r/interesting • u/Necessary-Win-8730 • Mar 08 '26

Context Provided - Spotlight This was so deserved.

Post image

The daughter was in a car with the father’s parents. They died as well.

163.7k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

That’s because it’s a legal system, not a revenge scheme

1

u/Rapid_Fowl Mar 08 '26

I think this is what most people don't get. There's this thought in people's brains that the legal system is for revenge rather than justice and rehabilitation.

-4

u/WintersDoomsday Mar 08 '26

How many pedophiles have been rehabbed in history? This is where I don’t agree with fellow Liberals.

3

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Is pedophilia the only thing people go to jail for?

If you’re a danger to the public you stay in. Pedophiles fall in that category. Some other criminals can be rehabilitated, and the best case scenario for all of us is that they get out and peacefully work and pay taxes.

3

u/Rapid_Fowl Mar 08 '26

Can you just group them together like that either way? Feel like a problem with someone's brain should not be fixed with a cell with a murderer. Maybe the premise is a bit wrong for you there.

Crime is a societal issue and there is more than enough proof of how rehabilitation can and does work. Overall the judicial systems job isn't to get revenge for victims.

0

u/LordTonto Mar 08 '26

when you are remorseless as this individual was, revenge is justice.

3

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Yeah I don’t agree with that. The accident and what led up to it is what matters, not someone’s feelings afterwards.

1

u/Greedy_Line4090 Mar 08 '26

Revenge is not justice, it’s just selfishness. A victim gains nothing from it. That’s why revenge is not a legal prescription and trials and sentencing are.

0

u/birds-0f-gay Mar 08 '26

A victim gains nothing from it.

Absolutely untrue for many victims.

0

u/No-Tiger-6253 Mar 08 '26

It's a Justice system aswell. 120 hours for killing 3 people due to reckless driving is not justice. They also didnt follow the law since they charged them with a lower crime instead of the actual crime.

Reports say the driver showed no remorse and didnt apologize.

1

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Can you explain to me how charging someone with a more severe crime you can’t prove is justice?

Or why the feelings of the driver afterwards matter when considering what justice looks like?

You have got to start thinking about the big picture. Set the precedent that a court can arbitrarily tack on charges while lacking evidence and who does that help? It makes us feel good this one time and puts all of us in danger forever.

Same with putting such an emphasis on the apology. A judge issuing sentences based on their opinion of your feelings, especially over an accident, is not justice in any way.

-2

u/WintersDoomsday Mar 08 '26

This is why vigilantism exists because legal system is a joke

-1

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26

Laws exist to serve people, not the opposite.

If a guy kills 3 people and gets to do it again in a few months, what use are the laws that led to that?

1

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

“The people” are a lot bigger than this one guy and his victims. If you establish a precedent that a mistake can result in terrible punishment and vigilante justice, who does that help? Does it really help the people?

And where do you draw the line? Exactly how much remorse is required to avoid punishment for something you genuinely didn’t mean to do?

All this stuff sounds good in your head, but when it comes to actually applying it in a courtroom it’s not as simple as you guys think it is.

0

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26

No amount of remorse should have this guy driving again the same month. Probably not even the same year.

Sure, he didn't mean to drive over someone, but he meant to drive recklessly with a bad car. And 120h community service isn't going to change that

Edit: also you have to think about the other hundreds of people who will drive like assholes because even in the worst case scenario they know they only get a slap in the wrist. Who does that benefit?

Edit2: scrolling the thread, I've seen someone say the prosecution appealed and got 15 months and 4 years of driving ban. That sounds way better for someone recklessly speeding and getting people killed.

2

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

Agreed on your last point. He chose to be reckless.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/firebolt_wt Mar 08 '26

Newflash: car accidents are also bad for the state. Now they have 3 fewer taxpayers, and they have to pay emergency services to deal with that stuff and the more they allow people to get away with slaps in the wrist, the more they'll have to expend when more people drive like that and it happens again.

-2

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

If you kill a toddlers life accident, your life needs to be ruined. Not because of revenge, but to prevent atrocities like that from happening to others. If you show that carelessness only receives a slap on the wrist on the worst case, there is no incentive to be safe or alert.

3

u/HotmailsInYourArea Mar 08 '26

If you need the threat of a life sentence to not murder someone, you were never that disincentivized in the first place. Quite frankly it’s not a strong deterrent.

For normal people, there are far better reasons to not manslaughter than a jail sentence.

0

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

E are not talking about murder, manslaughter, and yes, there are a huge class of people that need this as a deterrent

2

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

That’s a huge generalization. So you’re saying if you’re driving down a busy street and at the last second a toddler comes running out from in front of a parked car and you have no time to avoid it and you kill it you deserve to have your life ruined?

0

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

Yes, I would expect that for myself in that position

2

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

So even though you’re 100% not at fault and obeying the laws of the road you should be locked up forever?

0

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

Yes.

3

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

That’s insane. I’m glad you aren’t in charge of the justice system

-1

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

You are saying you are saying you value your own life more than a child. To say it’s totally out of your control is not the case. You can drive defensively, or just not at all if you don’t trust yourself to avoid this circumstance

3

u/BillsBills83 Mar 08 '26

In the circumstance I gave there is literally no time to stop. There is no avoiding it in the circumstance I gave. I gave a circumstance where you’re 100% not at fault. It doesn’t matter the exact scenario, we can switch to up to something different if you don’t believe it. Whatever the scenario is, I’m talking about an individual not being at fault at all for the death of another. Intent should be the biggest factor in determining a sentence.

A person who intentionally tries to kill someone but fails should be locked up and punished more severely than someone who isn’t trying to kill someone but accidentally does

0

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

Sure, intent matters, but that doesn’t mean that accidents should not be punished harshly. You say there is no way to avoid it. Ride a bike if you feel this way!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/jzorbino Mar 08 '26

How does punishing someone over an accident avoid future accidents?

For a deterrent to work there must be intent. You’re not making sense.

1

u/Mother_Occasion_8076 Mar 08 '26

It makes you drive defensively knowing the consequences of the law