reseller_pledge609 comments on A driver who plowed through a group of cyclists in Arizona, killing 2 and injuring 11, faces a one year prison sentence. His driver’s license will also be suspended for six months.

We're willing to tolerate the threat of abject homelessness as consequence for non-participation in the labor market, but revoking access to a car is seen as cruel and unusual because it makes access to that labor market more difficult.

It's the most hypocritical shit in the universe. We don't take a person's drivers license when they kill someone with their car because we insist on essentially making them homeless if they don't have one.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

I honestly don't even get that point. Maybe they won't find a job where they live without owning a car. Then they should just move somewhere where there's jobs closer to their home.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 20 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

The short prison sentence doesn't bother me. Prisons are a social poison that we should be doing away with for all but readily and immediately violent individuals.

What fucks me up is that he's getting his keys handed back in six months. He's getting quick and untested access right back to the large machine that he already demonstrated he is mortally dangerous when operating. Doesn't sound like they're even going to test him on correct use. That thing you just killed several people and maimed dozens others while operating? Welcome back buddy, do it again.

IMO he should be doing several years of community service, primarily as restorative repentance in the community where the crimes took place, and having his license revoked for at least five years. Getting it back should require a higher barrier of testing than the default. Put a black box in that car and have it report everything for the first year.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I absolutely agree on all points. I just meant that, in the current system, if the murder weapon was different, he would've been getting much worse consequences.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

Right, morality of prison notwithstanding our society does treat this particular murder weapon much more lightly than most others. Imagine his prison sentence if he walked into a store with a gun and oopsie whoopsie killed 2 people / maimed 11 others.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Or (to make the damage scenario a bit more realistic) went into a store juggling a hand grenade and whoopsie killed 2 people and maimed 11 others.

Totally on your side. A car is a super dangerous object, equally dangerous as a weapon, and driving one should be considered an immense privilege, not a right.

Car murderers can take the bus, and if there's no bus where they live, they can move somewhere else.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] jerkface@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

He proved that he is too irresponsible to not kill people on the road for a miniscule benefit of his (getting home a little bit faster by not taking a break when he really needs one).

If this wasn't a car but any other means of killing people it would be called murder.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

load more comments (-1 replies)

[+] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Imagine if a gun misfire accidentally killed 2 people and maimed 11 more and you were primarily concerned with correcting what people called it. We all know the difference between murder and manslaughter, smart guy. The difference between you and everyone else in here is that we don't think emotional nomenclature invalidates concern for the lives of others. Like just think a little bit harder for one second, because you've demonstrated already that you have the juice to do that: Maybe our use of incendiary and somewhat inaccurate language was intentional? Maybe there is a social strategy at play here? And maybe, if that rhetoric upset you more that the deaths did, then perhaps people like you were it's intended target.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

load more comments (-1 replies)

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Imagine he was a pilot or a forklift driver. He would never ever get his license back. That's what should be done here.

He proved that he's not capable of safely operating a car. Why should he ever be allowed that privilege again?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

It is because this was not an intentional act, they fell asleep, were distracted by fatigue, or something of the sort. Basically this person was too tired to drive properly.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

In my country falling asleep on the wheel (or just driving a car while being too fatigued to drive safely) is a crime punishable with up to 5 years and that's if you hurt nobody.

Driving while fatigued is on par with driving drunk or under the influence of drugs.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

Well you have to understand that conservative states are more worried about peoples' right to transit than their right to safety. As a result, these sorts of things always get a low punishment while things like marijuana get harsher sentences.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent