Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Teen gets away with murder....for being rich

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This had nothing to do with money.

That being said, it's total BS what the psychologist said, because it's not a real disorder as it isn't even recognized by the DSM-V. They didn't even use the term "affluenza" correctly as far as the Wikipedia definition is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
kawaii_crazy
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:42:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The article makes no sense.
"Being called weird is like being called Limited Edition. Meaning you're something people don't see that often." -Ashley Purdy

Please help raise money for a Christmas gift for airmax (although he is Jewish, as YYW pointed out). He is in desperate need of a new laptop, and he has done so much for this site; he certainly deserves one. :)
http://www.debate.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:42:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:41:26 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This had nothing to do with money.

That being said, it's total BS what the psychologist said, because it's not a real disorder as it isn't even recognized by the DSM-V. They didn't even use the term "affluenza" correctly as far as the Wikipedia definition is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has everything to do with money

their defense was he was a "rich kid with no supervision" how does that not make it about money?
Thank you for voting!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:43:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:42:22 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:41:26 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This had nothing to do with money.

That being said, it's total BS what the psychologist said, because it's not a real disorder as it isn't even recognized by the DSM-V. They didn't even use the term "affluenza" correctly as far as the Wikipedia definition is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has everything to do with money

their defense was he was a "rich kid with no supervision" how does that not make it about money?

That was the only reference to money.

It wasn't so much to do with him being rich, as it did to do with him never learning the consequences of his actions.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:45:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:43:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:42:22 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:41:26 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This had nothing to do with money.

That being said, it's total BS what the psychologist said, because it's not a real disorder as it isn't even recognized by the DSM-V. They didn't even use the term "affluenza" correctly as far as the Wikipedia definition is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has everything to do with money

their defense was he was a "rich kid with no supervision" how does that not make it about money?

That was the only reference to money.

It wasn't so much to do with him being rich, as it did to do with him never learning the consequences of his actions.

......

so he had the innate disadvantage of hopping in-behind a wheel not knowing that drinking and driving is bad due to him being rich, when that's one of the first things they teach you in driving school????
Thank you for voting!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:47:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:45:35 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:43:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:42:22 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:41:26 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This had nothing to do with money.

That being said, it's total BS what the psychologist said, because it's not a real disorder as it isn't even recognized by the DSM-V. They didn't even use the term "affluenza" correctly as far as the Wikipedia definition is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has everything to do with money

their defense was he was a "rich kid with no supervision" how does that not make it about money?

That was the only reference to money.

It wasn't so much to do with him being rich, as it did to do with him never learning the consequences of his actions.

......

so he had the innate disadvantage of hopping in-behind a wheel not knowing that drinking and driving is bad due to him being rich, when that's one of the first things they teach you in driving school????

Where are you getting this as the cause?

To be fair, being totally wasted probably means that you will forget those basic things you were taught, not that it matters much when you have a BAC of around 0.24.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:53:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:47:53 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:45:35 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:43:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:42:22 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:41:26 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This had nothing to do with money.

That being said, it's total BS what the psychologist said, because it's not a real disorder as it isn't even recognized by the DSM-V. They didn't even use the term "affluenza" correctly as far as the Wikipedia definition is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has everything to do with money

their defense was he was a "rich kid with no supervision" how does that not make it about money?

That was the only reference to money.

It wasn't so much to do with him being rich, as it did to do with him never learning the consequences of his actions.

......

so he had the innate disadvantage of hopping in-behind a wheel not knowing that drinking and driving is bad due to him being rich, when that's one of the first things they teach you in driving school????

Where are you getting this as the cause?

To be fair, being totally wasted probably means that you will forget those basic things you were taught, not that it matters much when you have a BAC of around 0.24.

He's 16 right? So he has his basic license right?
So he knows not to drink and drive right? He drives with supervision of a driving instructor so he does know better
But he did anyways
And he killed 4 people as a result.

