Teen who killed cyclist in DUI hit-and-run sentenced to 1 year, 10 days - Polidicks

In Denmark she would have gotten much more than just 1 year, and she would have her drivers license permanently taken away and would probably spend many years following the sentence with a tracker on her. She would practically be unable to get any job at all. Then again, danish prison is a holiday resort compared to prisons outside of Scandinavia. Ramp up your justice system, Americans.

[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48520189]Is 1 too low a number because it's the lowest number we have? It's arbitrary what people throw out there as to what's "Just", and forget just how long a year is. Saying how much worth the man's life shouldn't even be a necessary and is only used to justify revenge boners people have. Let's say you drove drunk, killed someone, got sentenced to 2 years in prison and everyone else wanted you to be in for 7. Do you not realize how long 7 years is? Hell that's a number people throw out here and say is justified, it's ridiculous. People forget the sense of scale time is and just how long these people have to spend isolated from the world and just throw out numbers until they feel good. That isn't how justice should work.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing against your stance on the whole deal, but whenever I read your comments I think of the phrase "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." If you don't want years taken out of your life, you should know better than to break the law.

[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;48520197]In Denmark she would have gotten much more than just 1 year, and she would have her drivers license permanently taken away and would probably spend many years following the sentence with a tracker on her. She would practically be unable to get any job at all. Then again, danish prison is a holiday resort compared to prisons outside of Scandinavia. Ramp up your justice system, Americans.[/QUOTE] We have the #1 prison system in the world with the most percentage of our population in prison out of any country on the face of the planet. If we ramp up any higher we'll be imprisoning 2-year-olds.

[QUOTE=Pw0nageXD;48511997]The issue is moreover if one year will really teach her the lesson she needs. Yeah a year is a year but she was drinking underaged, drove drunk, killed someone, etc and got off extremely light[/QUOTE] A year in the American prison system is guaranteed to fuck you up a little bit

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48520081]So are you saying that man's life was only worth one year?[/QUOTE] I really don't think we should look at imprisonment on a revenge basis. No one is saying that man's life is only worth one year. What you're saying though, or at least implying, is that the sentence should be able to vary depending on the status of the victim, whether they were 8, 18 or 80 years old. What should be happening, as has happened, was that the facts were looked at objectively, rather than emotionally. Her crime is deliberate underage drinking, deliberate drink driving and accidentally causing a death. Who the person was that was killed isn't relevant. One year of prison seems a suitable punishment. The guilt of accidentally killing someone is in itself a severe punishment, especially if the victim has expressed genuine guilt. I think what I'm trying to say is that it's all about the intent of what happened rather than the result of what happened. If you looked at it from the perspective of the result, you'd have a system where someone who accidentally kills someone gets the same punishment as someone who deliberately kills someone.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48521720]I really don't think we should look at imprisonment on such a retribution basis. No one is saying that man's life is only worth one year. What you're saying though, or at least implying, is that the sentence should be able to vary depending on the status of the victim, whether they were 8, 18 or 80 years old. What should be happening, as has happened, was that the facts were looked at objectively, rather than emotionally. Her crime is deliberate underage drinking, deliberate drink driving and accidentally causing a death. Who the person was that was killed isn't relevant. One year of prison seems a suitable punishment. The guilt of accidentally killing someone is in itself a severe punishment, especially if the victim has expressed genuine guilt. I think what I'm trying to say is that it's all about the intent of what happened rather than the result of what happened. If you looked at it from the perspective of the result, you'd have a system where someone who accidentally kills someone gets the same punishment as someone who deliberately kills someone.[/QUOTE] This sentence is quite light. I've heard of people easily getting five years or more for this crime, and in my state, you would likely get three years or more (NCGS 20-141.4, it would be a Class D felony here, or 38-160 months.) Either Alaska's laws are lax, she got a damn good deal from the prosecutor, or both. Her age could be a factor as well, but there is no use denying that she's getting off easy. That, of course, doesn't justify the lynch-mob attitude some people have in this thread.

[QUOTE=daschnek;48521908]This sentence is quite light. I've heard of people easily getting five years or more for this crime, and in my state, you would likely get three years or more (NCGS 20-141.4, it would be a Class D felony here, or 38-160 months.) Either Alaska's laws are lax, she got a damn good deal from the prosecutor, or both. Her age could be a factor as well, but there is no use denying that she's getting off easy. That, of course, doesn't justify the lynch-mob attitude some people have in this thread.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say she got off that easily. Getting off easily would be probation. You might be right about the plea deal, the article says the prosecutors were trying for one to three years. Maybe, given it was night (after 3AM), the bicyclist might have not been conspicuous enough like not wearing a high-vis jacket. The defence could have made that argument, but I guess they didn't because if they failed she would probably be facing three years instead of one for pleading.

