Author Topic: Mike Vick Free (Read 523 times)

blackandgold · « **Reply #50 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:13:37 PM »

Quote from: adam background on July 20, 2009, 07:11:07 PM

I think its more that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, no matter how much you insist on blaming the victim.

Dude is on probation for a decade, will never be able to drive again, and lost millions of dollars. That's some serious punishment.

At any rate, I think the criminal justice system should be about protecting society, not punishment.

adam background · « **Reply #51 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:29:45 PM »

Society would be safer if he were in prison for a decade because he's a fucking murderer.

blackandgold · « **Reply #52 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:35:24 PM »

Quote from: adam background on July 20, 2009, 07:29:45 PM

Society would be safer if he were in prison for a decade because he's a fucking murderer.

So you think he's gonna kill somebody again? Come on. He's no threat. You're just being vindictive.

adam background · « **Reply #53 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:37:43 PM »

How about the criminal justice system be about justice within pre existing parameters in relation to the crime. Losing millions of dollars isn't punishment, its a result of the NFL collective bargaining agreement being impotent and not getting their players guaranteed contracts like...every other major sport. Ever.

SockhopShindig · « **Reply #54 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:40:40 PM »

Quote from: blackandgold on July 20, 2009, 07:07:57 PM

He's on house arrest, will be on probation for years, and will never have a drivers license again.

Now, from a cost/benefit analysis perspective: How much would it cost society to jail in for a long sentence vs. how likely is it that Mr. Stallworth will harm another person drunk driving.

What's the overall cost to society if people see that drunk driving isn't punished?

I think the problem here is that I would say "Well then what are the chances most people who commit manslaughter of any kind will kill again?" and then you'll say "That's my point" and we'll realize we disagree a lot.

blackandgold · « **Reply #55 on:** July 20, 2009, 07:44:18 PM »

Quote from: adam background on July 20, 2009, 07:37:43 PM

How about the criminal justice system be about justice within pre existing parameters in relation to the crime. Losing millions of dollars isn't punishment, its a result of the NFL collective bargaining agreement being impotent and not getting their players guaranteed contracts like...every other major sport. Ever.

He had to give a shit ton of money to the victims family. How are they gonna collect if he's sitting behind bars not working. I'm sure the dead dude would rather have his kids go to college than have Mr. Stallworth sit behind bars for 2 or 3 years.
And, yes, non-state sanctions should be taken into account at sentencing.

Quote from: SockhopShindig on July 20, 2009, 07:40:40 PM

What's the overall cost to society if people see that drunk driving isn't punished?

But he was punished. House arrest, a decade on probation, never being able to drive again, millions of dollars down the drain. I might rather spend a year in jail than to never be able to drive again.

Ellie · « **Reply #56 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:02:12 PM »

Quote from: blackandgold on July 20, 2009, 07:13:37 PM

Dude is on probation for a decade, will never be able to drive again, and lost millions of dollars. That's some serious punishment.

At any rate, I think the criminal justice system should be about protecting society, not punishment.

your logic is astoundingly dumb. just because he can't get a driver's license doesn't mean he can't very easily get wasted and hop into a car like every other repeat drunk driver. when you're that rich it's not much of a punishment anyway. if I was that rich I'd never drive again either.

and what's with the "Mr. Stallworth" bullshit. are you playing new york times reporter? this is a goddamn messageboard.

Ellie · « **Reply #57 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:03:33 PM »

bottom line, 30 days is not enough for drunkenly running someone down even if the pedestrian was partially at fault. that kind of sentence doesn't send a good message to anyone.

blackandgold · « **Reply #58 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:05:43 PM »

Quote from: Ellie on July 20, 2009, 08:02:12 PM

your logic is astoundingly dumb. just because he can't get a driver's license doesn't mean he can't very easily get wasted and hop into a car like every other repeat drunk driver. when you're that rich it's not much of a punishment anyway. if I was that rich I'd never drive again either.

Because he has the money for a driver he'll most likely not risk imprisonment by driving. He has no history of being a thug.

Quote

and what's with the "Mr. Stallworth" bullshit. are you playing new york times reporter? this is a goddamn messageboard.

I use "Mr." alot.

Ellie · « **Reply #59 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:10:34 PM »

Quote from: blackandgold on July 20, 2009, 08:05:43 PM

Because he has the money for a driver he'll most likely not risk imprisonment by driving. He has no history of being a thug.

do you think him being able to afford a driver means he deserves special treatment? he killed a person.

blackandgold · « **Reply #60 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:14:31 PM »

Quote from: Ellie on July 20, 2009, 08:10:34 PM

do you think him being able to afford a driver means he deserves special treatment? he killed a person.

