miss the point.

 

No, I gave a list if reasons as an answer to a vague question, and you act as if they all have to exist at the same time. If you think that every law and every punishment that has ever existed was executed as forward thinking, then you are an idealist at best.

Criminal justice may now have a more noble purpose,but not every law and punishment started as such.

I didn't give a list that was meant to apply to each and every law, for each one listed. I gave a list that if there were 365 laws, one might apply to x, one to z, 5 to y, etc.

 

Yea, I've gotten your point. At no point have I said the sole purpose is to "make the bad guy feel the pain he has inflicted."

There are multiple purposes. And for one fraction of society, that would be their purpose.

Mine would be that this kid lose the most important thing he can lose: freedom.

 

I think this statement says enough. You have no idea what I am saying.

 

Okay.

 

Hey look, a UK website that lists payback as a reason for sentencing. Should we tell them they are doing it wrong, KidB? That their system doesn't actually exist?

http://open.justice.gov.uk/how-it-works/

 

Reach much?

 

I'm sorry, a statement on a governmental website for explanation of the justice system in a major Western country is a reach?

Elaborate. Or do what you want to just slink away?

 

Very much so.

Your googling speaks for itself.

 

I think you have the cart before the horse. What was a simple and obvious explanation that even a layperson would have understood took me two pages to explain to your slow ass.

I didn't google anything to because I felt the need to help my point, I did so to educate you. That you still struggle is only evidence of your poor, poor ego, or just your pure idiocy. Since you suffer both, I'll let you choose which, and just cite the previous two pages as this "reach."