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

This is the law, yes. Your argument is that because this is the law, it can't possibly fit in with my "externality likelihood" justification? In which case I disagree. That law includes non-occupied roads administrative convenience. But the reason that drunk driving laws were made in the first place is because of the likelihood of externalities.

 

Yes, dead sober but negligent.

 

From my uneducated understanding, mens rea is a requirement of any criminal prosecution.

 

But a dysfunctional prison system shouldn't be influencing how people are charged and sentenced, should it? Isn't that the tail wagging the dog? Shouldn't we be addressing the prison system immediately if we are to that point?

 

I didn't say it didn't fit. I said it wasn't enough.

 

On the other end we've gone from a guy committing inadvertent acts to a guy intentionally committing them.

It's a question about the intent of the sentence. If repayment or deterrence, the idea is idiotic. If protection of citizens, it's closer to useful, but not much.

 

I think that would be a significantly mitigating factor.

But are we assuming that he violated no laws and killed four people - say just had a tragic and unavoidable accident?

 

negligent how? Texting, eating a scalding hot burrito, etc? If so, I don't think it changes much in my eyes. And that isn't to say I am claiming I have never texted while operating a vehicle or eaten a scalding hot burrito. But I haven't texted while the vehicle is moving (at stop light) and I have given myself burns on my fingers while eating said scalding hot burrito. When you are driving, you have an awesome amount of force you are directing. It is solely up to you to manage that responsibility. If something were to happen as the result of me not alertly driving, sober or not, I am responsible for the results.

 

I understand what your concern is, but I don't think the "externality likelihood" justification reaches to those examples. And, fwiw, we're on the same page in this discussion.

 

What is idiotic about the idea that this little shit repay the lives he took with the loss of the life he would have had?

 

The intent of the sentence should shape the outcome.

I want hard, utterly miserable labor that includes isolation, but not our current system that takes this kid and makes of him a hardened criminal.

 

Repay? It's idiotic that someone is being "repaid."

 

We are on the same page, without doubt. The externalities thing is just a very slippery slope vis a vis reckless decisions.

 

No, we're not assuming it's a tragic and unavoidable accident. That's too easy. I dont' know the details of this case, or what this kid did to kill the people, but just think of examples of how a kid or an adult can be negligent and kill people while operating a vehicle. We could come up with a hundred, easy. Assume that the deaths are his fault. He drove terribly, but he drove terribly while dead sober.

 

The payment is the respect. He owes them, us, and all of society the respect of giving up his sliver spoon life. People don't actually take money to funerals, when they pay their respects. They honor the former life. The point is that the honor here is the loss there.

 

I do not think that the guy intended to kill four people, barring he's not also a psychopath.

But he did intentionally consume alcohol and then to operate a motor vehicle, of which he knew - or should know - carried the inherent risk of serious harm to himself, or innocent others.

I get what you're saying - but there is definite intent here, for everything that lead to the death of four people. That leaves him culpable, not only for those decisions, but all that ensued.

 

But I can't come up with a better justification for drunk driving laws. And I was even thinking about it when I just took a dump, which is a great place to think....and that's the best I got.

 

This is the definition of "pay" that is useful, since this needs, apparently, defining:

pay:
2. suffer a loss or other misfortune as a consequence of an action.

 

Respect? Forced incarceration is his show of respect? There is no honor to the victims here. There is a kid who'll forever live with the fact that he killed 4 people. His only chance at repayment would be enormous labor for those left behind or to change lives around him. Going to prison to become imbedded in the criminal culture does nothing, beyond keeping him off the streets. If his problem is addiction, it only does it for the time locked up.

 

That's just punishment. Has nothing to do with the term "repay" which implies evening the balance.