[QUOTE=unrezt;48518934]Come back with that attitude when someone you know has been killed by a scumcunt like the bitch in this article. A one year sentence for this is a complete joke. A 2 year minimum should be in place for a DUI homicide, but she also fled, which should at least double that. I didn't see anything about license suspensions either. She deserves a suspension as well as a probationary period during which she can only commute to and from work (any tickets or accidents and the license is fucking gone).[/QUOTE] Way to show your objectivity and rationality by calling her a "scumcunt" and a "bitch"! Surely that lends extra weight to your opinions.

[QUOTE=Duskin;48517957]She shouldn't be allowed a driving license for at least a decade imo. Atleast with her criminal record she'll have a tougher time getting work. Not to mention the shame of having to tell people she ran over and killed someone while drunk in every job interview ever.[/QUOTE] I have very limited sympathy for drunk drivers. I don't believe anyone choosing to drive under the influence should ever be allowed to drive again, it's just about the most irresponsible thing you can do, and the roads will be a safer place without those drivers. Having said that, I know that view is extreme, and while I would never drink and drive, I can understand how important a car is, and how damaging never being allowed to drive again would be to a person. 10 years without a license seems fair, I very much doubt she will DUI at 28. The jail time is fine with a decade long license ban, entirely too light otherwise though IMO.

A year for taking a life? In a hit and run no less? What a slap in the face to the victims family. I'm sorry but getting a 1 year prison sentence for killing somebody and walking away from their death out of selfish self preservation is disgusting, even at 17 and this bitch should be in jail for at least 20 years for taking those years away from another person. 1 year is a fucking joke, I've had roommates in college go to jail longer for drug charges.

[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48530203]A year for taking a life? In a hit and run no less? What a [b]slap in the face to the victims family[/b]. I'm sorry but getting a 1 year prison sentence for killing somebody and walking away from their death out of selfish self preservation is disgusting, even at 17 [b]and this bitch[/b] should be in [b]jail for at least 20 years for taking those years away from another person[/b]. 1 year is a fucking joke, [b]I've had roommates in college go to jail longer for drug charges[/b].[/QUOTE] Reading posts like this make me glad that judicial systems in the western world don't run on emotions. It's a shame people like you can't comprehend that, as you let your emotions get in the way.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48530289]Reading posts[B] like this[/B] make me [B]glad[/B] that judicial systems in the western world don't [B]run on emotions[/B]. It's a [B]shame[/B] [B]people like you[/B] [B]can't[/B] [B]comprehend[/B] that, as you let your emotions [B]get in the way[/B].[/QUOTE] Reading posts like this make me glad I live in a country with freedom of speech, where people who disagree with you don't have the right to silence you. I find your post as emotionally charged as my own, a little bit ironic of you to criticize me for having emotions. Too bad for the guy who is dead and will never get to lend his opinion on the subject. I doubt he'd figure his life was equivalent to one year of someone elses, especially when he was killed in such a disgusting way. Also I think it is inaccurate to say that judicial systems in the western world doesn't run on emotions, you do understand what the judge and jury have right? Like this exact case was changed in standards exactly because of emotions, you have just displayed depressing levels of irony in reasoning and thought.

[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48530501]Reading posts like this make me glad I live in a country with freedom of speech, where people who disagree with you don't have the right to silence you. I find your post as emotionally charged as my own, a little bit ironic of you to criticize me for having emotions. Too bad for the guy who is dead and will never get to lend his opinion on the subject. I doubt he'd figure his life was equivalent to one year of someone elses, especially when he was killed in such a disgusting way. Also I think it is inaccurate to say that judicial systems in the western world doesn't run on emotions, you do understand what the judge and jury have right? Like this exact case was changed in standards exactly because of emotions, you have just displayed depressing levels of irony in reasoning and thought.[/QUOTE] Freedom of speech only guarantees you the right to speak up, it doesn't guarantee that what you say won't be shot down for being atrociously dumb.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48531891]Freedom of speech only guarantees you the right to speak up, it doesn't guarantee that what you say won't be shot down for being atrociously dumb.[/QUOTE] "My opinion is better than yours."

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48531891]Freedom of speech only guarantees you the right to speak up, it doesn't guarantee that what you say won't be shot down for being atrociously dumb.[/QUOTE] That's different than silencing.

