Killer gets off with 1-3 years

On 16 Mar 2005 09:33:09 -0800, "Colorado Bicycler" wrote:

One of the purposes af appropriate sentencing is to set an example of
what might happen to others if they also kill someone.

This guy had an amazing record of speeding tickets and other assorted
violations, and it appears he has his hand slapped for these offenses.
So it is not as if he this was his first time with this behavior, nor
that he had not been warned before.

What other drivers who might also be prone to participate in such
behavior see right now is that killing someone by speeding and reckless
driving is a very minor offense. They will not, IMHO, be deterred from
similar behavior by this sentence.

And, no, I am not suggesting the death penalty - that wuld be
ridiculous, and is likely outlawed in this stae in any case.

I think about 15 years in prison would be an appropriate sentence, and
would have a marked deterring effect on others.

Thanks, I agree.

And, more importantly, I think he should have been ordered to pay
restitution to the family of the guy he killed, such that he could. There
was a similar sentence where the felon had to personally send the surviving
family one dollar a year for the rest of his life just so he would never be
able to forget what he did.

jj

"Maggie" wrote in message
ups.com...

jj wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 08:16:49 -0800, "Maggie"
wrote:


jj wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 07:00:18 -0800, "Maggie"

wrote:



http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories...StoryID=342295


What are we supposed to say about this article? In your opinion
what
type of sentence should the 18 year old receive? We just had an
incident in our town where a young man ran down another young man
while
recklessly speeding. One boy is dead and one boy's life is ruined
forever. They were friends. They were fooling around, it turned
tragic.
Both the parents of the victim and the parents of the boy charged
with
the crime are grieving. My son knew both of them.

In my opinion both lost their "children" forever. One buried, one
now
in jail. If he serves one year or 100 years, he has to remember
the
night he killed his friend. Both so young. They were friends,
they
were acting like fools, in one moment so many people suffered.
This
was
not malicious intent. It was stupidity that leaves a legacy of
pain
for
all involved.

What should happen to the 18 year old that would make anything
right
again for anyone? What should be his punishment?
Maggie

Same punishment as for involuntary manslaughter. Why is there a
separate
category called 'vehicular manslaughter' - it's as though the car
is
taking
some of the blame.

What gets me is this sentence:

"We held Mr. Paniccia accountable for his criminal conduct,"
Murphy said.snip The conviction sends a message that
drivers must obey the speed limit, he said.

Obey the speed limit? Huh? Obey the -speed limit-??

What about sending a message it's not ok to kill someone?

The time for mercy for these criminals is over. We need to start
making
examples of them.

jj

So you think the kid should get the death penalty? Did you ever
hear
of the saying..."there but for the grace of God go I" or "Don't spit
in
the wind my friend". Are you a parent? Did you ever know a person
whose child was killed by a teenage driver? Did you ever know a
teenager who killed someone with his car because he was 18 and
acting
like an ass. Did you ever know parents who instead of seeking
revenge,
they honored their lost child by helping educate, motivate, and
finance
programs regarding safety. Did you ever see a parent who lost a
child
try to repair the life of the "criminal".

There is a difference between these crimes and hidious crimes such
as
pre meditated murder, rape, child molestation, armed robbery, cold
blooded killing with no remorse, kidnapping and torturing a victim,
walking into a convenience store and shooting 10 innocent people.

Anyone who intentionally and with thought sets out to harm any human
being should be punished. A person who kidnaps a child and rapes and
tortures him or her should die a slow death in my opinion. A slow
agonizing death.

Crime is not black and white. I don't think most 18 year olds who
speed, think its "OK TO KILL SOMEONE". Do you really think the boy
in
my town or the boy in the news story actually think, or thought...it
was OK TO KILL SOMEONE?

I can't argue this, because I know some young people who have
screwed
up badly and then turned their life around.

I know people who screwed up their life so badly when they were
young
but because of the help they received, they are making a difference
in
the lives of young offenders. The company I work for builds the
offices in Newark for past offenders changing the lives of these
young
kids.

If you want to hang everyone, that is your perogotive. In the end,
do
you really think that will solve the problem. Do you really think
that
will put an end to these tragedies. Really, is that what you
believe?
Make an example and it all ends???? Is it that simple??
Maggie

Since when is involuntary manslaughter the death penalty?

Let's see your reaction if the murdered person is your child and the
killer
gets 1-3 years and a 300 dollar fine.

jj

I never expected you to understand the point of my argument. I don't
know how I would react if it was NOT a crime with "intent" to kill and
it was a young person. I don't know if I would get satisfaction
destroying his life as well. IF HE HAD NO INTENT!!!

