Oklahoma Teen Sentenced To Ten Years Of Church As Manslaughter Punishment

reply to post by muzzleflash


Yes, I do disagree with it. Justice is supposed to be blind and impartial.
And being stupid should not be rewarded with mercy.

If the family is unwilling to seek justice through some misguided illusion of compassion or goodwill, the State should pursue justice on behalf of the victim.

The victim was his best friend...knowing he killed his best friend is a punishment he will live with the rest of his life.
But sure, throw him in with the real criminals..........

But in OK, we like to use some common sense, which seems to not be common in the rest of the country.

Hmm some people are going to cry foul.

Prison and ending up the BF of a guy named Big Lou or Go to church for 10 years ?

He did get off lucky.

The problem here is that peoples hatred for religion blinds them to rational decision making processes.
You can disagree or ignore, you dont have to let it lead you to anger and spite.

No two people can agree on everything even if of the same religion.
It seems to me everyone has their own unique religion, and I certainly dont agree fully with any ones point of view.

What is really of utmost importance in upholding civility is mutual respect for each others culture. Tolerance doesnt mean you agree, it means you respect individual freedom for us each to choose our own path.

Tragedies from accidents will always happen, its inevitable.
Punishment comes in many ways for every mistake we make.

Containing and isolating people is meant to protect us from psychpathic criminals, not scared kids who made horiffic mistakes.

reply to post by watchitburn


You said no mercy for stupid mistakes, of which your post ironically mirrored, so I will set an example and show you mercy by only giving you a warning shot, rather than the full broadside.

You said if the kin wont seek severe punishment, the State should step in and do it. Well than whats the point of having kin represent them in the first place. The State will always step in, that means everyone will always be prosecuted arbitrarily to the fullest extent. That will double or triple current prison populations which are already bigger than Chinas. Is that the solution?

That would make family legally meaningless and the state would claim estates etc as well since the same legal principle is at stake. Next of kin have legal rights in our system.

reply to post by watchitburn



Who defines Justice?
Everyone defines justice for themself.
The problem is when you think you have the authority to define justice for everyone else.

I dont agree with your twisted version of justice.
You seem to want full punishment for all crimes, no case by case basis, no due process, no legal rights for kin.

I am sorry but I am glad we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us from complete unrestrained tyranny.

reply to post by muzzleflash


You are taking my words and trying to paint a very different picture than I am.

Drunk driving, while underage, and killing someone is not merely a stupid mistake. That is up there on the mountaintop of easily avoidable stupid.

And then you just blatantly put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Did I say he should be locked up at all? I did not. (though a few months in county jail wouldn't be unreasonable)
Did I say everyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent each time? I did not.

But being sentenced to church should not fit anyone's definition of justice in this case.
I even mentioned community service and speaking to other teenagers about the dangers of drinking and driving.

I have no problem giving people the benefit of the doubt, most of the time. But the fact of the matter is that this guy killed someone while driving drunk, and he got sentenced to church.

I think while some judges may take excessive liberties with their position when doling out punishments in either direction, most of them do the best job they can. And the rule of law is in place for a reason, and most of the time it works. But I cannot agree with this case.

I actually agree with most of what you have said in this thread, whether I like it or not.
But your last two posts are picking an imaginary argument for whatever your reasons are. Frankly I'm just disappointed. I've come to respect you in the few years I've been here.

But this? You're better than this.

10 years of church?

Cruel and unusual doesn't begin to describe.