You can hate me for this if you want, I don't give a fuck what you ivory-tower holier-than-thou fucktards think, until you lose someone close to you (read: it actually affects you) your opinion is water to me. I lost my Uncle to a shitstain 18 year old man who ran him over while he was riding his bike home from the grocery store. [B]The guy drove to his parent's cabin out of state, pulled a picture of a dead deer off google and lied to try and cover up the whole thing, saying he struck said deer and that was why his car was bloody and damaged... [/B] The Police finally caught wind of the bullshit and arrested him, thanks to witnesses. This was two years ago. My family is still living through the endless court hearings, some of them with the kid not showing up to. My family is fighting for justice, the same justice that was robbed of this poor Anchorage man. I can only hope my home state will deliver it more responsibly than that disgraceful "slap on the wrist." Victimless crime? Little issue. You kill someone because of your irresponsible choices, [B]and then lie your ass off to cover it up[/B]? Take him to the fucking cleaners. So yeah, this sentence is pretty much fucking bullshit, and don't try to retort with "Well I think the Judge knows better than you, you emotional roller coaster!11!111one." How about the Judges that were discovered to have been intentionally sentencing juveniles to juvy because they were in the pocket of the private prison company that ran the Juvenile Hall? Judges fuck up too.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;48512095]FP REALLY needs to stop underestimating the effect of a criminal record on peoples' lives.[/QUOTE] or perhaps you need to stop overestimating its effect. I know dozens of people who've had criminal records since their early 20s who are also doing very well for themselves at a young age. all it really does is limit your career and travel options. do you really think a girl getting drunk and taking ecstasy had aspirations of being a globe trotting CEO? a year and a criminal record aren't enough to deter other people from continuing to do this shit, and no matter how loudly people cry "rehabilitation!", there are cultures around the world which simply cannot function without harsh consequences for crimes.

[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48531914]"My opinion is better than yours."[/QUOTE] Yes, I do indeed think that. What's your point?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48543794]Yes, I do indeed think that. What's your point?[/QUOTE] That it isn't an argument and makes you sound imbecilic.

[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48544402]That it isn't an argument and makes you sound imbecilic.[/QUOTE] Your original point was that freedom of speech guaranteed that you had the right to speak without being silenced. That is wrong. Freedom of speech protects you from persecution by the state, not from others calling you an idiot for your idiotic opinions. In any case, Antdawg in no way tried to "silence" you, he was merely pointing out that emotive arguments have no place in a judicial system. Your response to his argument merely furthers his point that you are incapable of relying on anything but your emotions to form arguments as your instinctive response was to take his post as a personal attack against you.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48544500]:words:[/QUOTE] Nah, not taking your bait man, suggest you re-read the thread if you didn't comprehend what was said.

[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48544589]Nah, not taking your bait man, suggest you re-read the thread if you didn't comprehend what was said.[/QUOTE] You first made a post about how the perpetrator's sentence was too light because it was an insult to the victim's family, and that she should be punished far more heavily to make up for the years of living that the victim lost. Antdawg then pointed out that your point was nothing but petty revenge based on emotional reasoning. You then responded by going on about how freedom of speech meant that you shouldn't be silenced, even though no one had said anything of the sort. I pointed out how stupid what you said was, and then you proceeded to outright cover your ears and scream "LALALA" in the hope that that would somehow make you right instead. I think you are the one who needs a lesson on reading comprehension.

The only point you've tried to make is that you think my point of view is emotional and stupid. Once again that is wrong and it isn't an argument. Your opinion doesn't automatically override over other people's opinions, sitting here and trying to pretend it does over and over again just reflects on your immaturity. Stop derailing the conversation with your one-way petty feud that I'm done participating in.

[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48511978]"I don't think 1 year is enough to ruin this kid's life, let's make it 10!" You can't be for "Rehabilitation of criminals" and think this way.[/QUOTE] She ruined someone elses and multiples as well. No ones saying 10, but 1 year really aint enough time for something like that. You can be for the rehabilitation of criminals actually if you think that way, I dont think 1 year of rehabilitation is enough for something like that.

