Quote:
Originally Posted by DrumNFeather
Should people charged with a crime be judged based on what happened or what could've happened?
Do we immediately go for the worst case scenario? Or do we give the benefit of the doubt?
A couple of examples: (And I preface this by saying that I'm not trying to justify a lighter sentance for Marquis Wilson, because that will be the assumption here. I'm not doing that, I'm just asking questions because I honestly don't know how seriously intent and potential ramifications are taken when considering criminal cases).
The Hockey incident with Chris Simon:
Simon comes across and hits the opposing player in the face with his stick. Simon is given 25 games and not charged criminally because the player did not get severly hurt.
The Hockey incident with Todd Bartuzi or Marty Mcsorely:
Both included instances of Violence on the ice that resulted in the other players being out long term...both incidents lead to criminal charges being pressed.
The Hooks & Soto but now just Hooks incident:
Hooks kicks down a couple of doors in reaction to a water baloon being thrown at his girlfriend. Nothing really happens other than some broken doors and scared UVSC students.
Does the court look at intent? Does the court look at the worst case scenario and judge him based on that?
Marquis Wilson, Rashaun Broadus get DUIs. Nobody is hurt, but we all know the potential tragedies that driving drunk can cause. Are these guys judged more harshly because of what could've happened while they were behind the wheel rather than what actually happened?
Like I said, not really seeking for a lighter penalty. I'm just curious to know if intent or ramifications are considered in cases where neither come to fruition.
Any insights would be appreciated!
|
I think all these things are important. Clearly we punish differently based upon state of mind. If I shoot you because I have a siezure holding a gun, I'm guilty of nothing. If I do it negligently, recklessly, in the heat of passion, intetionally or having planned it out in advance, each one of those is treated differently.
Of course attempt crimes are punished at a lower level than completed offenses in most cases, so that even if I intend to shoot you and miss I'm still guilty of something, but the outcome matters.
Context is important too, in otherwords, how outrageous does it seem? I stood in court last week and saw the same judge setence a guy who broke another guy's orbital bone with a punch in a bar to 10 active days. Not one hour later, two other guys who came to a third man's workplace (a restaurant where he washed dishes) and beat him up, but didn't seriously hurt him, were given 6 active months a piece. Where it occurred made a big difference.
It also makes a difference whether it is something within common experience. IOW, is this something that could happen to a regular person? I can tell you for example that a case where a normally upstanding citizen with no record has one too many drinks at dinner and blows a .08 on the way home is a radically different case than the one where I guy goes out at 2:00 am, buys a case, starts drinking on the way home and also blows a .08. In one case, a court or prosecutor is much more likely to give the benefit of the doubt that the other.