Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You always see people say "execute them" in order to stop others from doing XYZ. We have been punishing and executing people for thousands of years - it doens't work.
If you are religious - you learn that jesus was crucified along with two thieves. People are still stealing....
Human nature sucks -
Actually, it does work. if there was no punishment for stealing, or robbing a bank, do you think those crimes would go up or down?
They can refile the motion to dismiss, but they're only allowed to address what's written in the complaint - no facts that aren't a direct response to the complaint are allowed.
Motions to dismiss rarely prevail, anyway, unless the lawsuit is frivolous on its face - an inmate suing a prison for restricting his right to travel or somesuch.
(No, not a lawyer. Interested layman.)
Thanks, I'd rep you but apparently I need to share with a few others before getting back to you.
Debatable. Does it work with 100% efficiency? Obviously not. Few things do. But notice the behavior of drivers around a police car, and it's hard to argue that there's no effect.
Actually, it does work. if there was no punishment for stealing, or robbing a bank, do you think those crimes would go up or down?
It probably would have some effect, but not much. The US has more people locked up then any other country in the world. By that rationale, we should have the lowest crime rate in the world, but we are not even close. We are actually somewhere in the middle.
If you really want to cut down on crime, we would work to improve everybody's economic situation, rather then locking people up. But Americans have elected to invest in prisons, rather then in education, healthcare and creating jobs, and stuff like that. So it is what it is. If people don't have jobs and opportunity, they are going to steal and rob banks. It's that simple.
Personally I probably would not make manslaughter a crime. But it is, so the law needs to be followed, and the crazy old grandpa who dropped is granddaughter off the ship, needs to pay his debt to society, like anyone else.
No, you don't charge the grandfather with manslaughter because he is already punishing himself far more than a prison sentence would. And no, I wouldn't punish the child. I'd let them think about what they did and the result of it and let their guilt do the punishing. Now if they had no remorse and didn't care that they broke the vase, then yes I would punish them.
I was NOT raised like that. I would have been in trouble if I broke the vase. But I think the goal is to teach a lesson and if the lesson is learned, why the need for punishment on top of it?
And why add punishment to a grandfather who is already suffering worse than anything a prison sentence could inflict on him? If the family wanted justice, yes. But they don't.
If it weren't for the family wanting to sue the cruise line, I don't see any reason that the grandfather should be tried for manslaughter. The fact that the family blames the cruise line complicates things, though.
Post 1744 explains this whole issue perfectly. Emotions cannot be used to not charge people with incidents that result in death.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar 77
Post 1744 explains this whole issue perfectly. Emotions cannot be used to not charge people with incidents that result in death.
I'm not sure "emotions" is the proper term. "Mitigating circumstances" is better.
And yes, "mitigating circumstances" ABSOLUTELY play in to whether a person will be charged with a crime.
That's why there's leeway in the decision process of whether to charge a person, and what to charge them with. It's not a set-in-stone rubric. Thank God. The prosecutor can look at the situation, and make a decision on what to charge, taking into account all the factors. And mitigating circumstances are one of the factors - "is this man typically a loving gentle grandpa" "is it likely that despite how obvious it was that the window was open, he didn't notice it" "would it hurt the completely innocent grieving parents further, in this tragedy, to have grandpa tried" "is it worth the public's money to try grandpa only to have the jury return a not guilty verdict" etc.
Because we understand there are varying circumstances within each situation that merit leniency, and some that merit the perpetrator being treated more harshly.
It probably would have some effect, but not much. The US has more people locked up then any other country in the world. By that rationale, we should have the lowest crime rate in the world, but we are not even close. We are actually somewhere in the middle.
If you really want to cut down on crime, we would work to improve everybody's economic situation, rather then locking people up. But Americans have elected to invest in prisons, rather then in education, healthcare and creating jobs, and stuff like that. So it is what it is. If people don't have jobs and opportunity, they are going to steal and rob banks. It's that simple.
Personally I probably would not make manslaughter a crime. But it is, so the law needs to be followed, and the crazy old grandpa who dropped is granddaughter off the ship, needs to pay his debt to society, like anyone else.
you make some good points
Would a better economic situation cut down on people's use of drugs and alcohol?
Hope so. But you never know.
Sometimes I think times are getting harder and we are just going down the toilet
I'm not sure "emotions" is the proper term. "Mitigating circumstances" is better.
And yes, "mitigating circumstances" ABSOLUTELY play in to whether a person will be charged with a crime.
That's why there's leeway in the decision process of whether to charge a person, and what to charge them with. It's not a set-in-stone rubric. Thank God. The prosecutor can look at the situation, and make a decision on what to charge, taking into account all the factors. And mitigating circumstances are one of the factors - "is this man typically a loving gentle grandpa" "is it likely that despite how obvious it was that the window was open, he didn't notice it" "would it hurt the completely innocent grieving parents further, in this tragedy, to have grandpa tried" "is it worth the public's money to try grandpa only to have the jury return a not guilty verdict" etc.
Because we understand there are varying circumstances within each situation that merit leniency, and some that merit the perpetrator being treated more harshly.
That's how the justice system works.
Thank you for jumping in and defending my posts better than I could have! Much appreciated!
Hogwash. My parents didnt raise me with gloves on and I turned out fine. I would have gotten whipped if I broke a vase, and I can guarantee you I wouldn't have touched another vase after that lol
Now I understand where snowflakes come from though.
Same here. No punishment of a child? LOL!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
