Oh I'm sure I'd be a bit angry, but as I said, I believe humor can be found in anything, and honestly I bet I would notice the irony, and probably find it amusing. Again, yes it's insensitive, and maybe a bit mean, but it has nothing to do with whether he has remorse about it or not, I'm sure, positive even, that he is very guilty about it, who isn't guilty when they unintentionally hurt some one?
How can someone be insensitive and mean-spirited about their actions and simultaneously be remorseful about them? Like Ryan said, I would be near catatonic with grief if I was responsible for hurting an innocent person. I'd even be inclined to sentence him harshly if the picture was of him just at a party having a good time, even without the costume - which is just bitter icing on the cake.
I can say for a fact, that some people just find everything funny, I laugh about tons of things, I know it's bad to laugh about some of them, but I can't help but find it amusing. One time I accidentally punched my best friend Mike in the face, I turned around and there he was in front of my fist, he was in pain clearly, but we both were laughing. I've laughed at fights at school while walking by, then I either helped or reported it to a teacher or whatever.
To quote Penny from Dr. Horrible, some people are multi-layered like that.
What the judge did there was sentence the guy because of his personality. I mean come on, he hits some one and gets in trouble, he's guilty and sad, hey a costume party, he's probably going to jail soon, haha, lets dress up in a prison uniform.
Say something wonderful happens to you, your friend show up and says his mother died and he has to go. You're going to be sad, and maybe a bit guilty, but you're still going to be smiling about whatever happened later on. Then say your friend shows up and sees you smiling, he gets angry because 'you clearly don't care'. It's unfair, it's wrong. Yes it's not exactly the same kind of situation, but the same thing still applies.
What the judge did there was sentence the guy because of his personality. I mean come on, he hits some one and gets in trouble, he's guilty and sad, hey a costume party, he's probably going to jail soon, haha, lets dress up in a prison uniform.
Yes, well, that's what the judge was supposed to be doing. This was an examination of the man's character, and he failed miserably.
Well, if it's an examination of his character then ok, he can do that, but seriously, if I was sad and guilty about something and there was a party I was invited to I would go, if only to make me happier, I probably wouldn't think of the prison uniform joke, but if some one suggested or told me I should've done that at the party I would've found it funny. Anyways, I suppose he deserves a good lecture or something since he did do it but, I don't find it that bad. He certainly doesn't deserve two years for a little joke, in my opinion.
He hurt some one on accident, he's sad, what's a quick laugh to make you feel better. Also the connection between prison joke and lack of remorse is a bit of a jump personally. If he admitted he had no remorse it's fine but I don't think there is much of a connection between those two things.
Say something wonderful happens to you, your friend show up and says his mother died and he has to go. You're going to be sad, and maybe a bit guilty, but you're still going to be smiling about whatever happened later on. Then say your friend shows up and sees you smiling, he gets angry because 'you clearly don't care'. It's unfair, it's wrong. Yes it's not exactly the same kind of situation, but the same thing still applies.
The only way this is remotely the same is if you're the one who fucking killed his mother. Try and defend that.
He hurt some one on accident, he's sad, what's a quick laugh to make you feel better. Also the connection between prison joke and lack of remorse is a bit of a jump personally. If he admitted he had no remorse it's fine but I don't think there is much of a connection between those two things.
Of course he's going to say he's sad and remorseful when he has to face the consequences of his actions. The sentencing hearing is to decide if he actually is. The photograph was introduced as evidence that he is not. And the judge ruled that he wasn't remorseful despite what he said.
At that point, it was the defendant's job to explain the photo and argue that he was indeed remorseful. The photo probably wasn't damning on his own, unless he had no sufficient argument to justify it. If he was remorseful, one can assume that he would have been able to make such a case in front of a judge.
The only way this is remotely the same is if you're the one who fucking killed his mother. Try and defend that.
I can't defend that because, that was another big jump honestly, and if it was him who killed her than he's going to jail anyways, and if he's not remorseful he's a psychotic bastard. But a jail uniform isn't the same as murder. If it was me, if I had gotten in that accident I would be extremely remorseful, I wouldn't give up drinking probably, but I would make sure I didn't drink and drive again. But I get over things fast, there's a good chance that though I'm still remorseful I'm living normally again, having fun.