This normally means serious prison time. But what was his defense? Mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention? That doesn't absolve him of what he did, but they made it about that when their defense was literally that he was rich and didn't get enough attention causing this. Judge bought it and gave him 4 months probation, when normally your looking at minimum (if memory serves) 2 years for this kind of crap.
Thank you for voting!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 10:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

If money is the problem, then how about all of it go the victims' families. Any cent he keeps is just an insult. And what's to be said of his parents? If he was really in a state to kill four people without being responsible, then it would seem his parents are guilty of crimes equally as negligent and destructive as those he will avoid punishment for.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 10:47:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This sounds like an insanity plea.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 11:58:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:53:11 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

He's 16 right? So he has his basic license right?
So he knows not to drink and drive right? He drives with supervision of a driving instructor so he does know better
But he did anyways
And he killed 4 people as a result.

This normally means serious prison time. But what was his defense? Mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention? That doesn't absolve him of what he did, but they made it about that when their defense was literally that he was rich and didn't get enough attention causing this. Judge bought it and gave him 4 months probation, when normally your looking at minimum (if memory serves) 2 years for this kind of crap.

I'm 16 and I will be driving soon. I have never had alcohol except for a glass of wine last Thanksgiving (it tasted like piss) and sips every once in a blue moon when I was a 3 year old. I am proud to say this. I will not drink as a kid, and I will not drink as an adult. I will NEVER drive with alcohol in my system. I think anybody, regardless of age or money, should rot in prison for the rest of their life for killing someone driving drunk.

That being said, I wouldn't be so eager to point out the fact that it has to do with money. 1. You make it sound like he's evil because he's rich and 2. it's simply wrong in the first place that anybody gets away with murder.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:00:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 11:58:19 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:53:11 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

He's 16 right? So he has his basic license right?
So he knows not to drink and drive right? He drives with supervision of a driving instructor so he does know better
But he did anyways
And he killed 4 people as a result.

This normally means serious prison time. But what was his defense? Mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention? That doesn't absolve him of what he did, but they made it about that when their defense was literally that he was rich and didn't get enough attention causing this. Judge bought it and gave him 4 months probation, when normally your looking at minimum (if memory serves) 2 years for this kind of crap.

I'm 16 and I will be driving soon. I have never had alcohol except for a glass of wine last Thanksgiving (it tasted like piss) and sips every once in a blue moon when I was a 3 year old. I am proud to say this. I will not drink as a kid, and I will not drink as an adult. I will NEVER drive with alcohol in my system. I think anybody, regardless of age or money, should rot in prison for the rest of their life for killing someone driving drunk.

Good on ya!

That being said, I wouldn't be so eager to point out the fact that it has to do with money. 1. You make it sound like he's evil because he's rich and 2. it's simply wrong in the first place that anybody gets away with murder.

Did you see his defense? You're right it wasn't quite like that, and I have nothing against someone with lots of money, but really claiming bad parenting is silly IMO on this one
Thank you for voting!
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:08:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:00:53 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 11:58:19 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:53:11 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

He's 16 right? So he has his basic license right?
So he knows not to drink and drive right? He drives with supervision of a driving instructor so he does know better
But he did anyways
And he killed 4 people as a result.

This normally means serious prison time. But what was his defense? Mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention? That doesn't absolve him of what he did, but they made it about that when their defense was literally that he was rich and didn't get enough attention causing this. Judge bought it and gave him 4 months probation, when normally your looking at minimum (if memory serves) 2 years for this kind of crap.

I'm 16 and I will be driving soon. I have never had alcohol except for a glass of wine last Thanksgiving (it tasted like piss) and sips every once in a blue moon when I was a 3 year old. I am proud to say this. I will not drink as a kid, and I will not drink as an adult. I will NEVER drive with alcohol in my system. I think anybody, regardless of age or money, should rot in prison for the rest of their life for killing someone driving drunk.

Good on ya!

That being said, I wouldn't be so eager to point out the fact that it has to do with money. 1. You make it sound like he's evil because he's rich and 2. it's simply wrong in the first place that anybody gets away with murder.

