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

That was the point.

 

I have no further questions.

 

What makes drinking and driving wrong? What makes driving recklessly through a school zone, wrong?

 

I'm not sure that's the word I would have gone with.

 

Externality likelihood.

 

I just don't understand how 4 lives can be trivialized. And that's the way I see it.

 

That's a steep slope.

 

I get it, but what's the purpose of the incarceration? Retribution? Fairness? Rehabilitation?

Both sides of this have valid points and yes, I'm taking the liberal one.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

 

Potential could make anything and everything a crime. And mens rea gets lost in this thing.

 

Drinking and driving is as equally wrong, and as equally chargeable, regardless of whether it occurs on a public road that is devoid of all life, traffic and anything else, save yourself... and the interstate.

Externality is not enough.

Which is why it is advanced further for actual events that do result in serious bodily harm to others.

 

Yes.

 

You're looking at it from the perspective of the assignment of blame (that resulted from his actions). I'm looking at his actions, asking how evil they were, and what is thus the appropriate level of punishment to deter future evilness of this kind.

And I don't think putting this kid in jail for 20 years would prevent any future evilness of this kind. I really don't.

 

And what level of punishment would prevent any future evilness of this kind? Removing his eyes?

Or is the answer that there is no answer, and so punishment can't be based on such an impossible to define metric?

 

I disagree. Driving drunk isn't inherently wrong. If there is zero chance that another person is affected the act of driving drunk then it certainly isn't inherently wrong. It's the externalities that make it bad.

 

It's not a metric. It's a consideration. It's why first degree murder is punished more severely than vehicular manslaughter when in both instances somebody has lost their life.

 

When we break the law, there are punishments that are assigned, for the most part, based on severity. Without consequences, a civilized society would be unable to function. It would descend into anarchy.

 

(1) I disagree, and would like to hear an example -- even an absurd one -- of what you're thinking about.
(2) Mens rea is also tough to find in vehicular manslaughter. It's essentially recklessnes. I might describe it as "active obliviousness to potential harms"....or something similar.

 

Multiple sentences of life in prison is more severe than 20 years.

So...

 

But severity of the consequences that occurred or the act itself?