Yes, the point of jail is to protect society. If it's reasonable to assume that he will honor his agreement not to drive again, there's no reason to send him to jail. Many factors go into this judgement. The ability to function without a car is one of them. Does he live near public transporation, does he have the money to hire a driver, does he have a family to help him get around? I'm not a big fan of uniform mandatory sentences. Legislators should set the crimes and judges should set the sentences based on the merits of each case.

Also, this wasn't special treatment. It was a normal sentence for this type of crime in Florida.

Ellie · « **Reply #61 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:18:53 PM »

so if it's reasonable to assume that a guy will never get as pissed as he did when he snapped on his cheating whore of a wife who everyone agreed was a total cunt and probably deserved it, he should get no jail time because society is not in danger?

blackandgold · « **Reply #62 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:22:12 PM »

Quote from: Ellie on July 20, 2009, 08:18:53 PM

so if it's reasonable to assume that a guy will never get as pissed as he did when he snapped on his cheating whore of a wife who everyone agreed was a total cunt and probably deserved it, he should get no jail time because society is not in danger?

No. Violent crime is clearly different than non-violent crime.

colin · « **Reply #63 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:55:20 PM »

why do you keep saying that "he lost millions" as if that was part of the sentencing. that was not dictated by the state. that is just circumstance. if he was poor, would you say he didn't pay enough?

blackandgold · « **Reply #64 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:00:33 PM »

Quote from: colin on July 20, 2009, 08:55:20 PM

why do you keep saying that "he lost millions" as if that was part of the sentencing. that was not dictated by the state. that is just circumstance. if he was poor, would you say he didn't pay enough?

Like I said, I believe you should take non-state penalties into sentencing.

colin · « **Reply #65 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:01:45 PM »

Quote from: blackandgold on July 20, 2009, 09:00:33 PM

Like I said, I believe you should take non-state penalties into sentencing.

so then if he was poor, would you feel the actual sentence was not enough, since he wouldnt have lost millions?

Mrs. Alive · « **Reply #66 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:04:04 PM »

B&G, this has to be the dumbest line of reasoning you've espoused yet.

Johnny Reno · « **Reply #67 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:04:14 PM »

Michael Vick is in trouble? How can I help?

Ellie · « **Reply #68 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:06:08 PM »

Quote from: Johnny Reno on July 20, 2009, 09:04:14 PM

Michael Vick is in trouble? How can I help?

you already have! you are informed!

blackandgold · « **Reply #69 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:08:15 PM »

Quote from: colin on July 20, 2009, 09:01:45 PM

so then if he was poor, would you feel the actual sentence was not enough, since he wouldnt have lost millions?

No, not in this specific case. However, you guys were all saying that he escaped punishment. He lost major cash.

Quote from: Jenna on July 20, 2009, 09:04:04 PM

B&G, this has to be the dumbest line of reasoning you've espoused yet.

That somebody who's no threat to society should be locked up? We already have as high a portion of our population locked up as any society in history. We need to lock less speople up.

blackandgold · « **Reply #70 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:09:32 PM »

Quote from: colin on July 20, 2009, 09:01:45 PM

so then if he was poor, would you feel the actual sentence was not enough, since he wouldnt have lost millions?

For instance, if a middle class person was in Mr. Stallworth's shoes and had to sell his house to pay off the victim's family, I think that should be taken into account.

Mrs. Alive · « **Reply #71 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:10:47 PM »

Quote from: blackandgold on July 20, 2009, 09:08:15 PM

That somebody who's no threat to society should be locked up? We already have as high a portion of our population locked up as any society in history. We need to lock less speople up.

I'm referring to the whole "taking non-state consquences into account" thing. That's just a real bullshit call right there. Like crazy, insano bullshit. It gives free reign to unabashedly dole out harsher sentences to the poor and minorities. That's retarded.

blackandgold · « **Reply #72 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:14:21 PM »

Quote from: Jenna on July 20, 2009, 09:10:47 PM

I'm referring to the whole "taking non-state consquences into account" thing. That's just a real bullshit call right there. Like crazy, insano bullshit. It gives free reign to unabashedly dole out harsher sentences to the poor and minorities. That's retarded.

Not really. For instance, if I got a DUI I would lose my job that I've done since I was 18. I'm not rich, but that would be a non-state consequence of my actions that could be taken into account.

Mrs. Alive · « **Reply #73 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:26:03 PM »

Quote from: blackandgold on July 20, 2009, 09:14:21 PM

Not really. For instance, if I got a DUI I would lose my job that I've done since I was 18. I'm not rich, but that would be a non-state consequence of my actions that could be taken into account.

Yeah, but losing a pizza job isn't as bad as losing millions and millions of dollars, so I guess the state would have to really crack down on your poor ass, huh?

Ellie · « **Reply #74 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:33:06 PM »

losing your job? wow. we're really delving into the retarded here.