• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen Sentenced To Probation For Deadly DWI Crash

Status
Not open for further replies.
The kid shouldn't have gotten 20 years, but 10-years probation is just too pathetic...

Despite how misguided the kid is - his life shouldn't be ruined for a horrible and tragic mistake. The kid deserves 7-10 years without question, but you don't throw a 16-year-old away and throw away the key..... 7-10 years is a lot of time, especially when you're only 16.

Also, you have to remember that this stupidity was nothing more than a defense crafted by a lawyer - who knows how this kid feels (he looks like a prick in the pictures I've seen tho) and I know the media likes to sensationalize things...

Just remember that lawyers make their living lying, weather it's prosecution or defense and that the judge is a lawyer himself - and he was the one that sentenced the kid..

This case is so screwed up - and this clearly shows that the lying lawyers cannot use common sense.
 
I just think it needs to be consistent. Money shouldn't play a role, even though it so obviously did to anyone honest enough to admit it.
:naughty
It would be being dishonest to say such because it is obvious that it didn't.
 
I just think it needs to be consistent. Money shouldn't play a role, even though it so obviously did to anyone honest enough to admit it.

It's the judicial system that tolerates such nonsense defenses...

The judicial system is usually just flat out wrong.

And people wonder why politicians are so damn off base and loony - it's because most are lawyers and have a completely different mindset than the majority of us.

Lawyers lost their sense of humanity the second they understood law because having any sense of morals only interferes with their jobs, and their jobs is to defend or convict and they have absolutely no problem lying to do that or even doing it...

Lawyers have such a scrambled philosophy...

Think about it - how the hell could anyone try to get someone off that is obviously and admittedly guilty of killing someone off for it??

It makes no sense as a person - yet these people do it and they're proud that they do it. It's disgusting.
 
It's the judicial system that tolerates such nonsense defenses...

The judicial system is usually just flat out wrong.

And people wonder why politicians are so damn off base and loony - it's because most are lawyers and have a completely different mindset than the majority of us.

Lawyers lost their sense of humanity the second they understood law because having any sense of morals only interferes with their jobs, and their jobs is to defend or convict and they have absolutely no problem lying to do that or even doing it...

Lawyers have such a scrambled philosophy...

Think about it - how the hell could anyone try to get someone off that is obviously and admittedly guilty of killing someone off for it??

It makes no sense as a person - yet these people do it and they're proud that they do it. It's disgusting.

Everyone deserves defense, even the guilty. On base lawyers aren't bad and are in fact necessary, but the level we've taken it has indeed scewed significantly the system in general. Justice is to be blind, not bribed.
 
:doh
No it wasn't.
It was during sentencing. That is not defense.
It wasn't even presented as mitigation.
It was presented to suggest he needed rehabilitation instead of prison.
That is not in defense of the act he committed.
So stop with your absurdities.

That is a defense.

Yeah?

The cops knocked my parents door down because they wanted my brother - tased my dad and charged him with disorderly conduct (among other things) and you know what? the prosecutor said: "find this man guilty or he will sue the taxpayer" - that was their defense for their criminal actions..

Yes, the entire incident went viral on youtube/internet - you can watch it it's called tased execution style..

I'd love to call these arguments excuses but in reality they're defenses - they're defending why they did what they did or attempting to justify it... I suppose in my dads case it was plain scare tactics ("find him guilty or he will sue us")..

Of course what I'm saying will not be understood because few here have ever been put in a situation where it makes sense to you - that or believe what I'm saying only happens in isolated situations - when this crazy stuff happens everyday all day 24-7...
 
Everyone deserves defense, even the guilty. On base lawyers aren't bad and are in fact necessary, but the level we've taken it has indeed scewed significantly the system in general. Justice is to be blind, not bribed.

Really, so you would be content representing Dahmer (or insert any nut here:___________).

It takes a lack of morals to be a lawyer weather you're defending a killer or prosecuting an innocent man "just to win."

It seems the defendants/perps are nothing more than foodder for these lawyers egos and record, because it's not about the case or the defendant - it's about them winning and their record.

Not all lawyers are bad, the innocence project does good work...
 
Really, so you would be content representing Dahmer (or insert any nut here:___________).

It takes a lack of morals to be a lawyer weather you're defending a killer or prosecuting an innocent man "just to win."

It seems the defendants/perps are nothing more than foodder for these lawyers egos and record, because it's not about the case or the defendant - it's about them winning and their record.

Not all lawyers are bad, the innocence project does good work...

Everyone has the right to proper defense, even Dahmer.
 
Everyone has the right to proper defense, even Dahmer.

I'm not arguing due process - I'm arguing lawyers morals and why they're generally flawed people...

Trying to get a serial killer off is pretty immoral...

I agree, those accused should have a defense, but trying to get wacko's free is just insane.

