This is all I have to say on the matter.
For all of you arguing what the just punishment should be for the four young men charged with aggravated arson, consider what the victim’s family had to say:
“Though this unspeakable tragedy hurts us tremendously, please keep in mind that there are five families that need your prayers.”
Now consider that the accused not only attended, but were welcomed by the victim’s family at their son’s funeral.
Think about that for a minute and tell me what good will become of ruining four more lives.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Feh. I’ll leave that to the courts. They’re going to be crucified on the cross of public opinion either way. I’ve got a hunch that the authorities might take this opportunity to make an example out of them as a deterrent to traditional college stupidity. What do you think?
August 15th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
What do you mean by “ruining four more lives”? The only person whose life was ruined is Dahlquist. He’s dead. It doesn’t get any more ruined than that. The other four, at best, will merely have their lives delayed while they pay their debt to society.
Actions have consequences. The court will decide how much leniency to show.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
CJ, you know I respect you and your opinions, but sometimes I think you’re too right-brained for your own good. This is one of those times.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
K-rod Peorias greasy fist of justice could not win a case for aggravated arson a few years back when the perpetrator confessed that she tried to burn the house down because her boyfriend was inside cheating with another girl. This case is an easy win for a defense lawyer so my money is on the defense. The K-Blade never gets to break out the black patent leather pumps for this one, it never gets in front of a judge.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Defense attorneys, including myself, make your argument every day in courtrooms across this country for all types of offenders. It very rarely works. But when it does work (and the defense attorney feels as if she has accomplished something positive), the public backlash comes faster than you can imagine.
I sympathize with your feelings. I just wish everyone would find such sympathy for all offenders because, believe me, there is some sympathy to be found in each criminal defendant, if you wish to look hard enough.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Don’t have to look too far in this instance, do you?
August 15th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
PI - It’s my job, it’s part of me, it is what I do. I never have to look too far to find it. It is always there and it is never hard to find, if you look.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I’ll agree with that to an extent. I hardly find sympathy towards a defendant who shoots two people in the head over a matter of ten dollars, nor people who don’t take measures to keep their pets from escaping and mauling someones puppy, neither do I feel sympathy for people who set cars on fire, beat up pedestrians, then kill people by lobbing bricks from an overpass. My sympathies only go so far. I think it’s that way with most people.
Nevermind the legal aspect, there’s an unspoken social contract not to do harm upon eachother or cause damage to eachother’s property. We expect it of others and we expect it of ourselves. When someone breaks this contract, it’s very difficult to sympathize with them. Take the guy who drove across three states to shoot his ex-wife and her lover. From what I’ve gleaned from all sides of the story, the victim was positively rotten. But because the social contract was broken, the only ones who sympathize with the perpetrator are the family and friends.
The Bradley case is unique in this regard because though it was reckless and irresponsible, it was not done with sinister intentions. The outcome is the same either way, but in situations like these anyone can understand a case for mercy. I know I’ve had plenty of experiences where things didn’t go as planned or someone accidentally got hurt, but it was never done with malicious intent. Who hasn’t had that kind of experience–who can’t relate to it?
Anyway, sorry for ranting in your comments, PI. I’ll wrap it up with this: public sympathy, in my opinion, is directly proportionate to the intent of defendant(s); not only to the plight of the victim(s).
August 16th, 2007 at 2:20 am
PI, do “reno” a favor and send him a link to my article about this mess…And PH, you know as well as I do that mitigating circumstances can accentuate the Gray Scale between Black and White.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Perhaps on purpose perhaps not, the states attny chose to bring unwinnable charges against these guys. Most likely to appease the public and set the stage for the plea. They will more than likely plead down to a manslaughter charge do about 30-60 days and get a few years probation. To take this to court would be a political and public embarrassment for Lyons, there would be big time media coverage and then he would lose.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Raoul - You are incorrect in at least one respect. They can’t “plead down” to manslaughter because it is not a lesser included offense of the offenses they have been charged with at this point. They may be allowed to plead only to the explosives charges but, until they are charged with the actual death of Danny, they can’t plead to manslaughter.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:12 am
morton–er… what? I can’t tell if that was snide or not, because, well, I basically agreed with what you said in your post.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:17 am
(Clarification) That is, it was directed towards Ms. PH comment about finding sympathy in everything.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I think punishment of some sort is needed. To just dismiss this so as not to “ruin” more lives is not the correct thing to do, in my opinion. Granted, drunk college kids do stupid crap all the time, but they also need to know that their are consequences for their actions.