Remember the picture was taken TWO WEEKS after the accident. That's a long time by anyone's standards. If the accident had killed the person then he definitely either recovered WAY too fast, and clearly doesn't care or he didn't care from the start, but he didn't kill her, he hurt her, she's alive, maybe not alive and kicking but alive, and that would be good enough for me. I would be back at normal activities in a week, without crying, or staring at the ceiling or whatever. I would send the person a card, "Sorry, get well soon."
Of course he's going to say he's sad and remorseful when he has to face the consequences of his actions. The sentencing hearing is to decide if he actually is. The photograph was introduced as evidence that he is not. And the judge ruled that he wasn't remorseful despite what he said.
If it was me, if I had gotten in that accident I would be extremely remorseful, I wouldn't give up drinking probably, but I would make sure I didn't drink and drive again. But I get over things fast, there's a good chance that though I'm still remorseful I'm living normally again, having fun.
And I think that kind of glib attitude would warrant some jail time, because your lack of empathy is disgusting and an affront to what purpose lighter sentences like probation are supposed to serve.
It's not a lack of empathy, it's just I'd rather get over the hard part in less than two weeks so I try to be positive. I don't think it's a bad thing to try to be happy. Besides, yes he hurt the person but what is he supposed to do, sit and stare? Cry? Apologize repeatedly? For two whole weeks!? It's a bother for him and a bother for the victim if he keeps bothering her with sorry's. After one week you've done all you can to help or guilt yourself, there's no need to repeat.
There's a difference between "Ok, things are down, but I'm going to whistle a happy tune" and "I'm going to make light of my ongoing criminal trial by dressing up as a prisoner and mocking the punishment that I want to avoid." Moving on is one thing. Turning a heel and openly satirizing what you supposedly feel bad about it another.
I'm gonna have to agree with Jake and Mario... someone who's having a fun time after he's jeopardized someone's life due to his irresponsibility isn't showing enough guilt or remorse for his recklessness. While I don't think it's right to be miserable about it for the rest of his life, it's extremely tasteless and wrong to poke fun of it t ANY point. It should be a life changing event! If you've done something as bad as wreck a car in a drunk driving accident, you seriously need to start thinking about your lifestyle... it should be something you swear to never do again. Even drinking and having fun should bring about guilt if you're really feeling remorse for what you did... if you feel fine about going out and having fun within 2 weeks after the accident, how long is it going to take before you go out and drive drunk again? Because it WILL happen, with that kind of attitude-- it just might take a while.
I completely agree with sending him to jail. If nearly killing someone wasn't enough of a lesson to teach him to think about his actions, maybe jail time will wisen him up.
And although I really don't agree with the argument that he IS remorseful, but he's also still going to have a fun time... I say he''s still in the wrong. If you don't have any respect for the people you hurt when they're not in your face, I don't think the event has shaken you enough.
Yes there is, I completely agree, but it has nothing to do with how remorseful he is about the accident.
How? It has everything to do with it. His actions demonstrate that he isn't remorseful at all. How else is a judge supposed to determine that? His own, self-interested testimony alone?
That's just it, I agree, but he didn't poke fun at the person he injured or the accident or drunk driving, only the probably inevitable punishment. I think it was taken out of context, it indicated that he either knew what was coming or saw some irony in the costume. Either way I don't think it should've affected the trial. If he did it again after the part and injured some one else or arrived in a costume that looked like the burning wreckage of a car then it coud've been used rightfully.
I suppose that 2 weeks is quite a long time to feel bad about killing someone.
"I can't believe I killed someone!"
"What? You're still on about that? It's been 2 weeks, dude, get over it."
"You're right, let's go out drinking."
See, that's bad, also I'm positive that I said if he had killed some one and was already over it then he's horrible, but the article said he injured the person, not killed.
I can't defend that because, that was another big jump honestly, and if it was him who killed her than he's going to jail anyways, and if he's not remorseful he's a psychotic bastard.
I was talking about some one else but it's true here too.
