[m_t_yeo]

Re: Who Lied?

Longride, you are missing one very, very important piece of the puzzle with your long line of quotes.

These people do not have access to all the intelligence because they are not in the administration. They say what the administration gave them to see ... nothing more. When all you get to see is a bunch of lies and fabrications because the administration is making sure that is all you see ... you tend to believe those lies.

There are even Republican Congressmen publicly saying that they feel duped by the Administration.

 

[m_t_yeo]

Re: The Devil's Advocate speaks ...

Intent matters quite a bit when it comes to recidivism, and this is why there are several degrees of offenses that all relate to someone dying, from Manslaughter on up to Murder One.

An offender that planned to kill someone and was fully in control of his faculties the whole time (Murder One) is the most likely to reoffend by far. Offenders who killed someone as a crime of passion (Murder Two) are less likely because the odds of a circumstance like the one that sparked the killed are unlikely to re-occur. They still tend to re-offend more than people who kill by accident (Manslaughter) because they have shown that extremely stressful circumstances can drive them to murder. Offenders convicted of Manslaughter are highly unlikely to reoffend, because the death was generally an accident and killing someone by accident tends to decrease the offender's risk taking behaviour in the future.

I don't know if Janklow's case goes as far as your example. Your shooter fully intended to take a gun to a crowded area to start shooting. His intent was to put those people in danger and to drastically increase their chance of dying - on purpose. Janklow didn't intend to kill the biker. He also didn't go out onto the road specifically to put people into danger for kicks. He knew that by driving drunk and turning around just past the crest of a hill on a busier road he was increasing people's risk (the negligence part), but his *intent* was to turn around and go the other direction.

 

[m_t_yeo]

Re: The Devil's Advocate speaks ...

LOL. This is how attorneys work - they split hairs.

I wan't actually thinking about Janklow when I wrote the original post. The guy was a **** and the criminal justice system dropped the ball, si I'm all for the bar doing their part to punish him for his behaviour. Its the wrong avenue for punishment, but any punishment is better than none.

I was thinking of Joe Sixpack. Some people have tons of trouble learning, so getting one's electrician's papers could be a major ordeal for someone. To have the apprenticeship board take those papers away, even though the state has already punished you for your crime, seems both unnecessary and excessive. A ditch digger can still earn a living coming out of jail, so why shouldn't an electrician?

 

[m_t_yeo]

Re: The Devil's Advocate speaks ...

It sounds like he was a jerk, and everyone wants to see a jerk get his comeuppance. To see a jerk get a slap on the wrist for a crime that would normally get a much stiffer sentence turns people's stomachs, so I'm not surprised at the anger and vehemence.

The probem with accidents like this is that sometimes jerks commit them, usually because they are jerks and don't even think about anyone else around them. Sometimes, though, they are committed by non-jerks who made a mistake. The laws have to be fair to both.

 

[sportbikebandit]

Re: Who Lied?

Excellent Point m_t_yeo Once again you nail it. Thanks

 

[44890]

Re: The Devil's Advocate speaks ...

Most people who make a mistake that results in some else's death would feel sorry about it. That's what makes Jank-off different.