McMissile

Maybe it's just me, but this seems rather harsh....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17212960/

I saw this story yesterday morning.... the women deserves some kind of serious punishment.... but 2 years in prison? I'm thinking there might be something less servere that will still do the trick... especially since her husband is over seas in the military and she has 2 kids.

Jesse wrote:

I saw this story yesterday morning.... the women deserves some kind of serious punishment.... but 2 years in prison? I'm thinking there might be something less servere that will still do the trick... especially since her husband is over seas in the military and she has 2 kids.

I agree the punishment seems harsh.

BUT......should her circumstances play any role in the punishment she receives? Can't that be construed as a form of discrimination?

It should be taken into consideration.

However I think that what she did was amazing stupid. Think of the multiple car pile up she could have caused and possible injuries or deaths.

However, there could certainly be some punishment... community service with therapy... and lots of it obvioulsy, but something that would help her and not hurt her family....

of course those thoughts are without knowing her, her character, or her family life.

First off - not attacking, I would just like to understand the reasoning. (Just want to clarify that.)

So, Jesse, you think that her circumstances, which are unrelated to and had no bearing on the "crime" she committed, should be taken into consideration when deciding her punishment? From that, it seems that you would be okay with someone else serving two years in prison if they had no children and their husband was not overseas.

I guess I'm confused as to why that has any bearing on the issue. Her husband being overseas had nothing to do with why she was traveling on 95. She was going to a family party. Even if he were home, she may have been the one driving and could have reacted in the same way. Now, her children may have been complaining about sitting in the car for so long, but that still (to me) doesn't give one the right to hurl items at other drivers.

It's like when we were growing up and our parents told us not to do something (here, the law). Yet, we got frustrated one day and did it anyway. Let's say you did it simply because you wanted to, and your sister did it because she wanted to also - but at the same time, she hadn't seen her dad in six months and she had recently fought with her friends. Would that have made a difference in the punishment that you both received?

I think that 2 years in jail is the wrong sentence no matter what her personal circumstances are... if there had been injury to someone or to property than that would change things. Even the driver of the other car that received the drink thinks that the sentence is too much.

But about considering the circumstances before sentencing... yes that should be done. I have to do it all the time when considering a punishment for Gideon. No the circumstances don't make him any less guilty of breaking "the law" and he still receives a punishment, but it has to be weighed with mercy and it has to fit the crime.

I think that's my problem with the situation... the punishment does not fit the crime. Gideon "almost" hurts people all the time (mainly his cousins) but the punishment for that is less servere than when he actually intentionally hurts someone.

Of course I'm thinking about it from an elementary point of view.

Still thinking... but if he intentionally did something to hurt someone and it didn't work the way he planned and the person didn't get hurt... then he would still stand to receive severe punishment.

I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer, jury, or judge.

I agree that the punishment has to fit the crime. No question there. But her circumstances have/had little to no bearing on the action she took.

I understand what you are saying about different punishments for Gideon when he "almost" hurts someone versus hurting someone. I get that. But I'm failing to see the correlation between that type of logic and this issue.

To my way of thinking, if a blue-haired (here, the "circumstance") person and a blonde-haired person both commit a crime, they both should receive the same, suitable punishment. From what I am reading in your posts, you would say the blue-haired person should be given special treatment and consideration. Is that correct? And if so, why?

Just a quick update on the missile launcher. She got off with probation. I believe the sentence she could have received was harsh, but the law is written and the jury pased sentence in accordance with the law. It was left up to the judge to either have mercy or throw the book at her. I believe the right sentence from the judge was given, based on the facts as we see them.

Doink. The sage white haired man to the rescue!

Oh, wait. Just white-feathered. .... You're not white-haired yet, there, Unklee.