I couldn't defend Dahmer, but plenty wanted to.
 
and that the judge is a lawyer himself - and he was the one that sentenced the kid..
She gave him a sentence that was already within her repertoire.

In addition.
[...]

The law almost assumes they can be rehabilitated," said John Cruezot, a retired state district judge. "Not in every instance, but in most instances, I think it's appropriate for a judge to start at that standpoint."

Cruezot said the criticism against Tarrant County Judge Jean Boyd over her sentencing of 16-year-old Couch is unfair.

[...]

But, Cruezot said the judge was following the law.

[...]

Sentence given to teen in deadly drunk driving crash spurs backlash | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth
She was following the law.


That is a defense.
No Nick. That is not a defense.
They were not defending his actions.
Nor were they trying to mitigate what he had done.
They are not making excuses for what he did or trying to justify why he did it.
It is not a defense.
It is an explanation to the court to suggest why treatment is a better option for him than prison.


And as she is already on the record as being willing to sentence a non-affluent 14 year old who committed a more intentional and deliberate act to harm someone, to the same type of sentence, it more than suggests that this sentence was not influenced by such a presentation, by wealth or race.
 
Last edited:
She gave him a sentence that was already within her repertoire.

In addition.
[...]

The law almost assumes they can be rehabilitated," said John Cruezot, a retired state district judge. "Not in every instance, but in most instances, I think it's appropriate for a judge to start at that standpoint."

Cruezot said the criticism against Tarrant County Judge Jean Boyd over her sentencing of 16-year-old Couch is unfair.

[...]

But, Cruezot said the judge was following the law.

[...]

Sentence given to teen in deadly drunk driving crash spurs backlash | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth
She was following the law.


No Nick. That is not a defense.
They were not defending his actions.
Nor were they trying to mitigate what he had done.
They are not making excuses for what he did or trying to justify why he did it.
It is not a defense.
It is an explanation to the court to suggest why treatment is a better option for him than prison.


And as she is already on the record as being willing to sentence a non-affluent 14 year old who committed a more intentional and deliberate act to harm someone, to the same type of sentence, it more than suggests that this sentence was not influenced by such a presentation, by wealth or race.

Quit trying to jibe with your own logic.

The judge got presented with a plea (whatever it was) and it was rejected and the 10-year probation sentence was handed down.

That **** makes Rick James seem normal.
 
Quit trying to jibe with your own logic.
:doh Said the one doing so.


The judge got presented with a plea (whatever it was) and it was rejected and the 10-year probation sentence was handed down.
Plea? :doh
Gawd. You are just so intent of using words that are not applicable at this point in the proceedings.
He plead guilty.
Three days of testimony happened after that to determine what sentence he would be given.
You are suggesting a plea agreement, which is not what has been reported.



Yes, she rejected the Prosecutors request of twenty years.
 
:doh Said the one doing so.


Plea? :doh
Gawd. You are just so intent of using words that are not applicable at this point in the proceedings.
He plead guilty.
Three days of testimony happened after that to determine what sentence he would be given.
You are suggesting a plea agreement, which is not what has been reported.



Yes, she rejected the Prosecutors request of twenty years.

You clearly know nothing about criminal law...

Yes the kid pleaded.

He wasn't found "not guilty" was he?

The judge ignored the the agreed deal (obviously) and instituted his/her own (and judges can do that).

That's what makes this case so insane, or better yet asinine...

Also, the prosecution is going after him again - I'd be pissed off too if I was a prosecutor given the defense and the sentence.... I mean if it wasn't such a serious issue it would be a joke...
 
The best part is that when he's charged with different offenses relating to the crime his OJ Simpson-ish legal team will concoct a completely different defense...

This kid is going to prison...
 
This isn't Illinois is it?
Which also means your personal experience matters not.

And if you knew of what you speak, then you would know what I said was true.
So you are just showing you don't.

I told you one time that statutes were similar across the board...

If you have a difference/statute I would love to see it..
 
Everyone has the right to proper defense, even Dahmer.

Yea, Dahmer got a taste of justice. He got a taste of a lot of other things too. :mrgreen:
 
I'm not arguing due process - I'm arguing lawyers morals and why they're generally flawed people...

Trying to get a serial killer off is pretty immoral...

I agree, those accused should have a defense, but trying to get wacko's free is just insane.

I couldn't defend Dahmer, but plenty wanted to.

I don't think it's insane, I think it's a cornerstone of the Republic. Everyone deserves competent defense, even the guilty. It's only right and just to provide the best defense for all accused.
 
I don't think it's insane, I think it's a cornerstone of the Republic. Everyone deserves competent defense, even the guilty. It's only right and just to provide the best defense for all accused.

I agree with you too, but some people are guilty and some are innocent, the lack of morals involved in prosecuting or defending these people is seriously mind boggling...

As a libertarian I support your comment 100% but seriously, I cant take any legal position on this issue... Its all wrong!
 