That's just it, I agree, but he didn't poke fun at the person he injured or the accident or drunk driving, only the probably inevitable punishment. I think it was taken out of context, it indicated that he either knew what was coming or saw some irony in the costume. Either way I don't think it should've affected the trial. If he did it again after the part and injured some one else or arrived in a costume that looked like the burning wreckage of a car then it coud've been used rightfully.
It didn't effect the trial at all. It effected his sentencing. Remember, he was already found guilty. Like I said earlier:
EDIT: Just to clarify, when someone is on the docket in a DUI case with a person seriously injured, you think that dressing up as a prisoner demonstrates that he is remorseful? The sentencing face of a trial is different from the rest - remember, at this point he was already found guilty. And it is the defendants impetus to demonstrate that he/she does not need a harsh jail time to warrant returning to society. Certainly this sort of character examination is not very relevant if determining if this person actually was driving drunk and hit another car. But it means a whole lot in determining how best to deal with a person who breaks our society's laws. That's what short-term jail sentences are supposed to do.
Now, if you're a judge, and evidence is produced that the defendant is making light of the possibility of time in jail, how can you ignore that? How would throwing that out be just not only to the woman in the hospital, but to society at large?
Poking fun at some things (like mocking your situation of nearly killing someone) is just not acceptable. It shows immaturity, and even more so shows that whatever happened didn't mean much to the person who did it. Tasteless and offensive actions might not be offensive to you, but I'm sorry, that really does not make it right. It's still not something you should do, and if it gets you in trouble, good! It's a lesson to respect what other people may be going through. That guy should have considered the person he put in the hospital, or the person's hospital bills or lost time. He shouldn't be free from guilt until he pays for his crime, whether it be through regret, a repayment of medical bills and lost time, or jail time; 2 weeks to think it over is DEFINITELY not enough to make up for his actions, and apparently the judge didn't think it was either. He shouldn't have been at that party, and he definitely shouldn't have been joking around with a prison outfit.
How does your point remain the same? You keep insisting that that the photograph of him at a party in a prison costume means nothing save "a sense or irony" or whatever, and that he still felt remorseful. But the picture shows that he was able to forgo that remorse, if he had it at all, for comedic reasons. What is the point of remorse if it doesn't change your behavior at all? That's why he deserved to go to jail, because simply the guilt that he claimed to have felt wasn't going to change him in the way that our society demands that those who break the law should.
I agree that some things aren't meant to be laughed at, and he didn't laugh at nearly killing some one, for the last time it was merely laughing at the prospect of jail. And not even that, it was just a very small amount of irony, I'm going to jail, I'm already wearing the jail outfit at a costume party. Hah.
Also I didn't say two weeks was enough to make up for it, I said two weeks was enough to stop feeling guilty at all times about it. Not saying it's enough to stop feeling guilty at all, only enough to accept what you did and start trying to fix it or make up for it.
Anyways, this is the somewhat amusing new thread. Let's all just shush and leave it be.
Edit: gonna stop posting about after this, I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, I'm just saying he didn't deserve it for that reason, the jail costume had nothing to do, besides the inevitable jail sentence, with the accident itself. I don't think it shows lack of remorse because I just don't see any real connection between the outfit, and the actual crime.
I agree that some things aren't meant to be laughed at, and he didn't laugh at nearly killing some one, for the last time it was merely laughing at the prospect of jail. And not even that, it was just a very small amount of irony, I'm going to jail, I'm already wearing the jail outfit at a costume party. Hah.
But the job of the sentencing judge was to decide what punishment fit his crime. Someone laughing at the prospect of jail deserves the leniency not to go jail? Why should the judge let him off the hook when he openly mocks it?
Also, this "irony" you mention, "I'm going to jail, I'm already wearing the jail outfit at a costume party" is a terrible interpretation. He consciously and deliberately put on that costume after he knew that jail was a possibility. It wasn't a funny coincidence.
I do the same, and I still feel bad about many things, but it doesn't prevent me, as it doesn't prevent you, from living completely normally.
But is my normal still the same, nope. If I was him I would of stopped drinking, and putting on a jail suite because I am going to jail for a bad habit that almost killed someone isn’t something I would do.
Ok, I'll break what I said before (that I wouldn't post about it again) to make this one point.
