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

God I wish they'd start caning in our country

 

Assume a similar situation except no one was killed, what would be the crime and punishment?

 

Assume this kid had a public defender, for that matter.

 

I'm not riding in on the white horse to defend rich whitey. I agree with all of that. He should be in a jail cell with the minority offender who commited the same crime.

 

Guess I'm in the minority but no way in hell do I think it the right course of action is 20 years in prison.

 

If nobody was killed, you couldn't have vehicular manslaughter...

You would have a DUI and destruction of property. Which means, fines, maybe loss of license for a year.

He didn't even get that...

 

You don't always have to be rich - Montana judge sentences ex-teacher to 30 days for sex with teen who committed suicide. Stacey Rambold admitted he had sex with his 14-year-old Billings student, Cherice Moralez, 'without consent.'

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...n-girl-killed-article-1.1438205#ixzz2nIjHHJQe

 

I hate to discount the loss of life, but the punishment for these two offenses should be closer together in my opinion. That's not to say that I'm for the guy getting off with a fine and being forced to drive without a license. I just think the act should be given more consideration than the outcome. I'd be fine with minimum jail time for DUI offenders along with loss of license for multiple years, probation and whatever.

Why should the lucky drunks continue to get off so lucky?

 

So attempted murder and murder should hold the same punishment? It's all about intent and not outcome?

 

Because they didn't harm anyone else...

So, randomly shooting firearm in air, and 1st degree murder should be closer. Why should all the lucky discharges get off?

And speeding and running over 15 children in a school zone should be closer, I mean, why should all the lucky speeders get off?

I mean, these do sound like solid legal principles, but I'll just continue to be outraged.

 

And no real crime has been committed. No life or property has been harmed on just a DUI. However, when life and property is harmed, the punishment should be severe punishment should be handed down

 

No way in hell should the families go the rest of their lives without their loved ones because of an overpriviliged piece of shit.

 

Dooley tried at first...

 

Has nothing to do with how much his family has - rich or poor I wouldn't put a 16 year old kid in jail for 20 years for this. He should probably be in juvenile detention though.

 

Clarify the first, and on the second, I would agree.

 

The judge apparently disagrees.

 

I'm talking about what is just and isn't just - I don't think 20 years is what they should've aimed for from a 16 y/o kid.

 

That made adult decisions.

Do you disagree with with trying any minor as an adult?

 

My experience with the members of the public defender's office is that they are at least just as, if not more, competent than most private criminal defense lawyers. That may not be your point, though. If you're meaning that money played a factor, you're probably right about that. That's an absolutely absurd ruling.

 

There is minimum jail time and a loss of license currently followed by probation for DUIs. When people die, I absolutely think the situation is different.