You be the Judge: What is the appropiate punishment for something like this?

[SlowwHand]

She screwed the pooch, no question.

[Zylka]

What Mallard did was as bad as shooting the guy. She hit him, and then instead of getting help, she took him away to her house, hid him, refused to give him medical attention and waited until he died. She consciously and purposely hindered any attempts to aid him. Not only that, but in hitting him, she owed a duty to him, and she failed to perform that duty at all and instead, as I said, hindered it.

She could have logically shot him in the head upon arrival, saving the crippled & bleeding horse 40+ hours of intense pain none of us can ever imagine. Hell, that way no one has to go to the hospital and be cured - and no one has to die moaning in a garage!

Oh yeah, and that wouldn't be murder either - because she didn't intend on his cranium and brain getting in the way of the speeding piece of lead she just released. Also, what fun is sex with your boyfriend when there's someone potentially alive and listening a wall away?

[Berzerker]

Drogue -

No, I believe justice should serve a purpose. What purpose does locking her up serve? Revenge, plain and simple. And that is it. Can't you understand that some people feel compassion? Some people believe in determinism too, whoch means that they do not believe she is able to control, nor should be responsible for her actions.

Determinism? You mean, like the planets were aligned or something? Then maybe it's determinism that she spend a long time in jail. According to her, she was under the influence of booze and drugs, although the X probably helped sober her up some. Translation: blame the drugs, which then becomes an excuse by drug war pushers to continue incarcerating people who use drugs but don't do what she did. But why should we expect her to take responsibilty, she wouldn't even help the guy and tried to avoid responsibility on that matter too.

But what purpose is served by locking anyone up? I'd agree she doesn't seem like a big threat and maybe she wouldn't ever do something like this again, but that can apply to all sorts of people in jail, even many murderers...we can't read minds.

Now, I do wonder if she drove home, not because she panicked, but because she knew the cops would get her for DUI and prosecutors would try to nail her with manslaughter. I imagine that even if she could have shown it wasn't her fault, she'd still get hit with all sorts of charges. Btw, her excuse, "it was the drugs" is so transparent, she had days to recover and her behavior only became worse. I hate to see someone's life ruined by such a freak accident, but it was what she did after the collision that is reprehensible. She ruined her life and took his all because she wouldn't take responsibilty...but I think the sentence was too harsh. No priors, no intent to hit him, just fear of what would happen to her...15-20 years...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
ARE YOU THAT DENSE?!

If you can't see the difference you are an utter moron. In not paying you are 'not helping', in this case, you are 'making things worse'. How can you possibly not see the difference?

How old are you anyway?

I'm 18. And dense? I've never been called that. I take twice the general course load for someone of my age at school, I am enrolling in what many believe to be one of the most prestigious institutions in the world in the autumn (Oxford) and though I don't believe they are a good representation, I have a very high IQ. But that is all just mindless bragging and matters little with this, suffice to say, I am not a moron. Naive maybe, and compassionate, but not a moron.

I can see the difference, I was asking that because I was trying to find out whether you believe someone was guilty becuase of their intentions of because of the actual consequences. For example, the consequences of the example I gave were the same, in that it results in a death. However the intents are very different. I believe it is the intent, slmost solely, that is the important bit. Indeed, as I posted on the determinism and free will thread, I do not believe we have free will. As such, how can I say that she, or anyone else, is responsible for her actions. If she is sociopath, then she needs mental care.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's called deterrance.

At you think that works? Do you believe that harsh crimes for offenders actually reduces murders? Do you think she would not have done what she did had she known of the harsh consequences? I don't, but it is obviously, as with all this converation, a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Can't you understand that some people feel compassion?

I can't understand ANYONE that would feel compassion for this piece of ****. It'd be like someone saying they feel compassion for Jeffrey Dahmer.

I feel compassion for anyone who has something bad happen to them. Let me ask you a question. If this case were to happen to someone who you see as evil. Say if she was run over like that, and left to die, would you feel compassion for her? Would you feel compassion for Hitler if that happened? If not, what makes it less wrong because the victim is 'evil'? I feel compassion for anybody who has something horrific happen to them. She will be scarred for life from that. I can't even imagine how she must feel. Yes it was horrific, and she should be charged. I will admit that I was unaware of the whole story, as Boris has now shown me, and thus yes, she is certainly not as innocent as I first thought. However I still feel compassion for her, as I feel for everyone that goes through something like that. Yes I am naive, but I cannot help whom I feel compassion for.

I know you feel very differently. I can accept how you feel a need for judgement, for revenge and justice. I am not like that. I wish to do whatevery creates the most good. I do not think locking her up for 50 years serves a purpose. I submitting her to a mental hospital, if she is a sociopath, is a better thing to do. If she is a danger to society,then remove her from society. This is all opinions though. We disagree on them, and we will not convince each other of our opinions. I am just gald our laws are not quite so harsh here. I suspect over here she would have got a custodial manslaughter sentance, which would be more reasonable, IMHO, than 50+10 years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Berz, personally, for the reprehensibility of what she did, and the deterance for other people not to do the same thing (get a slap on the rest and maybe there is a chance you can get away with it), I'd give her Life.

[PLATO]

It is always sad to see someone screw their life up like she did. But, frankly, I don't want someone who will listen to someone cry for help for three days while they are dying and do NOTHING in the same society with me. Lock her a$$ away.

[Berzerker]

I don't believe in a justice that requires a greater punishment simply to deter others. And how often does something like this happen? Most everyone can see from this that had she sought help, she wouldn't have gotten nearly the sentence she ended up with...

[Drogue]

Berzerker:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Determinism? You mean, like the planets were aligned or something?

No. Please see the Fate and Radom Chance thread for details of my opinions. I believe in the kind of determinism which Stephen Hawking has talked about. The kind that states that because our choices are dependant on who we are, and that who we are is a combination of your genes and your experience, which are things over which you have no control. Therefore, although it is impossible to predict because of uncertainty principle, it is already determined. What you will choose in every situation is already decided.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Then maybe it's determinism that she spend a long time in jail.

Yes. That doesn't mean I have to agree. I don't think she is responsible for her actions, the same way I don't think those jurors or that judge was either.

Originally posted by Berzerker
But what purpose is served by locking anyone up? I'd agree she doesn't seem like a big threat and maybe she wouldn't ever do something like this again, but that can apply to all sorts of people in jail, even many murderers...we can't read minds.

We can aply that tho the whole population. Anyone could kill someone. Is she any more likely than anyone else? Than the 'average' person? I doubt it.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Now, I do wonder if she drove home, not because she panicked, but because she knew the cops would get her for DUI and prosecutors would try to nail her with manslaughter. I imagine that even if she could have shown it wasn't her fault, she'd still get hit with all sorts of charges. Btw, her excuse, "it was the drugs" is so transparent, she had days to recover and her behavior only became worse. I hate to see someone's life ruined by such a freak accident, but it was what she did after the collision that is reprehensible. She ruined her life and took his all because she wouldn't take responsibilty...but I think the sentence was too harsh. No priors, no intent to hit him, just fear of what would happen to her...15-20 years...

That I can accept. I do agree that she was there for days, and I find that position far more reasonable than the 50+10 she was given.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I don't believe in a justice that requires a greater punishment simply to deter others. And how often does something like this happen? Most everyone can see from this that had she sought help, she wouldn't have gotten nearly the sentence she ended up with...

Berz and I find common ground on something, truly a day to rejoice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't believe in a justice that requires a greater punishment simply to deter others.

That may be fine, but obviously more people do think that a greater punishment is needed for heinous crimes for the purposes of deterance.

Why else do more heinous crimes get heavier sentances? Do you believe because it is proper retribution, or do you believe that it is because those who commit more heinous crimes should remain in jail because they might do it again? If the latter, what is to prevent this woman from doing something else that is a reckless disregard for humanity? She has already shown she does not value human life one iota.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
She has already shown she does not value human life one iota.

Exactly! She has shown that her character is incompatable with what society will accept. Therefore,for the greater good and protection of all, she must be removed from it. The fact that she didn't get life shows that the judge felt that she may have some redeeming qualities and could at some point in the future be able to integrate back into society.

[Sava]

she needs to be at the end of a rope

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sava
she needs to be at the end of a rope

[Berzerker]

Imran -

That may be fine, but obviously more people do think that a greater punishment is needed for heinous crimes for the purposes of deterance.

I don't take public polls when deciding what to think.

Why else do more heinous crimes get heavier sentances?

Because those crimes are more heinous?

Do you believe because it is proper retribution, or do you believe that it is because those who commit more heinous crimes should remain in jail because they might do it again?