He doesn't deserve any leniency not to go, if some one laughs at going to jail it doesn't mean they deserve more or any jail time. It means they were laughing at jail and that doesn't somehow make the crime itself worse, and therefore I don't think it merits any more jail time.
And the irony? I don't think it was a funny coincidence, He made the joke consciously because he probably didn't think it would affect his case at all. He knew jail was a possibility, and it showed the opportunity to make a joke about it. Maybe you don't get the joke, who cares!!! I just don't it mattered in the least.
And Chris I never said my normal wasn't any different afterward and he clearly made some effort, he went to a party and didn't drive drunk again from what we know.
Ok, I'll break what I said before (that I wouldn't post about it again) to make this one point.
He doesn't deserve any leniency not to go, if some one laughs at going to jail it doesn't mean they deserve more or any jail time. It means they were laughing at jail and that doesn't somehow make the crime itself worse, and therefore I don't think it merits any more jail time.
And the irony? I don't think it was a funny coincidence, He made the joke consciously because he probably didn't think it would affect his case at all. He knew jail was a possibility, and it showed the opportunity to make a joke about it. Maybe you don't get the joke, who cares!!! I just don't it mattered in the least.
The purpose of jail time in cases like this is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they can make amends for breaking the law and is therefore fit to re-enter society. The fact that this person finds the prospect of jail joke-worthy means that he requires further jail time in order for that rehabilitation to occur. That's what the judge rightly decided. I agree, the picture has no bearing on the severity of the crime. But it has a great deal of bearing on how our society is to respond to it.
I see what NoLonger is trying to say, even though I don't agree with it. I think he's in the state of mind that myspace/facebook photos shouldn't have that much weight on somebody's sentence. Really, it seems like people are trying to paint a picture in their own words using the photos taken, which isn't entirely true. Sure, they are using the photos to support the idea that the guilty party is unremorseful, which I see as fair game. If somebody is stupid enough to get drunk and get behind the wheel, let alone hitting somebody, then they should at least have the brains to not let their pictures taken and posted in public, clearly showing that they have no or little remorse!
Yes it was a dumb decision on his part, and I think it's fine to use pictures from FaceBook and MySpace for trials and determining sentences, but as I said some people just can't resist a joke when they see one, like me. And I agree with you Jakey, that some people need more jail time to help rehabilitate themselves or whatever, but I don't see how this small joke, which clearly most people around him thought was fine, merits any more jail time than he might've gotten otherwise.
Anyways I'm done, completely, worn out even, so nothing more on this thread for me 'til this whole thing has blown over. Don't like fighting and/or debating or whatever you want to call it over the internet.
This "small joke" is an excellent case for a longer jail sentence. "Finding something funny in everything" does not excuse the behavior. He's free to not resist the comedy option and find it as amusing as he wants, behind bars.
Comments
To quote Penny from Dr. Horrible, some people are multi-layered like that.
What the judge did there was sentence the guy because of his personality. I mean come on, he hits some one and gets in trouble, he's guilty and sad, hey a costume party, he's probably going to jail soon, haha, lets dress up in a prison uniform.
Say something wonderful happens to you, your friend show up and says his mother died and he has to go. You're going to be sad, and maybe a bit guilty, but you're still going to be smiling about whatever happened later on. Then say your friend shows up and sees you smiling, he gets angry because 'you clearly don't care'. It's unfair, it's wrong. Yes it's not exactly the same kind of situation, but the same thing still applies.
Yes, well, that's what the judge was supposed to be doing. This was an examination of the man's character, and he failed miserably.
He hurt some one on accident, he's sad, what's a quick laugh to make you feel better. Also the connection between prison joke and lack of remorse is a bit of a jump personally. If he admitted he had no remorse it's fine but I don't think there is much of a connection between those two things.
The only way this is remotely the same is if you're the one who fucking killed his mother. Try and defend that.
Of course he's going to say he's sad and remorseful when he has to face the consequences of his actions. The sentencing hearing is to decide if he actually is. The photograph was introduced as evidence that he is not. And the judge ruled that he wasn't remorseful despite what he said.
