FAFO Home Defense - Unfair!

1911Fanatic · Dec 11, 2024

It doesn't matter what you, I, or any granola eating Libtard thinks. She was convicted, and will serve 45 years. She is just as culpable as Charles Manson was in the crimes that he was convicted of. Is someone gonna tell me that Manson shouldn't have been convicted just because he didn't do the actual killing?

The woman did participate by waiting in the driveway as the getaway driver. Manson initially got death. It was commuted to life. She is lucky she didn't get death.

And the fact that one of the minors was her lover just adds an extra layer of ick.

Ben B. · Dec 12, 2024

Substitute abstract culpability for actual culpability, and I would agree. I also think of this as "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon culpability", in which someone is held criminally culpable for something they did not do, that another person did do, and for which the other person who did it is judged to have acted correctly. Thru a contrived AS IF logic that deviates from what ACTUALLY happened, the conclusion is derived that the initiator in fact "abstractly" did the thing that another actually did. Such things are fine for tort law, (somebody needs to pay for my undesired outcome), I guess, tho our system seems pretty Fouled Up to me.

I disagree with such abstract gyrations in criminal law that result in criminal charges for an actor who did not do a thing, another actor did do the thing and was held blameless (Justifiable), while the first is magically assigned to have done the thing and now it is Murder 1. Charge them for what they actually did.

You appear to be carrying on about the broad culpability abstraction. Maybe a bit of inclusive culpability. These philosophical abstractions and hairsplitting are groovy if you are into that sort of thing and

with the current conventions. I do understand the "dogpile" with charges mentality about charges for bad actors.

You may have the last word.