• SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a nice sentiment, but…

    This was premeditated. She needs to be held accountable and have consequences for what she willfully and knowingly did.

    She literally killed people. I’m not sure this can be a case of “forgive and let her off lightly.”

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think he’s saying she shouldn’t be accountable and face consequences. He’s said he didn’t want her to spend life in jail. That’s going to be pretty radical for a lot of folks.

      Some people are going to think that life in prison or the death penalty should be the minimum consequence. Others are going to think that even a monster like this can repent, change and (unlike her victims) be allowed to live free eventually.

      Edit. Yikes. Important typo. “Don’t”

      • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s fair, and I get it. To me, that’s absolutely radical, especially if it was my child who was harmed.

        I personally have just learned from experience that people who get off easy are likely to continue on the path of destructive behavior.

        I’m not necessarily calling for her death or anything… but the punishment needs to fit the crime. Two lives are permanently gone from this world because of the careless and stupid choices she made.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I personally have just learned from experience that people who get off easy are likely to continue on the path of destructive behavior.

          Likewise, although my experience is with a racist idiot on a Discord server who I was far too lenient with.

        • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would agree, but I’d argue that that’s because our current system doesn’t actually rehabilitate people, and solely exists to punish people. Which solves practically nothing.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For me, it’s not about whether or not she can change and repent. I’m all for prison reforms that make prison safe and offer inmates opportunities for growth and self-improvement while they serve their sentences, but I think punishments need to fit crimes and this girl intentionally killed two other people. I think a sentence of 15 years to life is actually a bit lenient (I’m used to 25 years to life being the standard for premeditated murder). I don’t think she should mandatorily have to spend her entire life in prison, but I also don’t think she should get to enjoy even fraction of the life she robbed those two boys of. Ideally, with good behavior, I’d like to see her get out at 45-50 years of age. She would still have a few decades left, but the prime of her life would be gone—no career, no kids. That seems fair to me.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And yet on the same turn, if the father was calling for the death penalty or even a lengthy prison sentence, you all would be admonishing the fact that he even got a say and stating this is why justice systems shouldn’t be about satisfying the victim at all.

        The hypocrisy is really blatant and self-serving. Should people be punished for their crimes or not? If yes, then you need to support predetermined sentences for crimes that apply equally across all cases, including this one. If no, then you don’t really believe in justice or government, but something much more insidious.

        • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you all would be admonishing the fact that he even got a say and stating this is why justice systems shouldn’t be about satisfying the victim at all.

          Ya know, I’ve never seen anyone say that about the victim in instances like the one you describe.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have, on Reddit, many a time. They often do it to oppose the death penalty or opposing punishing anyone for crimes. It’s cheap enabling and apologia for all kinds of horrific shit wrapped in a neat little package.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          People change. They get better. The guy who shot Reagan got better, and they let him out. Now he writes love songs and posts them on YouTube, and sells his paintings on eBay.

            • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I’m okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it.

              I’d like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don’t think either of us would have said “But surely it can be done in 15.” It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that’s interesting to me.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh it’s completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences.

          • MajorJimmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Means there’s a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years.

        • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          On one hand, yes.

          On the other hand, 17+15 is 32. Think of all of the things you do to get your life started between 17 and 32 and where you’d be if you’d waited to do the stuff you did at 17 until you were 32. That’s a whole lot of life and life experience there.

          Such a stupid senseless waste all around.

    • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being 17, I’d attribute some of the blame to her parents or whomever owns that vehicle.

      Is driving recklessly really the only symptom of being this emotionally deregulated? Did they not know how stupid or mentally ill she is?

      I bet the adults around her did not care or excused her behaviour.

      • SamboT@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        I bet her dad was a party clown who was hoping this would happen.

        Like where the fuck do you get all of these assumptions from?

      • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s fine, but she still made a conscious decision to do it. If she was one year older, would that make any kind of difference?

        And let me be clear: mental illness can make some behaviors more understandable, but not murder– if the blame is put solely on mental illness, all that does is put more stigma on it. Not every shitty decision people make is because of “mental illness”.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why only murder? Why not rape or assault or abuse or any number of different crimes deeply mentally ill people commit on the regular that ruin lives far more deeply than the death of a loved one?

          • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure you know what the word “reactionary” means if you think that my comments and opinions were “reactionary”.

            The family can grieve, and my opinion has no bearing on the outcome of whatever happens. My point was, in the end, no matter what the reason, there needs to be consequences for someone who killed people, regardless of what the grieving parties think. I don’t think that’s particularly radical.

            It’s a sad and awful situation al around. I can see why those poor families just want to move on.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did they not know how stupid or mentally ill she is?

        Just want to shout out here as an anxious and depressed person, the vast majority of the mentally ill are not psychopathic murderers. Mental health absolutely pays a role in decision making, but except for super extremely rare cases, it doesn’t turn someone into a murderer.