Dad gets 30 days in hunting death
I used to believe that the remorse (or lack of) that a person shows should be a large consideration in sentencing. My opinion now is completely different. After watching probably too many televised trials, I started to realize that it is impossible to accurately determine what is in the heart of the accused. I am not qualified to interpret another person's behavior, certainly not when people show emotions in various ways. Not to mention that many people are quite capable of acting begrieved when the situation calls for it, while others in shock may seem flippant or callous. There's also inherent in our humanness the subconscious preference to beauty that may sway a jury, even minutely, in its deliberations. And let us not forget the thunder and fury generated by lawyers whose financial livelihoods rest on how well they can sell their side... Good arguments, all, for keeping the "sorry factor" out of it. As to the assumption that Mr. Klasseus was drunk and stoned, you may very well be right that he only had traces in his system. I don't know that; I haven't seen in the news what his BAC was or if he was high the morning of the incident. I can accept as fact that he brought along his young child to trespass and poach. That's why I wonder what the sentencing would be for those particular infractions of law without the additional drinking/smoking issue. Again, though, my heart is with the family and community that lost a bright young star. The attention thus far has been on the father's grief. I don't discount his sorrow, but I feel worse for everyone else whose lives are now absent the little one they loved so much, and those who never will get to know the boy named Hunter. Zen (21 hrs ago | post #69)
Dad gets 30 days in hunting death
The same could be said for the drunk driver who kills with his/her vehicle. ("He chose to drink, he chose to drive, but it was an accident that he killed the other driver, Your Honor!") It is truly tragic on so many levels what this family is going through. They are all in my prayers. I think that when we begin to weigh the sorry factor into sentencing we also begin to excuse the poor choices that led to the death of a child who had no part in the decision making. Zen (Wednesday Aug 27 | post #57)
Dad gets 30 days in hunting death
Let's say the little boy was not even there. Let's say the man had been busted on private land, hunting out of season, and doing so under the influence of alcohol and pot. What would have been the sentencing for those infractions of law? Would they add up to 30 days? I'm with Sarah D on virtually everything she's posted in this thread. It's a tragedy that the little boy paid for his dad's poor choices with his life. I'm just very curious as to how much weight the judge put on the father's grief as a mitigating factor in sentencing. (Tuesday Aug 26 | post #39)
Man charged with raping girl, 15, after they left Minnesota Sta...
How is this not RAPE?! If I was the girl's father (or brother) I would be looking for some old fashioned justice taken out on his hide. Calling RAPE by another name (sexual assault) seems to diminish the severity of the crime. A person who forces another to have sex against his/her will is a RAPIST. To the girl, I applaud you for doing the right thing, going to the hospital for the rape exam and getting the police involved. You have done the right thing, and because of that you may be saving other girls from being raped. Zen, with fists raised (Monday Aug 25 | post #2)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Red? Consistent? Where have you gone? (Saturday Aug 23 | post #101)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Yes, very much like that. (Saturday Aug 23 | post #98)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Hatching a gayby" tells me the level of your disdain for not only an entire group of people, but also their innocent children. Why so angry, Peter? Think of it like this. Let's say I'm a vegan chef who takes a job at Timberlodge and I demand that while I'm on shift I will not serve anyone who eats meat. That's unreasonable, don't you think? Being a chef isn't contradictory to my belief system, but handling and serving meat is. Taking that job at the steakhouse was not exactly setting myself up for professional success, is it? As to setting myself up for spiritual success, I personally measure that by my peace of mind. If I'm taking a job that includes doing something I am so spiritually opposed to, then I am in a way prostituting myself and my values, am I not? How is that a recipe for success? (Saturday Aug 23 | post #94)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
From my experience, making one's religion about changing others rather than bettering the self shows a weak faith. The person who sets himself up for failure by taking up a profession (or at least, taking a job) that contradicts his religious sensibilities, does so knowing that one (the job) or the other (his spiritual peace) will at times be compromised. Your observations on respsonsibility are sound and I can only add a hearty "hear hear!" Zen (Saturday Aug 23 | post #88)
Seeking ugly women for Outback's lonely hearts
Quite likely the ladies of Perth would not miss you if you did, Pete. (Saturday Aug 23 | post #2)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Then I would congratulate you for finding your calling and wish you many years of service to those you aren't morally opposed to treating, I guess. Does any of this answer your original question? (Saturday Aug 23 | post #79)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Well, first I would ask you (hypothetically, of course) why you chose to take the hippocratic oath, and suggest a more suitable line of work for you. But I suppose if you were a physician refusing to treat anyone outside your religious circle, you wouldn't be in business very long, would you? (Saturday Aug 23 | post #77)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Greetings, Madman. "Right v. Choice" makes me contemplate a lot of things that challenge the legal/ethical conundrum. Red brought female circumcision to the table, which is not legal nor widely accepted culturally or socially. I have an objection to another common practice of cosmetic body modification on children in our society: the piercing of infants' ears. It is legal and most people don't find it unethical. (Saturday Aug 23 | post #74)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Is your question in the hypothetical context that you are the physician refusing IVF on the basis of religious objection, or are you asking me for spiritual guidance? Zen (Saturday Aug 23 | post #72)
Analysis: Biden's own worst enemy may be his own record
Actually, the person you share a bed with night after night has a great measure of influence on your decision-making! Ex: I could not ever cast a vote for Hillary as President (thank goodness it didn't come to that) because I would not want Bill back in the White House. I could have supported her for VP (in a parallel universe) because Bill would not be sleeping in the White House. (Oh, I'm gonna get lambasted for that one.) (Saturday Aug 23 | post #65)
Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays
Two facts you may wish to consider: female circumcision in not embraced by most Muslims, and it is not legal. (Swing and a miss, Red.) If the same fictional Muslim couple went to the fertility clinic for IVF, and were turned away because of religious intolerance, then you bet there would follow some legitimate legal action. Now, about same sex civil unions, that actually is a good question. I am ordained though not actively ministering, and the question of whether or not to perform such weddings has come up. A minister is bound by his/her church's job description and expectations of him/her, as far as being obligated to perform certain duties. (Saturday Aug 23 | post #67)
Like what you see?
Create your own Topix Profile