I can't defend that because, that was another big jump honestly, and if it was him who killed her than he's going to jail anyways, and if he's not remorseful he's a psychotic bastard. But a jail uniform isn't the same as murder. If it was me, if I had gotten in that accident I would be extremely remorseful, I wouldn't give up drinking probably, but I would make sure I didn't drink and drive again. But I get over things fast, there's a good chance that though I'm still remorseful I'm living normally again, having fun.
Remember the picture was taken TWO WEEKS after the accident. That's a long time by anyone's standards. If the accident had killed the person then he definitely either recovered WAY too fast, and clearly doesn't care or he didn't care from the start, but he didn't kill her, he hurt her, she's alive, maybe not alive and kicking but alive, and that would be good enough for me. I would be back at normal activities in a week, without crying, or staring at the ceiling or whatever. I would send the person a card, "Sorry, get well soon."
All I'm saying is I think it was a bad decision.
And I think that kind of glib attitude would warrant some jail time, because your lack of empathy is disgusting and an affront to what purpose lighter sentences like probation are supposed to serve.
I completely agree with sending him to jail. If nearly killing someone wasn't enough of a lesson to teach him to think about his actions, maybe jail time will wisen him up.
And although I really don't agree with the argument that he IS remorseful, but he's also still going to have a fun time... I say he''s still in the wrong. If you don't have any respect for the people you hurt when they're not in your face, I don't think the event has shaken you enough.
How? It has everything to do with it. His actions demonstrate that he isn't remorseful at all. How else is a judge supposed to determine that? His own, self-interested testimony alone?
"I can't believe I killed someone!"
"What? You're still on about that? It's been 2 weeks, dude, get over it."
"You're right, let's go out drinking."
Edit:
See, that's bad, also I'm positive that I said if he had killed some one and was already over it then he's horrible, but the article said he injured the person, not killed.
I was talking about some one else but it's true here too.
It didn't effect the trial at all. It effected his sentencing. Remember, he was already found guilty. Like I said earlier:
I do the same, and I still feel bad about many things, but it doesn't prevent me, as it doesn't prevent you, from living completely normally.
Also I didn't say two weeks was enough to make up for it, I said two weeks was enough to stop feeling guilty at all times about it. Not saying it's enough to stop feeling guilty at all, only enough to accept what you did and start trying to fix it or make up for it.
Anyways, this is the somewhat amusing new thread. Let's all just shush and leave it be.
Edit: gonna stop posting about after this, I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, I'm just saying he didn't deserve it for that reason, the jail costume had nothing to do, besides the inevitable jail sentence, with the accident itself. I don't think it shows lack of remorse because I just don't see any real connection between the outfit, and the actual crime.
But the job of the sentencing judge was to decide what punishment fit his crime. Someone laughing at the prospect of jail deserves the leniency not to go jail? Why should the judge let him off the hook when he openly mocks it?
Also, this "irony" you mention, "I'm going to jail, I'm already wearing the jail outfit at a costume party" is a terrible interpretation. He consciously and deliberately put on that costume after he knew that jail was a possibility. It wasn't a funny coincidence.
But is my normal still the same, nope. If I was him I would of stopped drinking, and putting on a jail suite because I am going to jail for a bad habit that almost killed someone isn’t something I would do.
He doesn't deserve any leniency not to go, if some one laughs at going to jail it doesn't mean they deserve more or any jail time. It means they were laughing at jail and that doesn't somehow make the crime itself worse, and therefore I don't think it merits any more jail time.
And the irony? I don't think it was a funny coincidence, He made the joke consciously because he probably didn't think it would affect his case at all. He knew jail was a possibility, and it showed the opportunity to make a joke about it. Maybe you don't get the joke, who cares!!! I just don't it mattered in the least.
And Chris I never said my normal wasn't any different afterward and he clearly made some effort, he went to a party and didn't drive drunk again from what we know.
The purpose of jail time in cases like this is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they can make amends for breaking the law and is therefore fit to re-enter society. The fact that this person finds the prospect of jail joke-worthy means that he requires further jail time in order for that rehabilitation to occur. That's what the judge rightly decided. I agree, the picture has no bearing on the severity of the crime. But it has a great deal of bearing on how our society is to respond to it.
Anyways I'm done, completely, worn out even, so nothing more on this thread for me 'til this whole thing has blown over. Don't like fighting and/or debating or whatever you want to call it over the internet.