She had no priors, but the first option. Now, I can't read minds, so I don't know which 1st time offenders are more likely to continue down their road to crime. I have to wait until they commit another crime before I'd know the answer to your second question. Therefore, I have to go on what they did and only on what they did. All 1st time offenders have a "plus" in my book over repeat offenders since the latter has continued their criminal behavior.

If the latter, what is to prevent this woman from doing something else that is a reckless disregard for humanity? She has already shown she does not value human life one iota.

I doubt she had no concern for the guy, only that her concern about what would happen to her was a higher priority.

Drogue -

No. Please see the Fate and Radom Chance thread for details of my opinions. I believe in the kind of determinism which Stephen Hawking has talked about. The kind that states that because our choices are dependant on who we are, and that who we are is a combination of your genes and your experience, which are things over which you have no control. Therefore, although it is impossible to predict because of uncertainty principle, it is already determined. What you will choose in every situation is already decided.

I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll look at your link.

Yes. That doesn't mean I have to agree. I don't think she is responsible for her actions, the same way I don't think those jurors or that judge was either.

Then she shouldn't serve any time, or anyone else who commits a crime for that matter.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drogue
I agree completely with UR. The fact she tried to hide it does not change the act itself. She did not intend to kill that person. Yes drunk driving is definatly reckless, and using MtGs definitions, i would think it deserves felony vehicular manslaughter. It was also reckless abandonment that she did not try to help him. ANd thus a second charge of voluntary manslaughter. Add to that that afterwards she was Yes she was reckless, yes she killed someone, but she did not intend to kill them. She was under the influence of substances. It is horrific how he died, but she did not intend to kill him. One life has been lost, why take another?

You're missing a couple of points - she didn't intend, prior to hitting him to kill him. At that point, had he died instantly, then you've got felony vehicular manslaughter - it would aggravate to a felony due to multiple substance intoxication and a very high overall level of impairment.

What actually happened was that she kidnapped him - by taking him to her garage, then locking him in - not that he could have ever gotten out. If he had been left by the side of the road, he could have been discovered and his life saved. Her intent was to conceal what she'd done, so she wouldn't be embarassed and inconvenienced. So she locked him in, and prevented anyone who would help him from finding him.

Furthermore, he was still alive when she was less high (getting drunk or stoned isn't a legal excuse for impairment, because it's a chosen action.) and more obviously able to understand actions and conssequences - that's why she talked to her accomplices about what to do with the body while he was still alive. She made multiple trips out to see him - did she do so to help, or out of idle curiousity? No, she went to see if he was dead yet. Several times.

She chose, and had repeated opportunity to change her mind, to imprison and trap a man she'd severely injured, intending to let him die, and knowing he would die, so as to be spared the inconvenience of a DUI arrest.

That's not abandonment, or failure to provide aid - that's a deliberate intention to make sure nobody found out about him, and what happened to him, other than her accomplices who she thought she could rely on. The facts are that she made several trips to the garage to see that he was still alive, so each time, she could tell that maybe he could be saved with help, and each time, she went back and locked the door - so even a random intruder wouldn't find out. That is callous, cold-blooded murder, and I don't give a rat's ass about her after the fact claims that she was all teary. For four months after the killing, she happily went about her business, so remorse couldn't have been tearing at her too much.

Why should the state pay for her to be locked up when she is not a danger to others.

On the contrary, her callous disregard for another's life for the sake of her own convenience in avoiding a DUI charge indicates she is a grave danger to others. I agree about the state having to pay to lock her up. I see this as a capital murder case.

If she intended to kill them, then she is a danger, and thus needs to be locked up, however she didn't intend too.

So what is "What are we gonna do with him when he dies?" while he's still alive? Sure as hell sounds like a rational assessment, the initiation of a plan, and intent, to me. Considering the kidnap and torture elements, I call this capital murder.

She is no danger. She was under the influence of substances, she was hysterical afterwards, so that someone else disposed of the body.

Her "hysteria" is only according to her and her accomplices, who obviously have an interest in minimizing their actions. The fact that she successfully covered this up for four months, lying about why she didn't have/use her car for a time, and her calling people she felt were reliable to dispose of the problem don't seem to be hysterical. Besides, how could she dispose of the body herself - she couldn't get him out of the windshield, and it's not like she could drive the body off herself.