3 ms·

1. It seems he really did kill someone with his bike. But it's not clear to me why this would be considered a homicide? Is this standard practice in USA? 2.

1. It seems he really did kill someone with his bike. But it's not clear to me why this would be considered a homicide? Is this standard practice in USA? 2. For some reason, it seems common practice in USA to assume that if someone decided not to go to trial, that this means they admitted their guilt. This seems .... bizarre somehow. Perhaps 'pleading guilty' should be changed semantically to 'chose not to go to trial'? 3. It seems odd that if you are convicted of a felony that this means that you'll basically be unable to get a job for the rest of your life. How is this going to help rehabilitate people? Might as well just execute them. At least its quick. (At least, it is quick in China, which is where I live).

c4n4rd 11y ago
1. Someone died. Most DAs (district attorneys) sees this as a reason to charge people. They will charge even if it is not the case so that the shirt-storm that might come from the media does not fall into his hands - it is like district attorneys think: "It will not decide, let the jury decide and I have my hands clean: If the person was found guilty, it was the jury who did it. If not found guilty, it was also the jury - so do not blame me for the situation" 2. You really need to watch a documentary called "The Plea" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/) to get an insight on how FUCKED UP the "justice" in the USA is. 3. The media and politicians have much to blame here. If you are ever convicted of a crime (even like in the case of a plea bargain) you life is likely over because no one wants to take a chance by hiring a "convict" - Business do not want to take this kind of risk.
- revelation 11y ago
  Huh? No, the majority of people who kill others using a vehicle of sorts are not ever charged (certainly not in NY), not even given as much as a ticket. If you remain at the scene and are not drunk, you can drive tomorrow. (This applies even if your license is suspended or you were otherwise reckless.) Now, the mistake you can not make is to choose the wrong mode of transport in your killing. Apparently this kid used a motorcycle. Any other transport but the good ol' car is an out group; you drastically increase your chances of being charged by using it. (Not that I want to take the stance of this article that this is all "an accident"; too many reckless crashes are written off as "accidents". If you take a high-powered machine into the public, you should accept criminal responsibility regardless of your fault in a matter simply because of the excess risk you have brought into the equation.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bitJericho 11y ago
1. You're offered the option to plead at the beginning of your trial. You plead guilty or not guilty, with some variations therein. If you plead guilty, you're literally saying you did the crime. The judge may or may not accept your plea and then you are either sentenced, a sentencing hearing is scheduled or a trial is scheduled. 2. If someone decides not to go to trial and the judge accepts that decision, they are literally saying they did the crime. 3. It's not so cut and dry as that. Some jobs you can't get, some jobs you can. There are surely some people who went to jail that are not the type to land jobs easily which biases the system also. As an american not having ever been to jail, I can think of 10 places in my local town I could go try and get a job at and would have a chance even with a criminal record. 4. I would rather rot in jail for 30 years and then be executed than to plead guilty to a crime I did not commit. F the system!
maxerickson 11y ago
The broadest definition of homicide is to cause a death. So the thing that would be considered in a case like this is whether he was properly operating the motorcycle. If not, it is in most US jurisdictions some sort of homicide. As far as not going to trial and admitting guilt, the mechanism to avoid the trial pretty much requires admitting guilt. It wouldn't be a change in semantics, it would be adding a whole new system of punishment to the criminal justice system, where there is punishment without a finding or admission of guilt. The prosecutor probably has a choice of offering a deal for a "no contest" plea, but they aren't doing that.

c4n4rd 11y ago

1. Someone died. Most DAs (district attorneys) sees this as a reason to charge people. They will charge even if it is not the case so that the shirt-storm that might come from the media does not fall into his hands - it is like district attorneys think: "It will not decide, let the jury decide and I have my hands clean: If the person was found guilty, it was the jury who did it. If not found guilty, it was also the jury - so do not blame me for the situation" 2. You really need to watch a documentary called "The Plea" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/) to get an insight on how FUCKED UP the "justice" in the USA is. 3. The media and politicians have much to blame here. If you are ever convicted of a crime (even like in the case of a plea bargain) you life is likely over because no one wants to take a chance by hiring a "convict" - Business do not want to take this kind of risk.

revelation 11y ago
Huh? No, the majority of people who kill others using a vehicle of sorts are not ever charged (certainly not in NY), not even given as much as a ticket. If you remain at the scene and are not drunk, you can drive tomorrow. (This applies even if your license is suspended or you were otherwise reckless.) Now, the mistake you can not make is to choose the wrong mode of transport in your killing. Apparently this kid used a motorcycle. Any other transport but the good ol' car is an out group; you drastically increase your chances of being charged by using it. (Not that I want to take the stance of this article that this is all "an accident"; too many reckless crashes are written off as "accidents". If you take a high-powered machine into the public, you should accept criminal responsibility regardless of your fault in a matter simply because of the excess risk you have brought into the equation.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bitJericho 11y ago

1. You're offered the option to plead at the beginning of your trial. You plead guilty or not guilty, with some variations therein. If you plead guilty, you're literally saying you did the crime. The judge may or may not accept your plea and then you are either sentenced, a sentencing hearing is scheduled or a trial is scheduled. 2. If someone decides not to go to trial and the judge accepts that decision, they are literally saying they did the crime. 3. It's not so cut and dry as that. Some jobs you can't get, some jobs you can. There are surely some people who went to jail that are not the type to land jobs easily which biases the system also. As an american not having ever been to jail, I can think of 10 places in my local town I could go try and get a job at and would have a chance even with a criminal record. 4. I would rather rot in jail for 30 years and then be executed than to plead guilty to a crime I did not commit. F the system!

maxerickson 11y ago

The broadest definition of homicide is to cause a death. So the thing that would be considered in a case like this is whether he was properly operating the motorcycle. If not, it is in most US jurisdictions some sort of homicide. As far as not going to trial and admitting guilt, the mechanism to avoid the trial pretty much requires admitting guilt. It wouldn't be a change in semantics, it would be adding a whole new system of punishment to the criminal justice system, where there is punishment without a finding or admission of guilt. The prosecutor probably has a choice of offering a deal for a "no contest" plea, but they aren't doing that.