I DO know how I would react if it was premeditated and with malice of
forethought. I would get revenge in any way I could. Even if I went to
jail for the rest of my life by doing it.

Let's agree to disagree. I will respect your view.
Maggie

It's not intent that it as issue here...it is his "reckless disregard" for
his actions that warrant a harsher punishment. He was speeding at nearly
twice the posted limit, and had been cited previously for speeding and
racing. This little punk does not deserve any sympathy, even if he did not
have the "intent" to kill someone.

GG

Oh, so it's about revenge then. You're just demonstrating that you
have no
regard for the law, suggesting that criminals get off because there
was no
intent and suggesting one take the law into their own hands.

jj



If this is what you want to believe, there is nothing I can do about
it.
If you believe I have a criminal past and have no regard for the law,
then you will believe it.

And you say I insulted you?

I've never even had a speeding ticket. I've never been given a ticket
of any kind in my 30 odd years of driving. I am also a notary, so I
have no criminal record.

That was a cruel thing to say in a public forum. To suggest I have a
criminal past. That is hurtful. I never knew until this moment, how
Newsgroups can possibly hurt a person.

Maggie - out

On 16 Mar 2005 09:56:43 -0800, "Maggie" wrote:



Oh, so it's about revenge then. You're just demonstrating that you
have no
regard for the law, suggesting that criminals get off because there
was no
intent and suggesting one take the law into their own hands.

jj



If this is what you want to believe, there is nothing I can do about
it.
If you believe I have a criminal past and have no regard for the law,
then you will believe it.

And you say I insulted you?

I've never even had a speeding ticket. I've never been given a ticket
of any kind in my 30 odd years of driving. I am also a notary, so I
have no criminal record.

That was a cruel thing to say in a public forum. To suggest I have a
criminal past. That is hurtful. I never knew until this moment, how
Newsgroups can possibly hurt a person.

Maggie - out

Passive aggressive much? I didn't say -you- had a criminal past. Actually I
was thinking you knew someone close to you who had committed a youthful
indiscretion.

I'm through arguing with you. On this issue you're a kook.

jj

In article . com,
"Maggie" writes:

http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories...StoryID=342295


What are we supposed to say about this article?

Killer drivers get too much Special Dispensation.
And driving is regarded too much as a natural right
and necessity of life. The unnecessary mayhem and
carnage caused by cars & drivers is shrugged off as,
as Zoot says, 'the cost of doing business.'

The World Health Organization has some appalling figures
on traffic-related injuries and fatalities all around the
world. I'll try and see if I can find the URL again.

So to answer your question: traffic is too dangerous to
human life. And enforcement (in the judicial sense,)
which is our first-line offense against this unacceptable
state of affairs, is just too lax and lackadaisical --
possibly because it reflects the general public attitude
toward this issue.

In your opinion what
type of sentence should the 18 year old receive?

Prohibition from driving for life, for a start.
He's well demonstrated that he can't handle the
responsibility of driving without killing people.

Here's another example of backlash against
imbalanced justice:
http://carleyslaw.net/


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

16 Mar 2005 08:16:49 -0800,
. com,
"Maggie" wrote:

So you think the kid should get the death penalty?

No, he should be fed alive to alligators.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
16 Mar 2005 08:16:49 -0800,
. com,
"Maggie" wrote:

So you think the kid should get the death penalty?

No, he should be fed alive to alligators.
--
zk

I can always count on you to lighten things up.
Maggie

Tom Keats wrote:

In article . com,

"Maggie" writes:

http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories...StoryID=342295

What are we supposed to say about this article?

Killer drivers get too much Special Dispensation.
And driving is regarded too much as a natural right
and necessity of life. The unnecessary mayhem and
carnage caused by cars & drivers is shrugged off as,
as Zoot says, 'the cost of doing business.'

The World Health Organization has some appalling figures
on traffic-related injuries and fatalities all around the
world. I'll try and see if I can find the URL again.

So to answer your question: traffic is too dangerous to
human life. And enforcement (in the judicial sense,)
which is our first-line offense against this unacceptable
state of affairs, is just too lax and lackadaisical --
possibly because it reflects the general public attitude
toward this issue.

In your opinion what
type of sentence should the 18 year old receive?

Prohibition from driving for life, for a start.
He's well demonstrated that he can't handle the
responsibility of driving without killing people.

I agree with this one. When someone comes out of jail they're starting from
scratch anyway -- let them start a car-free lifestyle.

The problem is, it's unenforceable. People with suspended or revoked licenses
drive anyway. Most are probably never caught, but plenty of them are.

