Crime and Punishment

[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!

[TheSizzle36]

I don't think that anything is so cut and dry as in this situation this should happen, and in this other situation, else should happen. It's not like you could write a program to enforce the law and give punishment (although it may be an interesting idea to build something that when given facts it provides a judgment based on an algorithm including factors like evidence, demographics, potential to recommit crimes, etc. and let the judge take that into consideration when sentencing). I think you need to factor in a lot of different things, including:

*Type of crime
*Actual harm v. Potential harm (or worst case scenario)
*Intent
*Potential to re-commit crime
*Remorse for committing action (this ties to both intent as well as potential to re-commit crime as well)

As far as DUIs, I think that potential harm should play a factor here. While the intent to harm someone else may be low, the potential harm as well as the potential to re-commit the crime are also very high. I also doubt that somebody who gets pulled over in a DUI incident would have high remorse, unless they seriously injury somebody, and at that point its too late.

Like I said, I don't know that there is a cut and dry solution, I think each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis and go from there.

[UtahDan]

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.

[il Padrino Ute]

I personally feel that DUI is far worse than kicking down two doors looking to beat some stupid kids for throwing water balloons.

The difference, as I see it, is that DUI has innocent victims. Wilson got behind the wheel of a vehicle after drinking too much and had he killed someone, those victims would have done nothing at all to warrant their deaths. I think DUI laws are too soft; otherwise, we wouldn't be hearing about so many multiple repeat offenders.

I'm not defending what Hooks did, but he, in his mind, had a reason to go afterthe balloon throwers and his intent was focussed solely on pounding those throwers into the ground. They wouldn't have been innocent, as they provoked Hooks actions.

I hope that makes sense.