26 Dec 10
Originally posted by BartsIn New York, hitting someone with intent to cause serious bodily harm that results in death is first degree manslaughter. In many states (and under the common law), it's second degree murder.
I may be mistaken of course, but I thought that hitting someone without the intent to kill, but which results in death anyway, was considered manslaughter and not murder. If I'm correct in this, then that would mean that the scenario you put up in this post is different from the one in your previous post. The scenario in the first post does not fit my position, but in this post you've hit closer to the mark.
Hitting someone without intent to cause serious bodily harm that results in the death of the person is probably involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.
26 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by BartsI already did.
Please explain how
To refresh: YOU: All trough the thread I have been saying that if person A and person B take the same action, but those actions have different outcomes due to circumstance outside of the control of those persons, then they are equally good or bad persons and I believe they should be punished equally.
A person punching someone is taking the same action whether he kills or not kills someone, but now you seem to want to add their mental state into the equation. This is inconsistent with your prior statements.
26 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Lets say the guy only killed one person and gets sentenced to 15 years.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5946234
Long story short, guy's on parole after a DUI conviction, gets stinking drunk, gets in a car, blows through a red light at 65 MPH and kills 3 people and severely injures a fourth.
Horrible guy? Sure.
Deserves to go to jail for a long time? You bet.
But I don't like the idea of giving hi e my family member who was killed), I don't think he's as bad as an intentional murderer.
He gets parolled after 10 years and does the same again.
A further 15 years sentence, this time parolled after 12 years.
Does the same again.
A further 15 years sentence is passed and he serves the full 15 years.
He then gets drunk again but this time he gets lucky and only maims the person.
What is worse
Killing 3 people at same time and maiming the fourth
or
Killing 3 people on 3 separate occasions and maiming someone on a 4th criminal act?
While it may seem harsh I believe that each crime should be treated as a separate event and dealt with accordingly.
26 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by adramforallWhy would you treat something as a "separate event" when it isn't one?
Lets say the guy only killed one person and gets sentenced to 15 years.
He gets parolled after 10 years and does the same again.
A further 15 years sentence, this time parolled after 12 years.
Does the same again.
A further 15 years sentence is passed and he serves the full 15 years.
He then gets drunk again but this time he gets lucky and ...[text shortened]... arsh I believe that each crime should be treated as a separate event and dealt with accordingly.
26 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderNow would you spell it out for me, because I don't see how you've proven any inconsistencies. Maybe I was less than clear in some posts and you have somehow misunderstood me. If you'd like to explain how I've been inconsistent then maybe I could clarify myself.
I already did.
26 Dec 10
Originally posted by adramforallThe outcomes are equally horrible, but the person who already killed someone while driving drunk and then drives drunk again is a far worse person and deserves a greater punishment.
Lets say the guy only killed one person and gets sentenced to 15 years.
He gets parolled after 10 years and does the same again.
A further 15 years sentence, this time parolled after 12 years.
Does the same again.
A further 15 years sentence is passed and he serves the full 15 years.
He then gets drunk again but this time he gets lucky and ...[text shortened]... arsh I believe that each crime should be treated as a separate event and dealt with accordingly.
26 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderEach crime is a separate event, just because they happen around the same time or as a result of the same cause doesn't mean they are not separate.
Why would you treat something as a "separate event" when it isn't one?
If I killed three people over three consecutive days by being drunk and running them over have I committed 1 crime or 3 crimes?
26 Dec 10
Originally posted by BartsWhy?
The outcomes are equally horrible, but the person who already killed someone while driving drunk and then drives drunk again is a far worse person and deserves a greater punishment.
Does that mean that a drunk driver who killes 4 people at the same time is worse than one who kills two people on separate ocassions?
26 Dec 10
Originally posted by adramforallYou are confused. Multiple crimes can be caused by a single event, but that doesn't make it a "separate" event. If you drive through a red light, that's one event - it doesn't become three events because three people wind up getting killed.
Each crime is a separate event, just because they happen around the same time or as a result of the same cause doesn't mean they are not separate.
If I killed three people over three consecutive days by being drunk and running them over have I committed 1 crime or 3 crimes?
On the other hand, driving through red lights three nights in a row would be "separate" events.
26 Dec 10
Originally posted by adramforallThat should be obvious from what I've posted before on this thread. A person that drives drunk is playing a lottery, enough bad luck and he kills 1 or 2 or 3 or x people. Because of that I don't think a drunk driver who kills more people is a worse person. Yes, the outcome of his actions is worse, but the person itself is not.
Why?
Does that mean that a drunk driver who killes 4 people at the same time is worse than one who kills two people on separate ocassions?
Now, a person who has already seen what the bad outcome is, who has already killed because he was drunk and then makes the decision to still do it again is a worse person than someone who hasn't got his experience and makes the same bad choice. So I'd say that a person who kills 2 persons on separate occasions because of drunk driving is worse than one who kills 4 in one accident.
26 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you're relying on something which came about as a result of random chance and then further you are augmenting this tenuous shelf with a proven source of failure. Surely you are quite aware of man's myriad failures throughout history, how many times the course of action chosen has been the exact wrong one. But, like a lemming you are willing to follow the same course?
I have no idea what this post is referring to. I have used the reason Nature has endowed to me supplemented by my own efforts to reach what I believe to be the proper perspective, but I have not tried to ascertain what "God wants" as the existence of an anthropomorphic Supreme Being of the sort you believe in is nonsensical.