I agree with you too, but some people are guilty and some are innocent, the lack of morals involved in prosecuting or defending these people is seriously mind boggling...

As a libertarian I support your comment 100% but seriously, I cant take any legal position on this issue... Its all wrong!

Well it's a good sign that you shouldn't be a lawyer. I wouldn't want a system where lawyers do not provide proper defense to those they believe guilty.
 
I don't think it's insane, I think it's a cornerstone of the Republic. Everyone deserves competent defense, even the guilty. It's only right and just to provide the best defense for all accused.
And, the "State" (we the people) deserves a vigorous prosecution, which our friends in Texas are delivering.

Tarrant County District Attorney Joe Shannon is making a final push to get the driver, 16-year-old Ethan Couch, locked up by asking a juvenile judge to convict the teen on two pending counts of intoxication assault, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

Read more: Texas prosecutors try again to get

Sometimes the games not over until it's...well, over.
 
And, the "State" (we the people) deserves a vigorous prosecution, which our friends in Texas are delivering.

Never said any differently. Just that it's immoral for a lawyer to take a dive if they think think their client is guilty.
 
Never said any differently. Just that it's immoral for a lawyer to take a dive if they think think their client is guilty.

Absolutely. It's a defense attorney's job to ignore guilt or innocence. However, a prosecutor must consider the fact that a defendant can be innocent and has to hand over exculpating evidence when he/she gets a hold of it.

A defense attorney can (actually has to by law) bury evidence which hangs his client, but he/she cannot put a witness on the stand knowing they will commit perjury. This can make it difficult because a client who has confessed guilt to his lawyer cannot then testify that he is innocent. Worse, if the lawyer has evidence contradicting the testimony of his client, he is in trouble and runs a risk of being disbarred.
 
Absolutely. It's a defense attorney's job to ignore guilt or innocence. However, a prosecutor must consider the fact that a defendant can be innocent and has to hand over exculpating evidence when he/she gets a hold of it.

A defense attorney can bury evidence which hangs his client, but he/she cannot put a witness on the stand knowing they will commit perjury. This can make it difficult because a client who has confessed guilt to his lawyer cannot then testify that he is innocent.

I haven't said anything different. The Defense must present the best case it can, the Prosecution the same. We have judges and juries to decide the winner.
 
You clearly know nothing about criminal law...
Apparently that would be you.


The judge ignored the the agreed deal (obviously) and instituted his/her own (and judges can do that).
:doh:lamo:doh
You clearly know not of what you speak.

So again.
Three days of testimony happened after that to determine what sentence he would be given.
You are suggesting a plea agreement, which is not what has been reported.

You are just making unsupported assertions.
You should really stop, as you are just showing that you know not of what you speak.



Also, the prosecution is going after him again -
Yeah, an unscrupulous Prosecutor.

Most likely to no avail though.


Kimberly Priest Johnson, a criminal defense attorney in Dallas, said she is doubtful that Boyd will give in to such a request. She said courts are not supposed to make decisions based on outside influences such as public scrutiny.

“I would be surprised if a judge gave jail time,” Johnson said. “After she’s already given probation for the manslaughter charge, then to turn around and give jail time for the assault charge? That doesn’t make sense.”

“… I’m sure she stands behind the sentence she gave and has her reasons for it,” she added.

If Boyd did decide to incarcerate Couch, Johnson said she believes that defense attorneys could appeal the decision based on double jeopardy.

“Typically, you are sentenced on the primary offense or the offense that carries the heaviest penalty,” she said. “If they’re all arising out of the same facts and circumstances, double jeopardy still attaches once you’ve been sentenced for the primary offense.”


Crime and Safety | News from Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington, Northeast Tarrant County | Star-Telegram.com


The best part is that when he's charged with different offenses relating to the crime his OJ Simpson-ish legal team will concoct a completely different defense...

This kid is going to prison...
The best part is you talking this nonsense.


I told you one time that statutes were similar across the board...

If you have a difference/statute I would love to see it..
iLOL A different statute? iLOL
Hell you haven't even provided one to begin with.

So again;
This isn't Illinois is it?
Which also means your personal experience matters not.

And if you knew of what you speak, then you would know what I said was true.
So you are just showing you don't.
 
I don't think it's insane, I think it's a cornerstone of the Republic. Everyone deserves competent defense, even the guilty. It's only right and just to provide the best defense for all accused.

Any defense attorney with half a brain wouldn't argue for the innocence of someone who is obviously guilty. It's far better to work out a plea deal for a lesser punishment and/or parole than to fight a lost cause.
 
Ever had a vanilla malt at Sonic and driven down the road? You were over the kegal minimum, if you did. What if you had killed someone? Think you would want to do some hard time?

Sorry to necro this thread, but 3 years after it was started, I just got a like on one of my posts. It was in response to THIS post.

Sorry, I just can't help it. 3 years later I am still laughing my ass off. :mrgreen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom