Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
We have consequence-based punishment all the time.
If I get in a DUI accident and the person goes into a coma but miraculously makes a full recovery, I get a vehicular assault charge.
If I get in a DUI accident and the person breaks a leg but an infection sets in causing gangrene and eventual death, I'm gonna get charged with vehicular homicide.
Hell, same wreck twice, but one guy's wearing a seatbelt and walks away unscathed, the other isn't wearing a seatbelt and dies - my punishment will actually vary based on the illegal conduct of the victim.
The system punishes based on the outcome 9 times out of 10.
|
I completely agree.
One of my family members is a district attorney. I have discussed cases like this all the time. One in particular:
Two teens snuck behind a guy at the ATM and told him they had a gun and that they wanted his money. The guy at the ATM had a knife, turned and stabbed one of the kids in the chest, and he later died.
The remaining kid ended up being charged with murder, because a person died as a result of the actions he set forth when he committed an illegal act.
Agree or disagree, there is precedent for DJ's point.
I'm not saying Ravi should be charged with murder, because he shouldn't. The suicide was a separate decision and act. However; he clearly established intent to commit the other crimes. For that he is guilty; because of the severity and clear intent, he should be sentenced more severely.