Supposing a young teenager was drunk, got into a car, hit a tree at a high rate of speed, and is now permanently wheelchair bound, and physically unable to drive a car.
I think in most of the US, we would still probably punish the guy with some jail-time, as that’s what we do to drunk drivers. The legal system here does not really seem to care (from what I can see) about what natural consequences a person has already suffered as a result of their actions.
Are there any jurisdictions where a judge could look at the “divine justice” (for lack of a better term) that has already been dealt in this case, and say that the state needs not inflict any additional punishment on this individual, as the person has already been made to suffer enough for his or her actions?
The judge can’t decline to prosecute – that’s a decision for the prosecutor. Presumably he could decide to suspend any sentence, or impose only a very light sentence, following a conviction, assuming the law permitted him to do so.
Yes, poor choice of words. Perhaps a better way of wording it:
Are there any jurisdictions where the (attempted) punishment of the state is likely to be diminished or forgone altogether when the natural consequences of the person’s actions have resulted in consequences at least as severe as what the state would impose?
Considering what happened to Ryan Dunn, any mi nor caught drunk driving (especially if they are involved in an accident) should be severely punished to send a message to other young people. Cars are deadly weapons. Endangering the public is a very serious matter.
Yes. Prosecutors can, and do, decline to prosecute crimes even when they have clear proof. There’s even a term for it, ‘prosecutorial discretion’. The Judge doesn’t really have a role to say 'You know, kid’s suffered enough, we don’t need to throw the book at him, too", but the prosecutor does have that role.
Of course, if you imprison a severly impaired person, the state is taking on an extra financial and medical burden it may not want to. If the victim is a quadriplegic confined to a bed, what difference does jail time make? Same hospital room, but bars on the window. You’re just saving the welfare department or their relatives the cost of nursing care? What difference would suspending their driving privileges make? I.e. what’s the point?
OTOH, many people enjoy relatively decent lives (all things considered) without use of their legs… especially in today’s wheelchair-accomodating society. So perhaps in that case, some serious punishment is still called for?
[QUOTE=md2000, but the bolding is mine]
Of course, if you imprison a severly impaired person, the state is taking on an extra financial and medical burden it may not want to. If the victim is a quadriplegic confined to a bed, what difference does jail time make? Same hospital room, but bars on the window. You’re just saving the welfare department or their relatives the cost of nursing care? What difference would suspending their driving privileges make? I.e. what’s the point?
[/QUOTE]
The point is to provide an incentive for that person, and others like him, to avoid doing those kinds of things. Whether this justifies the cost may be debated, but I’m just saying that there IS a point to imprisoning him.
The prosecutor chooses what charges to bring, if any.
The jury chooses a verdict, and can certainly decide to convict of a lesser crime or bring in a not-guilty verdict even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
But you missed my point… If a guy is laid up in a bed unable to move, or see, or talk, or somehow otherwise horribly limited, in what way is prison even approaching a punishment? In fact it may be an improvement, with the level of medical attention a prisoner may be entitled to versus what he can afford on his own.
Prison is essentially deprivation of liberty. If your mobility impairment already provides that - what’s the point of providing more? If you are physically unable to drive ever again, what’s the point of a lifetime driving ban?
At a certain point you can’t do more to the person than they already have done to themselves. How important is it to spend a fortune on an investigation, collate evidence, have a trial, provide a public defender, etc. simply to state the obvious, you broke the law, that’s why you ended up like this.
I agree that the judge can’t make an official ruling like this. But, on TV judges often call the attorneys up to the bench and, in low tones, say something similar to “Why are we here arguing about this? [Brief lecture.] I want you two to settle this and come back this afternoon.”
Is this something that just happens in the imaginations of TV script writers?
It’s certainly happened in baby-left-in-cars cases. The prosecutor has made the call not to press charges of neglect/abandonment/negligence/manslaughter because causing the death of ones child by mistake is punishment enough, and the “perpetrator” not a danger to others.
No, I don’t think I missed your point. I am totally agreeing with you that there’s no real punishment in this situation. MY point is that punishment is not the only function of prison. It is also a deterrent, and we don’t want disabled people thinking that there won’t be any consequences to their actions.
I agree with this too. The degree of importance is a topic which good people can disagree. My only point is that punishment is not the only purpose of prison.