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

[Boris Godunov]

Zylka, I have to wonder, why are you citing from the National Association for the Advancement of White People?

http://www.naawp.com/news/2002/hitandrun.htm

[Nubclear]

*****.

She deserves death. Unless she has children, then I say 50 years.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
*****.

She deserves death. Unless she has children,

What does that have to do with anything?

[monkspider]

This is a very horrific thing, but I disagree with those who want a draconian punishment for the lady.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Zylka, I have to wonder, why are you citing from the National Association for the Advancement of White People?

http://www.naawp.com/news/2002/hitandrun.htm

OUCH

To be honest, I just yahoo searched her name and that was one of the first sites listed - didn't have a clue of its purpose. Doesn't really matter though, as everything they've detailed in that horrific little bit has been confirmed as true. THE GIRL SPREAD HER LEGS FOR COMFORT WHILE A MAN BLED TO DEATH AND BEGGED FOR HELP BEHIND A PURPOSELY SHUT DOOR

...and to the fact that she was intoxicated beyond logic of caring for another person on ALCOHOL, MARIJUANA and ECSTASY - are you out of your f*cking minds? You seriously can't harm a rat under the combined influence of these substances, unless you're a sociopath whose only inclination is self preservation and evasion from punishment. It's often argued that ecstasy should have been named "empathy" for its emotional influence - something that she sure as hell stressed to avoid. Note that we're also talking about a NURSES AID, here; flooded with seretonin, this b*tch went right out of her way to force herself in acting illogically and ignoring the cries of a dying human being.

[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

hysterical and confused.

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? Why should the state pay for her to be locked up when she is not a danger to others. If she intended to kill them, then she is a danger, and thus needs to be locked up, however she didn't intend too. She is no danger. She was under the influence of substances, she was hysterical afterwards, so that someone else disposed of the body. All I see is a car crash, that happens to many people everyday. She is being put to prison for at least 25 years for not helping someone in need, for inaction. She is guilty of manslaughter, she killed someone. But she did not mean to. I would say minimum sentance of 5 years would have been appropriate, but I think it's nothing but a needless waste of ha life and taxpayers money to lock her up for a long period of time. What good is served by doing it? All I feel is sorrow at the loss, and compassion for both victims in this. I can't imagine how horribly this would scar her emotionally, hitting someone like that, watching them bleed to death. It is horrific, and I think she willbe scarred for life. I'd be surprised if she doesn't commit suicide.

Did anybody see the CSI where the guy takes Jimson Weed, and ends up killing his best friend, even though he doesn't remember or mean to. I could not help but agree with Grissom, and feel sorrow that he and not the dealer was on trial for murder.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact she tried to hide it does not change the act itself. She did not intend to kill that person.

Under the law you are incorrect. By preventing aid from being given to the man she DID intend to kill him, because she had a duty to the man, and refused to give it to him, knowing that the person would die.

It was a simple case. Murder. There is no other alternative. Anything less would be a travesty of justice.

Yes she was reckless, yes she killed someone, but she did not intend to kill them.

You do realize there is such a thing as reckless murder? Often called 'depraved heart'. It is basicaly extreme indifference to human life. I'd say that applies here.

And why is she in jail now? Deterance. This type of behavior is not ok. People cannot be told that if you hit someone while on drugs you can take him home and wait for him to die and only get vehicular homicide (which you would have gotten if the guy ended up dying from injuries from the accident anyway).

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Drogue
I agree completely with UR.

k

She was under the influence of substances. It is horrific how he died, but she did not intend to kill him.

HEY THERE - SHE HAD TWO F*CKING DAYS TO SOBER UP AFTERWARDS, IN WHICH TIME THE MAN BEGGED FOR HELP AS A DYING PRISONER IN HER GARAGE (Sorry to shout, but if you indeed understand what I've just said, I'll try lowercase in the future)

One life has been lost, why take another? Why should the state pay for her to be locked up when she is not a danger to others. If she intended to kill them, then she is a danger, and thus needs to be locked up, however she didn't intend too. She is no danger. She was under the influence of substances, she was hysterical afterwards, so that someone else disposed of the body.

Yessir, let the sociopath who stared into the bleeding face of a pleading man, turned around and locked the door go - maybe give her some Datura tea the next time she wants to DRIVE INTO PEOPLE AND CARRY THEM HOME ON HER WINDSHIELD. Where exactly is this pink marshmallow land you and UR call home?

Did anybody see the CSI where the guy takes Jimson Weed, and ends up killing his best friend, even though he doesn't remember or mean to. I could not help but agree with Grissom, and feel sorrow that he and not the dealer was on trial for murder.

Did anyone realize that you accept responsibility for your actions the second you ingest a PSYCHOTIC BEHAVIOR INDUCING, HIGHLY TOXIC SUBSTANCE? Anyone else know that Jimson Weed is a plant and has nothing to do with dealers, rather an irresponsible hillbilly picking the seeds on his own free time?

Ok then, LET HER BACK INTO THE REAL WORLD

argghgh;iuljk.l;kl/! @!$T$R23

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know, Zylka is 100% on the money.

[Drogue]

According to MtGs post (although that is Californian Law) not acting to help him counts as volantary manslaughter. She did nothing to prevent his death when she could have. I think Murder is a travesty. She did not intend to kill him. Not helping is not intending to kill. Especilly with mitigating circumstances such as hysteria. She could have claimed temporary insanity. As I stated, what use is it to lock her up? What good does it do? The fact you can lock people up for not helping someone is a travesty of justice. Murder involves intent. Manslaughter is without intent. Not helping does not mean an intent to kill. Her being put to prison for that long is a waste of even more life, of money, and a travesty of justice. The only purpose it serves is revenge. A petty emotion.

[Zylka]

She imprisoned the man against his own will - he did not break his own legs and stuff his body into the frame of a speeding car. Does that count as murder?

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to MtGs post (although that is Californian Law) not acting to help him counts as volantary manslaughter.

You misunderstood his post then. The worst crime the woman committed was taking the injured man back to her house and letting her die. Not only did she not act to help him, but she HINDERED anyone else who may have helped him. She has a duty to the person after she hits him. It would have been more moral for her to leave the man on the side of the road. She took him home and left him to die. It wasn't nonfeasance (failure to help) but malfeasance (making a situation worse).

Murder involves intent. Manslaughter is without intent. Not helping does not mean an intent to kill.

She DIDN'T intend to kill him when she left him on her windshield for days without medical attention, while he was bleeding?! I guess that was just 'not helping', even though she drove the guy home and left him there, not responding to his pleas for help. Yeah, just 'not helping'

What are you, INSANE?!

[Drogue]

Zylka: I won't even bother replying to most of the message, since it seems to be insults as if we have no clue. We just believe that maybe there would have to be a use for locking her up for it to be just. However on the last point, you obviously didn't watch the episode I was refering to. It was the dealer, at a rave, who went to sell it to them, selling them the dregs at the bottom, when they had never tried drugs before. And no, I don't think people are as respobsible for their actions when they are inebriated, just like a mentally ill person is not as responsible for their reactions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think people are as respobsible for their actions when they are inebriated

They didn't make the choice to inject that materials that made them that way?

And so I imagine you have no problems with drunk drivers then? If they kill someone on the road while drunk... well, they aren't responsible for their actions, let's just let them go, right?

[SlowwHand]

What MtG says about California law is irrelevant, and I don't say that in a snotty way.
The case is in Texas.
Her ass is grass.