5 ms·

Both manslaughter and murder count as "killing." Not to mention, the dangers of drunk driving are well-known by now, and he still decided to drive drunk. Action

Both manslaughter and murder count as "killing." Not to mention, the dangers of drunk driving are well-known by now, and he still decided to drive drunk. Actions have consequences, and now two people are dead due to his entirely voluntary actions.

gmadsen 6y ago
something I've always been curious about and honestly not trying to be edgy. Why is it that with the choice of drunk driving, it is 100% rationally made and bears the full consequence of his actions, but when alcohol is involved in sexual relations, then it is perfectly fine to argue the inability to make sound judgement?
- crenstrope 6y ago
  If he'd drunkenly raped those two teenagers to death rather than drunkenly killing them with his car, then he'd be imprisoned for that instead. So I'm not sure what your point is really.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  It is certainly a double standard.
- rtyujkx 6y ago
  Exactly, sexual predators and molesters shouldn't be given just a slap on the wrist because they had a few drinks first. Sex crimes in general are routinely downplayed as it is. Something like 99% of reported rapes don't lead to prosecution. And men (it's overwhelming men who rape) know this, and know they can basically get away with it. It's disgraceful.
- selestify 6y ago
  Are you talking about the phenomenon of blaming poor judgment in consensual sex on alcohol? One major difference is that the unintended consequences of consensual sex are usually reversible afterwards, whereas there’s no undoing a death. Another is that alcohol is usually used as a face-saving measure in the first place. Even if both partners are not that drunk, they now have a socially acceptable excuse to have sex without being perceived to be “as” promiscuous as they would be otherwise. The “consequences” here aren’t so great anyways, at most maybe an unwanted pregnancy, which yes is something one should take responsibility for one way or the other anyways. If you’re talking about alcohol as an excuse for sexual assault, I agree, and I don’t know anyone in my social circle who wouldn’t. If you’re unable to control yourself on alcohol, then don’t drink. If you drink and end up assaulting someone, sexually or not, that’s entirely on you and you should be punished for it. Don’t be a Brock Turner. The legal system may have double standards, but the rest of us shouldn’t.
  - gmadsen 6y ago
    yeah I suppose I was considering what seemed at the time consensual, and separately sexual assault(which is not ambiguous at all). It was drilled into us at college and in the military that a woman can not consent if intoxicated, no matter how sober they seem. However, this might just be a zero tolerance policy to better control those without good judgement, It just always seemed weird to me that two people could drink the same amount, both be engaged and consenting at the time, then the day after still be classified as a sexual assault.
julianmarq 6y ago
> Both manslaughter and murder count as "killing." Your use of quotations seems to imply that you're saying that GP used the word "killing". That's incorrect; the word used was "murder" and, as GP already said, manslaughter is not murder. I might have misinterpreted your use of quotations, but in that case then I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
- rtyujkx 6y ago
  He killed two kids, you know.
- selestify 6y ago
  The word used in the grandparent comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25899179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25899179) was “killed,” not “murdered”
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    With "GP" I meant the original comment, the one by sebmellen. The comment you linked is another misinterpretation of sebmellen's original point. My comment applies as much to that one as it does to the one I replied to.

gmadsen 6y ago

something I've always been curious about and honestly not trying to be edgy. Why is it that with the choice of drunk driving, it is 100% rationally made and bears the full consequence of his actions, but when alcohol is involved in sexual relations, then it is perfectly fine to argue the inability to make sound judgement?

crenstrope 6y ago
If he'd drunkenly raped those two teenagers to death rather than drunkenly killing them with his car, then he'd be imprisoned for that instead. So I'm not sure what your point is really.
throwawayboise 6y ago
It is certainly a double standard.
rtyujkx 6y ago
Exactly, sexual predators and molesters shouldn't be given just a slap on the wrist because they had a few drinks first. Sex crimes in general are routinely downplayed as it is. Something like 99% of reported rapes don't lead to prosecution. And men (it's overwhelming men who rape) know this, and know they can basically get away with it. It's disgraceful.
selestify 6y ago
Are you talking about the phenomenon of blaming poor judgment in consensual sex on alcohol? One major difference is that the unintended consequences of consensual sex are usually reversible afterwards, whereas there’s no undoing a death. Another is that alcohol is usually used as a face-saving measure in the first place. Even if both partners are not that drunk, they now have a socially acceptable excuse to have sex without being perceived to be “as” promiscuous as they would be otherwise. The “consequences” here aren’t so great anyways, at most maybe an unwanted pregnancy, which yes is something one should take responsibility for one way or the other anyways. If you’re talking about alcohol as an excuse for sexual assault, I agree, and I don’t know anyone in my social circle who wouldn’t. If you’re unable to control yourself on alcohol, then don’t drink. If you drink and end up assaulting someone, sexually or not, that’s entirely on you and you should be punished for it. Don’t be a Brock Turner. The legal system may have double standards, but the rest of us shouldn’t.
- gmadsen 6y ago
  yeah I suppose I was considering what seemed at the time consensual, and separately sexual assault(which is not ambiguous at all). It was drilled into us at college and in the military that a woman can not consent if intoxicated, no matter how sober they seem. However, this might just be a zero tolerance policy to better control those without good judgement, It just always seemed weird to me that two people could drink the same amount, both be engaged and consenting at the time, then the day after still be classified as a sexual assault.

julianmarq 6y ago

> Both manslaughter and murder count as "killing." Your use of quotations seems to imply that you're saying that GP used the word "killing". That's incorrect; the word used was "murder" and, as GP already said, manslaughter is not murder. I might have misinterpreted your use of quotations, but in that case then I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

rtyujkx 6y ago
He killed two kids, you know.
selestify 6y ago
The word used in the grandparent comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25899179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25899179) was “killed,” not “murdered”
- julianmarq 6y ago
  With "GP" I meant the original comment, the one by sebmellen. The comment you linked is another misinterpretation of sebmellen's original point. My comment applies as much to that one as it does to the one I replied to.