[DuckDodgers]

Since when is bad parenting an even reasonable excuse for this behavior?  Oh, those poor gang members had troubled home lives and were neglected, let's send them to a facility for a year or two and give them probation (I know there isn't a parallel between the two but you open up a possibility that a violent criminal can use this "defense").

Yaakov, I wouldn't be surprised if that were true but I have not heard about the judge being threatened.

[DDDDAts all folks]

I think the punishment is just.

I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.

There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.

And they get punished for it. My point is not moot. An expensive lawyer has been used to reduce this kids punishment. What lesson is this kid learning? it seems to me the system is adding to the supposed abuse his parents have been giving him over the years, by doing exactly the same as them, and not punishing him appropriately.

I'm willing to bet this kid will commit even further crimes (possibly) more serious in the future.

You have failed to explain how the punishment is inappropriate.

It's inappropriate for the victims who have lost their lives, it's inappropriate for the justice system being perceived as a deterrent and it's inappropriate for the kid because he's getting away with it (which is apparently adding to his abuse); I'm not convinced he has learnt his lesson.

I'm convinced this kid will probably commit another crime.

[Rama Set]

I think the punishment is just.

I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.

There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.

And they get punished for it. My point is not moot. An expensive lawyer has been used to reduce this kids punishment. What lesson is this kid learning? it seems to me the system is adding to the supposed abuse his parents have been giving him over the years, by doing exactly the same as them, and not punishing him appropriately.

I'm willing to bet this kid will commit even further crimes (possibly) more serious in the future.

You have failed to explain how the punishment is inappropriate.

It's inappropriate for the victims who have lost their lives, it's inappropriate for the justice system being perceived as a deterrent and it's inappropriate for the kid because he's getting away with it (which is apparently adding to his abuse); I'm not convinced he has learnt his lesson.

I'm convinced this kid will probably commit another crime.

Fortunately your belief has little to do with the facts of the matter. We do not practice retributive biblical justice anymore, especially not on minors, thankfully. The sentence is not for the victims, that is what civil suits are for. Criminal sentences are to protect the best interest of society and hopefully rehabilitate the convict.

[DuckDodgers]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/12/3053821/teen-killed-sentenced-probation-testimony-suffers-affluenza/
The same judge sentenced a 19 year old to 8 years for intoxicated manslaughter when his passenger was killed.  Tell me again how money didn't play a role?

[DDDDAts all folks]

I think the punishment is just.

I disagree, there are other kids who have been brought up in even worse circumstances but don't commit crime.

There are kids brought up in worse circumstances who do commit crime. Your point seems moot.

And they get punished for it. My point is not moot. An expensive lawyer has been used to reduce this kids punishment. What lesson is this kid learning? it seems to me the system is adding to the supposed abuse his parents have been giving him over the years, by doing exactly the same as them, and not punishing him appropriately.

I'm willing to bet this kid will commit even further crimes (possibly) more serious in the future.

You have failed to explain how the punishment is inappropriate.

It's inappropriate for the victims who have lost their lives, it's inappropriate for the justice system being perceived as a deterrent and it's inappropriate for the kid because he's getting away with it (which is apparently adding to his abuse); I'm not convinced he has learnt his lesson.

I'm convinced this kid will probably commit another crime.

Fortunately your belief has little to do with the facts of the matter. We do not practice retributive biblical justice anymore, especially not on minors, thankfully. The sentence is not for the victims, that is what civil suits are for. Criminal sentences are to protect the best interest of society and hopefully rehabilitate the convict.

Well the best interest for society is to remove him from it so he can't do it again. Do you agree with the death penalty? Personally I don't

There is a balance to be struck and I think the justice system concentrates on the criminal far too much and not enough on the victim or their debt to society for commiting a crime

What effects that balance? I think it has less to do with the benefit to society and more to do with the cost of rehabilitating and keeping these people in prison for the appropriate amount of time.

If one of your loved ones got killed tomorrow by a murderer and they only got a few weeks in prison because its been assessed they will never do it again and there's no benefit to society keeping them behind bars, would you be happy? Would you think that justice had been done?

[Rama Set]

Having prisons teeming with prisoners is not best for society because it is incredibly expensive.  More expensive than getting them therapy that is for certain.  No I do not believe in the death penalty.

The justice system is not there to get retribution for victims, that is misconstruing its purpose.  That is, by defnition, a private matter and to be settled in a civil suit.  The criminal justice system is there to punish or rehabilitate offenders as it is appropriate.

I would argue that the question of rehabilitation or incarceration should be answered based upon what will benefit society most.

I doubt I would be happy at any sentence for a murderer because it would never replace a loved one.  However, I feel like people keep forgetting that this is a 16 year-old we are talking about here.  I would like to think I have enough compassion to see that a long period of time in jail will not be as good for a teenager as counselling would be.  If it was my loved one, maybe I wouldn't, but as I mentioned above, the criminal justice system is not there to get retribution for the victims.

[DuckDodgers]

Are you saying that we should do away with prisons and only place criminals into therapy programs?

I'm standing my ground in the belief that such a light sentence only reinforces the issue that caused this situation to begin with, the belief that those with money are special and their wealth will protect them from punishments.