Did you see his defense? You're right it wasn't quite like that, and I have nothing against someone with lots of money, but really claiming bad parenting is silly IMO on this one

Oh, don't get me wrong, that's a terrible defense! I never said it wasn't haha:) Some people have great parents but make wrong decisions. Parenting is obviously important, but is no excuse for committing murder.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:43:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:53:11 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:47:53 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:45:35 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:43:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:42:22 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/12/2013 9:41:26 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

This had nothing to do with money.

That being said, it's total BS what the psychologist said, because it's not a real disorder as it isn't even recognized by the DSM-V. They didn't even use the term "affluenza" correctly as far as the Wikipedia definition is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It has everything to do with money

their defense was he was a "rich kid with no supervision" how does that not make it about money?

That was the only reference to money.

It wasn't so much to do with him being rich, as it did to do with him never learning the consequences of his actions.

......

so he had the innate disadvantage of hopping in-behind a wheel not knowing that drinking and driving is bad due to him being rich, when that's one of the first things they teach you in driving school????

Where are you getting this as the cause?

To be fair, being totally wasted probably means that you will forget those basic things you were taught, not that it matters much when you have a BAC of around 0.24.

He's 16 right? So he has his basic license right?

Not necessarily.
So he knows not to drink and drive right? He drives with supervision of a driving instructor so he does know better
But he did anyways
And he killed 4 people as a result.

He clearly didn't drive with an instructor that night.

This normally means serious prison time. But what was his defense? Mommy and daddy didn't pay enough attention? That doesn't absolve him of what he did, but they made it about that when their defense was literally that he was rich and didn't get enough attention causing this. Judge bought it and gave him 4 months probation, when normally your looking at minimum (if memory serves) 2 years for this kind of crap.

The assertion that being rich resulted in not being paid enough attention is a non-sequitur. Many impoverished families suffer the same problem, hence why drug related gang issues happen.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:31:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

I think it's disgusting. What more, really, is there to say?
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This happened in my area so it's pretty big here. "Affluenza". What a crock of sh!t
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 10:22:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is dumb.

I'm not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences but murder, of any type, deserves time in jail. Period.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 11:20:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 10:22:40 PM, TN05 wrote:
This is dumb.

I'm not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences but murder, of any type, deserves time in jail. Period.

He committed manslaughter, not murder. Murder entails some form of premeditation or intent.
Juris
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 2:07:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Granted he was not sentenced to jail, it does not mean he was able to evade justice. The teen was put to a rehab because it was said he is suffering from affluenza, a condition where a child is poorly disciplined which often results to him not being aware of what's right or wrong. Certainly, the teen came from a rich family that's why he gets the affluenza, but to say that money is the reason why he gets away with the punishment is fallacious, because it's not the money as there were no bribes to the judge but it's the condition affluenza.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:47:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 11:20:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:22:40 PM, TN05 wrote:
This is dumb.

I'm not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences but murder, of any type, deserves time in jail. Period.

He committed manslaughter, not murder. Murder entails some form of premeditation or intent.

The point is he killed someone and he deserves jail time.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:45:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:47:19 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 11:20:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:22:40 PM, TN05 wrote:
This is dumb.

I'm not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences but murder, of any type, deserves time in jail. Period.

He committed manslaughter, not murder. Murder entails some form of premeditation or intent.

The point is he killed someone and he deserves jail time.

I agree, but you should know the difference between manslaughter and murder. They are very different things which deserve very different punishments.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 10:52:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:47:19 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 11:20:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/13/2013 10:22:40 PM, TN05 wrote:
This is dumb.

I'm not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences but murder, of any type, deserves time in jail. Period.

He committed manslaughter, not murder. Murder entails some form of premeditation or intent.

The point is he killed someone and he deserves jail time.

Though it seems like you acknowledged the distinction when you said 'murder of any type'.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 5:55:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 2:07:43 AM, Juris wrote:
Granted he was not sentenced to jail, it does not mean he was able to evade justice. The teen was put to a rehab because it was said he is suffering from affluenza, a condition where a child is poorly disciplined which often results to him not being aware of what's right or wrong. Certainly, the teen came from a rich family that's why he gets the affluenza, but to say that money is the reason why he gets away with the punishment is fallacious, because it's not the money as there were no bribes to the judge but it's the condition affluenza.

