▲ 552 ▼ Ohio teen dubbed 'hell on wheels' after killing her boyfriend and his friend in a crash is sentenced to 15 years to life (www.nbcnews.com) submitted 2 years ago by 18_24_61_b_17_17_4@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 212 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) There's a middle ground between life in prison and just a slap on the wrist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) I agree. 15 years is hardly "life" in prison, though. I think it's more than fair. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) People change. They get better. The guy who shot Reagan got better, and they let him out. Now he writes love songs and posts them on YouTube, and sells his paintings on eBay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] melonlord@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) The guy who shot Reagan was already better. /S permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 27 points 2 years ago Better if he'd hit the goddamn range once or twice... permalink fedilink source parent [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 15 years seems like a perfectly adequate amount of time for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I'm okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it. I'd like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don't think either of us would have said "But surely it can be done in 15." It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that's interesting to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh it's completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Comment105@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does "15 years to life" mean anything? Or is it just "15 years"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MajorJimmy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Means there's a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago On one hand, yes. On the other hand, 17+15 is 32. Think of all of the things you do to get your life started between 17 and 32 and where you'd be if you'd waited to do the stuff you did at 17 until you were 32. That's a whole lot of life and life experience there. Such a stupid senseless waste all around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (3 children) I agree. 15 years is hardly "life" in prison, though. I think it's more than fair. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) People change. They get better. The guy who shot Reagan got better, and they let him out. Now he writes love songs and posts them on YouTube, and sells his paintings on eBay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] melonlord@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) The guy who shot Reagan was already better. /S permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 27 points 2 years ago Better if he'd hit the goddamn range once or twice... permalink fedilink source parent [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 15 years seems like a perfectly adequate amount of time for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I'm okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it. I'd like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don't think either of us would have said "But surely it can be done in 15." It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that's interesting to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh it's completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Comment105@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does "15 years to life" mean anything? Or is it just "15 years"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MajorJimmy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Means there's a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago On one hand, yes. On the other hand, 17+15 is 32. Think of all of the things you do to get your life started between 17 and 32 and where you'd be if you'd waited to do the stuff you did at 17 until you were 32. That's a whole lot of life and life experience there. Such a stupid senseless waste all around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (2 children) People change. They get better. The guy who shot Reagan got better, and they let him out. Now he writes love songs and posts them on YouTube, and sells his paintings on eBay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] melonlord@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) The guy who shot Reagan was already better. /S permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 27 points 2 years ago Better if he'd hit the goddamn range once or twice... permalink fedilink source parent [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 15 years seems like a perfectly adequate amount of time for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I'm okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it. I'd like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don't think either of us would have said "But surely it can be done in 15." It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that's interesting to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh it's completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] melonlord@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) The guy who shot Reagan was already better. /S permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 27 points 2 years ago Better if he'd hit the goddamn range once or twice... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 27 points 2 years ago Better if he'd hit the goddamn range once or twice... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 15 years seems like a perfectly adequate amount of time for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I'm okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it. I'd like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don't think either of us would have said "But surely it can be done in 15." It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that's interesting to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh it's completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I'm okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it. I'd like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don't think either of us would have said "But surely it can be done in 15." It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that's interesting to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh it's completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Oh it's completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does "15 years to life" mean anything? Or is it just "15 years"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MajorJimmy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Means there's a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MajorJimmy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Means there's a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago On one hand, yes. On the other hand, 17+15 is 32. Think of all of the things you do to get your life started between 17 and 32 and where you'd be if you'd waited to do the stuff you did at 17 until you were 32. That's a whole lot of life and life experience there. Such a stupid senseless waste all around. permalink fedilink source parent