Ok, WarriorWounds. Lets look at facts in that case. You stated that you believed that ~1 year sentence is too small, and should be increased to around 20 years or so. I'm skipping the "people get more for drugs" which is another discussion, but i agree that those sentences is screwed up as well. I went on Google Scholar and looked around a bit and found an article from 1993 (bit old, but i don't think that it will be that out of date) called "The effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism". It was interesting to read, but for the sake of time the summary conclusions are: [quote=The effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism - ] "1. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour. 2. On the basis of the present results, excessive use of incarceration has enormous cost implications. 3. In order to determine who is being adversely affected by prison, it is incumbent upon prison officials to implement repeated, comprehensive assessments of offenders’ attitudes, values, and behaviours while incarcerated. 4. The primary justification of prison should be to incapacitate offenders (particularly, those of a chronic, higher risk nature) for reasonable periods and to exact retribution" [/quote] Basically, long prison sentences are counter productive, and prisons should be used as a way to keep chronic, high risk people away from society. Think of how Norway handles Breivik. So in your case, you want the person to get 20 years because she deserves it, even though evidence shows that longer prison sentences don't work, or even make things worse. You are entierly free to hold your opinion, even though it's factually wrong. People are going to continue calling you out on it however, as is their right as well Also, i never saw someone trying to "silence you", disagreeing you isn't that.

[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;48545187]Ok, WarriorWounds. Lets look at facts in that case. You stated that you believed that ~1 year sentence is too small, and should be increased to around 20 years or so. I'm skipping the "people get more for drugs" which is another discussion, but i agree that those sentences is screwed up as well. I went on Google Scholar and looked around a bit and found an article from 1993 (bit old, but i don't think that it will be that out of date) called "The effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism". It was interesting to read, but for the sake of time the summary conclusions are: Basically, long prison sentences are counter productive, and prisons should be used as a way to keep chronic, high risk people away from society. Think of how Norway handles Breivik. So in your case, you want the person to get 20 years because she deserves it, even though evidence shows that longer prison sentences don't work, or even make things worse. You are entierly free to hold your opinion, even though it's factually wrong. People are going to continue calling you out on it however, as is their right as well Also, i never saw someone trying to "silence you", disagreeing you isn't that.[/QUOTE] Several assumptions you've made already: You are saying I am an advocate for rehabilitation of evil people. I don't think rehabilitation for evil people is productive. My moral principles hold that evil people need to be punished for their crimes. Just like yours tell you that we should try to "save" everybody through slaps on the wrists regardless of conduct, and petty prison sentences as long as they promise to be good little boy and girls. The truth is that 1 year for the life of a man is ridiculously low amount of time for anybody to be "rehabilitated" for doing something so callous and selfish as killing someone and then fleeing the scene of a hit and run. If not 20 in your eyes for a single life, at least 10? 15? Where do you decide the worth of a persons life at, you tell me, I think 20 is long enough to serve as a punishment while still allowing them to life a good 1/2 of their life afterwards. Does the concept of justice mean anything to you? Are fatal crimes just bumps on the road to progress for people in your eyes? To me they are roadblocks. [QUOTE]Fifty studies dating from 1958 involving 336,052 offenders produced 325 correlations between recidivism and (a) length of time in prison and recidivism or (b) serving a prison sentence vs. receiving a community-based sanction. The data was analysed using quantitative methods (i.e., meta-analysis) to determine whether prison reduced criminal behaviour (sic) or recidivism.[/QUOTE] This single [B]Canadian[/B] study isn't saying that prisons aren't effective punishment, all it's saying is that prisons from as far back as [B]1958[/B] aren't effective for rehabilitation purposes, and it is trying to impose that towards [B]1993's[/B] standards which for itself is already a ridiculous for you to post that as some sort of evidence for the modern situation. Prison rehabilitation has been ongoing constant improvements since then and prisons are much better nowadays than they were at that time. Within that same swath of a google search I could find multiple sources outlining improvements in prisoner rehabilitation that were made and are still being made in America, without cherry picking this ridiculous article in trying to create a counter point.

@WarriorWounds You know deep down that many of these people who favor the "slaps on the wrist" would change their thinking pretty quick if their mother/father/sister/brother got murdered in a hit and run and the guy fled the scene and tried to evade justice.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;48547671]@WarriorWounds You know deep down that many of these people who favor the "slaps on the wrist" would change their thinking pretty quick if their mother/father/sister/brother got murdered in a hit and run and the guy fled the scene and tried to evade justice.[/QUOTE] I don't doubt it man. I still think they are wrong objectively as well.

[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48547689]I don't doubt it man. I still think they are wrong objectively as well.[/QUOTE] Get this: the law isn't based on what victims want. It's based on what is best for society, that is, what prevents crime and rehabilitates criminals so that they may be reintegrated into society as productive members. At least, that's what it should be, but people like you make it all about petty revenge and warped ideals of justice involving heavy punishment to criminals.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;48547671]@WarriorWounds You know deep down that many of these people who favor the "slaps on the wrist" would change their thinking pretty quick if their mother/father/sister/brother got murdered in a hit and run and the guy fled the scene and tried to evade justice.[/QUOTE] That is why the family of the victim don't get a say in the sentencing.