I once sat in criminal traffic court as a witness. I listened to cases like
this all day. Perhaps two thirds of the defendants had been driving with
suspended or revoked licenses. I don't know about elsewhere, but in CA this
means instant jail time -- at least 10 days, but up to six months (which is no
joke in LA County, possibly one of the worst jails in the world). Still, people
take the chance. You can't keep a habitual offender from offending, without
locking them up. I'm no fan of our criminal justice system, but in cases like
this, the first consideration should be protecting the public.

I do think this sentence is too light. I also agree with the gist of this
discussion, that our society does not take car crimes too seriously -- they're
all "accidents." But I'm not faced with the same dilemmas judges are. Would it
really be better to put this kid in a jail for an extended time, and possibly
make him a worse criminal than he already is? How does that help protect
society? Yes our criminal justice system is broken, but judges have to work
with what they have.

Matt O.

Maggie wrote:

So you think the kid should get the death penalty?

I'll tell you what I thinK

1) Several years in the cooler, learning a trade;
2) Permanent, lifetime, irrevocable loss of driving privileges;
3) Permanent, lifetime, irrevocable payments of 50% of his income to
the victim's family.

The problem with the system in the US -- and Maggie, you demonstrate it
in your opinions quite graphically -- is that we allow people to do
damage while driving cars that we would never allow them to do under
other circumstances. Every kid -- yours, mine, and this one here --
grows up knowing -- **knowing** I say -- that any "accident" they can
walk away from is not going to cost them anything permanent.

We Americans have a moral and ethical blind spot that's exactly the
size and shape of a car. This guy drove through it, and in a year or
two he'll have "paid" the price of his victim's life.

We have change this. We as parents, we as drivers, we as voters, we as
cyclists, must work to re-invent our culture so that people are afraid
to drive not because of what might happen to them but because of what
they might do to someone else, and the price they will be made to pay
if they do.

The driver of this car willfully set out to commit a criminal act with
his car. What's wrong with our culture is that we don't see that as
sufficient cause for punishing him as if he set oout to kill someone
with his car. If you pick up a loaded gun and start shooting it in
random directions, should you not be punished for killing someone just
because you weren't specifically aiming at him? Deciding to drive 80
miles an hour is exactly the same crime.

When you get behind the wheel you are picking up a loaded gun. What
happens then is absolutely your responsibility.

RichC



Did you ever hear
of the saying..."there but for the grace of God go I" or "Don't spit
in
the wind my friend". Are you a parent? Did you ever know a person
whose child was killed by a teenage driver? Did you ever know a
teenager who killed someone with his car because he was 18 and acting
like an ass. Did you ever know parents who instead of seeking
revenge,
they honored their lost child by helping educate, motivate, and
finance
programs regarding safety. Did you ever see a parent who lost a child
try to repair the life of the "criminal".

There is a difference between these crimes and hidious crimes such as
pre meditated murder, rape, child molestation, armed robbery, cold
blooded killing with no remorse, kidnapping and torturing a victim,
walking into a convenience store and shooting 10 innocent people.

Anyone who intentionally and with thought sets out to harm any human
being should be punished. A person who kidnaps a child and rapes and
tortures him or her should die a slow death in my opinion. A slow
agonizing death.

Crime is not black and white. I don't think most 18 year olds who
speed, think its "OK TO KILL SOMEONE". Do you really think the boy
in
my town or the boy in the news story actually think, or thought...it
was OK TO KILL SOMEONE?

I can't argue this, because I know some young people who have screwed
up badly and then turned their life around.

I know people who screwed up their life so badly when they were young
but because of the help they received, they are making a difference
in
the lives of young offenders. The company I work for builds the
offices in Newark for past offenders changing the lives of these
young
kids.

If you want to hang everyone, that is your perogotive. In the end, do
you really think that will solve the problem. Do you really think
that
will put an end to these tragedies. Really, is that what you believe?
Make an example and it all ends???? Is it that simple??
Maggie

In article ,
"Matt O'Toole" writes:

But I'm not faced with the same dilemmas judges are. Would it
really be better to put this kid in a jail for an extended time, and possibly
make him a worse criminal than he already is? How does that help protect
society? Yes our criminal justice system is broken, but judges have to work
with what they have.

That's pretty much why I left it at "Prohibition from driving for
life, for a start." It's all too easy to play armchair judge.

That said, I am in favour of sentences which reflect not only the
severity but also the context of the crime, and which compel the
convicts to really consider and confront their behaviours which
put them at odds with society.

In this particular instance, maybe a reasonable sentence would
include community service of giving lectures at high schools,
about the wrongness of road/street racing in particular and
dangerous driving in general. As well as lifetime prohibition
from driving, and whatever else a real, qualified judge
might add.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca