If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KOCO Oklahoma City)   Drive while intoxicated and get your 16 year old passenger killed? Ten years....of going to church?   (koco.com) divider line 245
    More: Stupid, Tyler Allred, passengers  
•       •       •

9685 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Nov 2012 at 1:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-17 03:41:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder


Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.
 
2012-11-17 03:43:33 AM

Gunther: This manages to simultaneously be a horrible ruling for two separate reasons; first, it's giving someone guilty of homicide a trivial punishment AND it's giving him a punishment that violates the 1st and 8th amendment. Damn, that judge sucks.

thatboyoverthere: Want to be outraged but the judge pretty much gave the kid a chance to have a life. It's either this or send him to jail for ten years where he gets to be a repeat offender as he would have no education and a man slaughter charge on his record.

He farking killed someone while driving drunk. Ten years might be a little much, but no jail time is pretty far from justice as well.Two years seems fair - he sees a serious consequence to his actions while not permanently ruining his life.


The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt? We aren't talking about some sociopath here but about a person who just lost a friend because of his own actions. His life is already ruined.
 
2012-11-17 03:44:36 AM

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder

Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.


Because alcohol is cool!
 
2012-11-17 03:46:13 AM
I think it would be better for the kid and the community if he was given a massive amount of community service instead. You don't really have to reflect on what you did in church for an hour once a week but spend 10 years worth of Sundays picking up trash on the roadside or preparing meals for the homeless gives you an opportunity to reflect on your life and the world around you.
 
2012-11-17 03:48:20 AM
Seriously, though I believe for murder you deserve to be "locked up" (not necessarily in PMITA prison but something), I'd have been fine with 10 years of heavy, daily community service. Again, put him in a trauma hospital, or cleanup crew for accident or crime scenes, or something of that nature. Really, REALLY make him think about his actions.
 
2012-11-17 03:52:56 AM

DerAppie: The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt?


Are you goddamned serious? You think the penalty for killing someone while driving drunk should be a guilty conscience?

I suppose the penalty for rape in your world is a stern lecture? First degree murder gets you twenty minutes in the naughty chair?
 
2012-11-17 03:55:32 AM
The kid should move to Massachusetts and run for the Senate.
 
2012-11-17 03:55:43 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt?

Are you goddamned serious? You think the penalty for killing someone while driving drunk should be a guilty conscience?

I suppose the penalty for rape in your world is a stern lecture? First degree murder gets you twenty minutes in the naughty chair?


How about the fact that if the same thing had happened a few months later it wouldn't have even been a crime?
 
2012-11-17 04:08:18 AM
More from the American Taliban.
 
2012-11-17 04:15:02 AM

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder

Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.


Murder requires intent.
 
2012-11-17 04:24:33 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt?

Are you goddamned serious? You think the penalty for killing someone while driving drunk should be a guilty conscience?

I suppose the penalty for rape in your world is a stern lecture? First degree murder gets you twenty minutes in the naughty chair?


Yep, that is exactly what I said and also what I meant. But just to clarify, the stern lecture is on the finer points of modesty. If (s)he wasn't dressed like a whore nobody would even consider rape.

/The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone
///16 year old dude could have taken a cab
//If 16 y.o. Dude got hit by a drunk stranger things would be different
 
2012-11-17 04:31:22 AM
If you want to send the kid somewhere that will help him, force him to go to counseling for the next 8-10 years. Even disregarding the 1st Amendment issue, at least there he will talk to someone who has the training to connect with him and help him change instead of just giving him detention for an hour or two on Sundays.
 
2012-11-17 04:32:07 AM
Hmm. I went to church every week for about 10 years and graduated high school already. Does that mean I can get drunk and get my passenger killed and be released for 'time served?'
 
2012-11-17 04:32:48 AM
Really?! Church for killing someone while drunk?! Fark yeah! Nap time. Or act possessed. Whatever, it's better than prison.

This is a really stupid sentence.
 
2012-11-17 04:36:03 AM

vrax: Really?! Church for killing someone while drunk?! Fark yeah! Nap time. Or act possessed. Whatever, it's better than prison.

This is a really stupid sentence.


Yes it is, and the word soup "paragraph" that preceded it wasn't any better.
 
2012-11-17 04:36:08 AM

Securitywyrm: Hmm. I went to church every week for about 10 years and graduated high school already. Does that mean I can get drunk and get my passenger killed and be released for 'time served?'


Just say that Jesus was driving. That has to get you off in these areas. I mean, are they going to deny Jesus? Hell, just say that you were driving, but Jesus turned your water into wine. That cheeky farker!
 
2012-11-17 04:39:23 AM

MrHappyRotter: vrax: Really?! Church for killing someone while drunk?! Fark yeah! Nap time. Or act possessed. Whatever, it's better than prison.

This is a really stupid sentence.

Yes it is, and the word soup "paragraph" that preceded it wasn't any better.


Man, I was just asking for that, wasn't I?
 
2012-11-17 04:44:11 AM
Honestly, all this kid's (using that word because it's the word I use for damn near everybody, nothing to do with age) going to get from 10 years in church is a sore ass and bad knees.

/from the wooden pews and kneelers, you sick farks.

Sitting in church isn't going to do jack for the community other than let the other snot-nosed punks see that they can do stupid shiat without any major consequences, even if their actions cause a death. Make the bastard work for ir.
 
2012-11-17 04:47:07 AM

doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.


Actually, Satan is part of the Judeo-Christian mythology, so it is hardly an Atheist organization.
 
2012-11-17 04:53:40 AM

SurfaceTension: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Actually, Satan is part of the Judeo-Christian mythology, so it is hardly an Atheist organization.


Except that "The Church of Satan" IS an obstinately atheist organization.

Link 

But you know, you've been wrong about everything else so far in the thread. Best not to have a c-c-c-combo breaker moment and just keep your streak alive.
 
2012-11-17 04:59:02 AM

DerAppie: /The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone


Again, that line of "reasoning" would lead you to not punish anyone who felt guilty over their crime. Abusive husband beat his wife to death? Well, he seems pretty broken up over it, so I guess we'll let him off with a warning.
 
2012-11-17 04:59:28 AM

velvet_fog: Gyrfalcon: The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.

I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anybody here; but really, I've got no problem with this. Assuming there's a provision for the kid changing religions or doing community service later if he prefers...why the hell not? Better than making a felon out of a 17-year old.

I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkIN ...


you sound overly concerned.
Get over it.
 
2012-11-17 05:01:37 AM

Securitywyrm: Hmm. I went to church every week for about 10 years and graduated high school already. Does that mean I can get drunk and get my passenger killed and be released for 'time served?'


check the color of your skin first. some of those judges get real testy when the coloreds start gettin 'uppity'
 
2012-11-17 05:06:16 AM

Gyrfalcon: InitialCommentGuy: velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.

I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. ...


This is exactly how I feel about the situation.

I am sure the kid is thinking this is ok too.


//Probably for different reasons.
 
2012-11-17 05:08:11 AM

doglover: SurfaceTension: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Actually, Satan is part of the Judeo-Christian mythology, so it is hardly an Atheist organization.

Except that "The Church of Satan" IS an obstinately atheist organization.

Link 

But you know, you've been wrong about everything else so far in the thread. Best not to have a c-c-c-combo breaker moment and just keep your streak alive.


Well I guess I was wrong. That sounds pretty cool actually. And their high priest and I share the same last name. Even better. Thanks for filling the gap in my knowledge.

You sound like an awfully angry person. What's up with that?

/eip if you want to discuss offline
 
2012-11-17 05:10:59 AM

WorldCitizen: I agree except I think 10 years of community service would have been a better way to go about it. 10 years of benefiting others seems a better way to go and doesn't violate the Constitution.


This. So much this. Religion in no way, shape or form should be involved in court sentencing. You feel he should have a way to turn his life around and make him a benefit to society? Fine. Have him spend it helping people rather than sitting on his ass in a church every Sunday - which in no way even comes close to attempting to make up his debt to society.
 
2012-11-17 05:14:40 AM

Gyrfalcon: I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. Yes, vehicular manslaughter is an awful crime. Yes, somebody died. But the "killer" in this case is a kid. He has a chance at this point to turn his life around and remedy the terrible error he made.


Little chestnut. Whats the difference morally between getting drunk, driving and almost hitting someone, and actually running them over? Seems the major difference between Mr served time for manslaughter and Mr has a good story is pure luck.
 
2012-11-17 05:17:34 AM
What if he wants to convert to Judaism or Islam?
If goes on Sunday and Wednesday, can he cut it down to 5 years?
If he converts to Judaism and Islam, can he cut it down to 5 years?
If he is devoutly Islamic praying 5 times a day or can find a Catholic church still saying mass every day, can he cut it down to 18 months?
What if he completes seminary?
Does the Slacker church have services?
Can't he form his own religion?
 
2012-11-17 05:24:26 AM
Did the terms specify if he had to stay awake?
Sleeping in the pew for the win! Bring along an Ipod and a lounge chair. Maybe a cooler with some beverages and snacks?
 
2012-11-17 05:25:14 AM

ISO15693: fusillade762: Nofun: The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)?

The fact that it specifies going on Sunday should give you a hint.

Haha. I just realized... if he chooses 7th day adventists for his church, he can go every sunday, see that the doors are locked, and go home.


Ohhh, that's not true. Seventh Day Adventist churches are pretty easy going in regards to their physical real estate. A smaller church will use the church of another friendly denomination - which will be open on Sunday - to do its own service. Larger Seventh Day Adventist churches often have another denomination use their churches on Sunday as well. In my observation, its normally foreign language services for immigrants, but nonetheless there is still a Christian church service all weekend long.
 
2012-11-17 05:25:43 AM
Ok real question time.

Your kid had a beer drove home killed his friend due to a squirrel in the road or some shiat. Does he deserve 10 years of prison? Do you think if his lawyer got the Judge to commit him to 10 years of Church/Community service/Psychiatric counseling you wouldn't take it in a heart beat?

//Just because you don't have faith does not mean that others don't.

//Give the kid the benefit of the doubt there isn't enough data to be such assholes in this case.
 
2012-11-17 05:27:45 AM

yousaywut: there isn't enough data to be such assholes in this case.


[welcometofark.jpg]
 
2012-11-17 05:29:06 AM

Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?


You can't stand atheists? I can't stand superstitious idiots.
 
2012-11-17 05:29:48 AM

ruta: Another quandary: if this kid has to take drug and alcohol tests for the next year, is he therefore restricted to the grape juice communion denominations only?


A nice glass of orange juice will put you at 0.004 or so. I had person refused admittance to the Victim's Impact Panel because of such a test. I had to get a toxicologist's affidavit. I think most any fruit juice will work.
 
2012-11-17 05:30:03 AM

SurfaceTension: You sound like an awfully angry person. What's up with that?


The sky is azure, but people call it sky blue.
 
2012-11-17 05:36:55 AM

starsrift: yousaywut: there isn't enough data to be such assholes in this case.

[welcometofark.jpg]


true
 
2012-11-17 05:37:38 AM

doglover: SurfaceTension: You sound like an awfully angry person. What's up with that?

The sky is azure, but people call it sky blue.


funnied
 
2012-11-17 05:37:56 AM

snark puppet: The kid should move to Massachusetts and run for the Senate.


Or move to Texas and become First Lady.
 
2012-11-17 05:41:31 AM
I can't imagine the levels of condescension he will experience in the lion's den of judgement. Excuse me, I don't really know anything about this chuch... I'm just thinking of every single practicing religious person i've ever encountered.
 
2012-11-17 05:51:32 AM

Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.


Article doesn't say, but I'm sure this was more along the lines of these are the probation terms you must follow in order to avoid prison.

If he objects to church so much he can man up and serve time. Me? I'd much prefer to spend 1-2 hours in church once a week for 10 years than spend a single night in prison and it would probably be more beneficial. Say what you want about religion but there are some positive aspects to it and the church doesn't actually force you to believe everything they say.

Take what you need and you leave the rest,

The kid was an inexperienced driver and an inexperienced drinker and on top of that he was a teenager. This is a much better idea for everyone compared to sending the kid to prison.
 
2012-11-17 05:57:42 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: /The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone

Again, that line of "reasoning" would lead you to not punish anyone who felt guilty over their crime. Abusive husband beat his wife to death? Well, he seems pretty broken up over it, so I guess we'll let him off with a warning.


If you really can't see the difference between someone being in an accident (while having less than the legally allowed amount of alcohol in his blood) with a lethal consequence and someone beating his wife to death, then I truly feel sorry for you.

The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident. He does not, I repeat, not deserve to have his life ruined over it. Feeling guilty does not excuse most crimes, but here? There was no intent, there was no malice, nothing. Just a stupid accident. Feeling guilty because your friend died in an accident should be all the punishment required. Even the family of the guy who died don't want him in jail.
 
2012-11-17 05:58:46 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: How did he get off so lightly? Instead of being angered by being sentenced to church attendance, I am livid over a drunken 17-year-old who ends up killing his 16-year-old passenger being sentenced to being a good kid for ten years. This is madness!

I do not believe in imprisoning people for its own sake, but clearly there was a huge crime here and a person died as a result. Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of maturity is not justice.


So if he had gotten into a car accident and killed his 16-year-old passenger and he was totally sober what should the sentence be?

Because you don't cause a fatal accident without doing something really horrible like running a red light or entering a curve at way too high a rate of speed or driving into opposing lanes of traffic or something along those lines.

The article doesn't say how drunk he was or how the accident played out. You just want to hang someone because OMG they drove after having a drink.
 
2012-11-17 06:09:17 AM

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder

Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.


From another article: Alred was under the state's legal alcohol limit

It seems that alcohol was not the determining factor in this accident. More than likely being a stupid 16 year old who just got his license and was an inexperienced driver was. 

You're just another neo-prohibitionist.
 
2012-11-17 06:18:10 AM
Is he a Kennedy?
 
2012-11-17 06:26:37 AM
Church of Satan.
 
2012-11-17 06:39:00 AM

DerAppie: The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident. He does not, I repeat, not deserve to have his life ruined over it.


In 1972, 55,000 Americans died in car accidents. Last year, that number was more like 30,000, despite there being far, far more cars on the road. What changed? well, for one thing, we're a little better at treating the sort of injuries you get in a car accident. For another, modern cars are a little safer.

But the main difference is the change in attitude people have towards irresponsible driving. You treat it like a crime, you change societal attitudes towards it it and you freakin' punish people severely for it and you save thousands of lives a year.

This guy got a 16 year old killed through his own negligence. He is a criminal. Treating him like a criminal will help save lives.
 
2012-11-17 06:43:43 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident. He does not, I repeat, not deserve to have his life ruined over it.

In 1972, 55,000 Americans died in car accidents. Last year, that number was more like 30,000, despite there being far, far more cars on the road. What changed? well, for one thing, we're a little better at treating the sort of injuries you get in a car accident. For another, modern cars are a little safer.

But the main difference is the change in attitude people have towards irresponsible driving. You treat it like a crime, you change societal attitudes towards it it and you freakin' punish people severely for it and you save thousands of lives a year.

This guy got a 16 year old killed through his own negligence. He is a criminal. Treating him like a criminal will help save lives.


He was under the legal limit. The victim's own family supported the defendant in court. You also do not know anything about what contributed to the crash. Saying that the defendant should have his life ruined when you do not even know the specifics of the incident is just a knee-jerk reaction.
 
2012-11-17 06:50:11 AM

DerAppie: Gunther: DerAppie: /The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone

Again, that line of "reasoning" would lead you to not punish anyone who felt guilty over their crime. Abusive husband beat his wife to death? Well, he seems pretty broken up over it, so I guess we'll let him off with a warning.

If you really can't see the difference between someone being in an accident (while having less than the legally allowed amount of alcohol in his blood) with a lethal consequence and someone beating his wife to death, then I truly feel sorry for you.

The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident.


I cannot agree that driving while intoxicated and killing someone is an "unfortunate accident".

Just because you are under the legal limit does not mean you were not impaired. Everyone reacts differently to alcohol, and unless this teen was drinking regularly already, it's not likely his tolerance was very high. The legal limit only means that you will automatically be charged with a DUI after that point. It does not mean you cannot be convicted if you are driving while still beneath it. It means it has to be proved that you driving abilities were impacted by the alcohol.
 
2012-11-17 06:52:55 AM

Gunther: But the main difference is the change in attitude people have towards irresponsible driving. You treat it like a crime, you change societal attitudes towards it it and you freakin' punish people severely for it and you save thousands of lives a year.


Do you really believe that? Attitudes towards drunk driving have certainly gotten more serious, but it wasn't a joke before MADD either.

People drive irresponsibly all the time and it is treated like a joke. You run a red light? You're probably not going to get caught and if you do you get a very minor ticket and you're allowed to keep on driving. Meanwhile this kid wasn't even over the legal limit and people want him to spend years in prison - not because he did something stupid while driving but because he had a couple of drinks which did NOT even put him over the legal limit before he drove.

This article and another one I read about the incident didn't even explain how he crashed. But by golly we know he had a couple of drinks and that's what killed his passenger. If he hadn't had anything to drink and he had done the same thing to cause the accident we'd all be wringing our hands and saying what a shame it was that this good boy's friend was killed in an accident.

It's time to stop that. If you get behind the wheel and drive like an idiot you should be charged criminally - not some measly civil citation as most traffic tickets are. You run a red light? That's gotta be a misdemeanor with possible jail time. Failure to yield the right of way? Same thing. Even speeding should be on the table and I say that as someone who sometimes exceeds the speed limit. Maybe keep the first 10 over the limit as a minor traffic infraction, but if you creep up into 15-20-25 mph over the speed limit? That's intent right there. You know you're speeding when you violate the law by that much and it should be treated as a crime.

That would be a "change in attitude". Making it harder to get a driver's license would be a "change in attitude". This hard-on you and MADD get for people with a teeny bit of alcohol in their blood when they drive is nothing but a revival of the temperance movement.
 
2012-11-17 06:55:36 AM

Happy Hours: Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.

Article doesn't say, but I'm sure this was more along the lines of these are the probation terms you must follow in order to avoid prison.

If he objects to church so much he can man up and serve time. Me? I'd much prefer to spend 1-2 hours in church once a week for 10 years than spend a single night in prison and it would probably be more beneficial. Say what you want about religion but there are some positive aspects to it and the church doesn't actually force you to believe everything they say.

Take what you need and you leave the rest,

The kid was an inexperienced driver and an inexperienced drinker and on top of that he was a teenager. This is a much better idea for everyone compared to sending the kid to prison.


Beneficial? Are you serious? Beneficial to whom? Taxpayers, because they don't have to pay for his room and board? The kid, because he's getting off easy for utilizing a complete lack of judgement resulting in the death of another person?

Teach him public speaking and have him talk to other teens about underage drinking or have him give talks in drivers ed classes about using good judgement, have him play with abused kids at a child crisis center, converse with or read to patients at a hospital or elderly care facility, serve food at a homeless shelters, pick up garbage on the side of the freeway etc. You could come up with any number of activities that would be far, far more beneficial to the community and to him than having him sit and twiddle his thumbs in church for an hour or two a week.

This "punishment" isn't beneficial to anyone... it's a lazy, ineffectual, feel-good judgement and it's absolute crap.
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report