[Alchemist21]

I was thinking, what are the actual terms of this kid's probation, how close an eye are they going to keep on him, and what happens if he violates probation?

[DuckDodgers]

10 years jail for violation, I'll believe that when it happens.  I'm not sure of the terms outside of counseling at the California clinic for 2 years with no contact from his parents.

[Rama Set]

Are you saying that we should do away with prisons and only place criminals into therapy programs?

I'm standing my ground in the belief that such a light sentence only reinforces the issue that caused this situation to begin with, the belief that those with money are special and their wealth will protect them from punishments.

I would never say that, I never have said that. Incarceration is appropriate in cases where there is a clear and present danger of recidivism and harm to the general public. However, it is pretty well-established that incarceration is not a very good deterrent to or rehabilitator of criminal behavior. Being as we are talking about an adolescent I think incarceration would likely do more harm than good to the boy.

[DuckDodgers]

A few years of incarceration could send the message that he can't get away with killing people

[Rama Set]

Maybe, but again, incarceration is not a very effective deterrent. In Canada, recidivismgoes up as prison sentences get longer and it is more expensive for the taxpayer.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_iandc_complex.pdf
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffcts-prsn-sntncs-rcdvsm/index-eng.aspx#eff2

[Snupes]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/12/3053821/teen-killed-sentenced-probation-testimony-suffers-affluenza/
The same judge sentenced a 19 year old to 8 years for intoxicated manslaughter when his passenger was killed.  Tell me again how money didn't play a role?

Is comparing this kid's case to the case of an adult really the same thing?

[Rama Set]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/12/3053821/teen-killed-sentenced-probation-testimony-suffers-affluenza/
The same judge sentenced a 19 year old to 8 years for intoxicated manslaughter when his passenger was killed.  Tell me again how money didn't play a role?

Is comparing this kid's case to the case of an adult really the same thing?

This. There is a big difference between sentencing an adult and a minor.

[DuckDodgers]

There are a grand total of 3 years difference and the circumstances between the two are vastly different.  For one, the 19 year old killed his passenger, it can be assumed the passenger willingly and knowingly put himself into harms way by getting in the vehicle.  These 4 victims did nothing to contribute to their own deaths.  It's also been mentioned that this teen has an intellectual age of 18 and an emotional age of 13.  He knows there are consequences to his actions (knowledge of an 18 year old) and refuses to care about them (attitude of a 13 year old).

[model 29]

Criminal sentences are to protect the best interest of society and hopefully rehabilitate the convict.

Then lock him away for a couple years so the streets will be safer (best interest for society) and let him get the cold hard reality/slap in the face that he can't buy his way out of trouble when he does stupid stuff (rehabilitate the convict)

what happens if he violates probation?

Given his current sentence as an indicator, probably a 'stern word or two' from the authorities.

[Rama Set]

There are a grand total of 3 years difference and the circumstances between the two are vastly different.  For one, the 19 year old killed his passenger, it can be assumed the passenger willingly and knowingly put himself into harms way by getting in the vehicle.  These 4 victims did nothing to contribute to their own deaths.  It's also been mentioned that this teen has an intellectual age of 18 and an emotional age of 13.  He knows there are consequences to his actions (knowledge of an 18 year old) and refuses to care about them (attitude of a 13 year old).

3 years at that age can be a significant jump. I know I was quite a lot more mature at 19 than I was at 16 than I was at 13. It's also dangerous to start making judgments based on some factoid being bandied about regarding his developmental stage. I would want to see a lot more context behind a pronouncement like that.

[Rama Set]

Criminal sentences are to protect the best interest of society and hopefully rehabilitate the convict.

Then lock him away for a couple years so the streets will be safer (best interest for society) and let him get the cold hard reality/slap in the face that he can't buy his way out of trouble when he does stupid stuff (rehabilitate the convict)

Given that prison increases the likelihood of recidivism, locking the boy up is not likely to increase anyone's safety. He didn't buy himself out of anything, that is a red herring. The logic was that since his parents were wealthy he had a shitty upbringing. No one is contending that his parents got him off by hiring Johnny Cochrane or something. Even so, this 16 year old has no say in his defense, it is legally his parents purview. So on your logic, you are punishing him for something he did not do (buy his way out of the situation).

[DuckDodgers]

There are a grand total of 3 years difference and the circumstances between the two are vastly different.  For one, the 19 year old killed his passenger, it can be assumed the passenger willingly and knowingly put himself into harms way by getting in the vehicle.  These 4 victims did nothing to contribute to their own deaths.  It's also been mentioned that this teen has an intellectual age of 18 and an emotional age of 13.  He knows there are consequences to his actions (knowledge of an 18 year old) and refuses to care about them (attitude of a 13 year old).

3 years at that age can be a significant jump. I know I was quite a lot more mature at 19 than I was at 16 than I was at 13. It's also dangerous to start making judgments based on some factoid being bandied about regarding his developmental stage. I would want to see a lot more context behind a pronouncement like that.

The same psychologist which gave him the afluenza defense is the one which gave those developmental ages.

[Rama Set]

That's who did it, but I want to see the context of those assessments and also know what the psychologist thinks of those assessments. No offense, but your summation of the characteristics of the assessments are pretty self-serving.