"Affluenza" is a "condition" caused by having a rich family. It's kinda in the name. Without that shoddy defense that was accepted by that joke of a judge this kid would probably be in jail. The rehab he's being sent to is also kinda a joke because it's a better place than most people get in their regular lives.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 6:20:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

I agree with the ruling. The point of incarceration is not to punish, it is to rehabilitate. How will placing this teen in prison for 20 years (until his 30's) rehabilitate him? If anything it would make him worse, by subjecting him to hardened criminals.
Taking the kid from his wealthy family, and placing him in a facility where he can be taught what his parents should have been teaching him, is the best way to ensure he becomes a productive member of society.

Sure taking away his youth by sending him to jail for 20 years may make the family and friends of the victims feel better (temporarily), but other than revenge it serves no utilitarian purpose. Once the kid gets out of jail, and is in his 30's, he will be unable to find a job (with no work experience behind his belt), and he would likely end up mooching off his family or the state, and given the 20 year sentence, he may even end up back in the prison that he had grown so accustomed to.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 6:37:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 6:20:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

I agree with the ruling. The point of incarceration is not to punish, it is to rehabilitate. How will placing this teen in prison for 20 years (until his 30's) rehabilitate him? If anything it would make him worse, by subjecting him to hardened criminals.
Taking the kid from his wealthy family, and placing him in a facility where he can be taught what his parents should have been teaching him, is the best way to ensure he becomes a productive member of society.

Sure taking away his youth by sending him to jail for 20 years may make the family and friends of the victims feel better (temporarily), but other than revenge it serves no utilitarian purpose. Once the kid gets out of jail, and is in his 30's, he will be unable to find a job (with no work experience behind his belt), and he would likely end up mooching off his family or the state, and given the 20 year sentence, he may even end up back in the prison that he had grown so accustomed to.

Undoubtedly. More problematic, in my opinion, are the effects such a ruling might have down the line.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 6:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 6:20:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

I agree with the ruling. The point of incarceration is not to punish, it is to rehabilitate. How will placing this teen in prison for 20 years (until his 30's) rehabilitate him? If anything it would make him worse, by subjecting him to hardened criminals.
Taking the kid from his wealthy family, and placing him in a facility where he can be taught what his parents should have been teaching him, is the best way to ensure he becomes a productive member of society.

Sure taking away his youth by sending him to jail for 20 years may make the family and friends of the victims feel better (temporarily), but other than revenge it serves no utilitarian purpose. Once the kid gets out of jail, and is in his 30's, he will be unable to find a job (with no work experience behind his belt), and he would likely end up mooching off his family or the state, and given the 20 year sentence, he may even end up back in the prison that he had grown so accustomed to.

This isn't an unreasonable perspective. I'd be interest to know the psychology behind people's outrage over the case. My theory is that people feel
insulted that wealth which they hold in contempt (and which they feel they could use) is being used as an excuse for behavior they don't partake in themselves.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 6:55:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 6:37:51 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/16/2013 6:20:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/12/2013 4:45:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
thoughts


http://www.cnn.com...

I agree with the ruling. The point of incarceration is not to punish, it is to rehabilitate. How will placing this teen in prison for 20 years (until his 30's) rehabilitate him? If anything it would make him worse, by subjecting him to hardened criminals.
Taking the kid from his wealthy family, and placing him in a facility where he can be taught what his parents should have been teaching him, is the best way to ensure he becomes a productive member of society.

Sure taking away his youth by sending him to jail for 20 years may make the family and friends of the victims feel better (temporarily), but other than revenge it serves no utilitarian purpose. Once the kid gets out of jail, and is in his 30's, he will be unable to find a job (with no work experience behind his belt), and he would likely end up mooching off his family or the state, and given the 20 year sentence, he may even end up back in the prison that he had grown so accustomed to.

Undoubtedly. More problematic, in my opinion, are the effects such a ruling might have down the line.

That could be said for just about any ruling in any case.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 6:56:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 6:52:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In other words, people feel insulted that wealth which could aid them is being regarded as a handicap.

"treated as a handicap" captures the idea better.