etbass
6 hours ago
Two people drive at the same unlawful speed under identical road conditions. One hits a child; one hits no one. The first is guilty of involuntary manslaughter; the second of a violation of the highway code.
No, one person hits a kills a child. The second one doesn't. The actions are not the same, because they assume that the driver has no control or ability to prevent the hitting of the child. Even at excessive speeds, a person could make evasive maneuvers. A person could wreck themselves to avoid hitting the kid. People have different driving skills, reaction times, eye sight and different vehicles that perform differently under the same speed on the same road. The judge's analogy doesn't actually hold up at all. There is some similarity, but it isn't the same thing.

This guy set a building on fire and killed a man. He took no actions to see that his actions didn't kill someone and he did it - therefore he is responsible. The results of the actions matter because it affects other people. This man is dead because of this guy's actions. You can't wish that away or pretend it didn't happen. To state the obvious, if no one was killed in the arson, it would be a lesser sentence because no one was killed. It is pretty simple. This judge is removing the responsibility of the criminal for the results of his actions. That is non-sensical and not justice.

The judge is also arguing that there is no difference between a murder and at attempted murder. But their is. In one case, the person is dead. In the other, they are not. There also would be no difference in getting into a fight fight and killing someone in a fist fight. The only factors are your strengths and their weaknesses and where you hit them, or "luck" as the judge would say. That is absurd.