My dad and I were talking about this the other day. Specifically, they had shown on the news a clip of the court room, while the victims families took turns speaking and chewing out the tour manager.
Now, I'm not denying that this guy made one HUGE ass idiotic mistake by setting off pyrotechnics in a little nightclub. But do you think it's right to throw him in jail over it? And to make him sit there and listen to the victims families and such?

I think prision should be for people who willingly commit crimes, and to keep them from doing it in the future. YES, if someone knowingly murders someone else in cold blood, they should have to hear from the victims loved ones like that - on TV in a public setting - so that it's as emotionally wrenching as possible. Make him face that those were real people that he killed. Force them to feel remorse. Absolutly.

However, this guy did not expect that the club was going to go up in flames and kill a bunch of people. He made a stupid mistake, and it's quite doubtful that he'd make that same stupid mistake again. I can't imagine him not feeling terrible enough already, without having to face the victims families like that. I don't see how putting him in prison, on our tax dollars, is going to fix anything. We're not keeping him from killing anyone else - he wasn't a murderer, he made a bad decision. Make him pay for their funerals, maybe money for any kids/spouses left behind.

What does everyone else think? Was forcing him to listen to the victims' families, and the probable jail sentence fair?

The guilt and shame alone have probably already torn this guy's life apart.

Yes, I do. Whether he deserves to go to prison, and for how long, is an open question, but I think that it is quite fitting that he should be forced to sit there while victims' families tell him what they think about his stupidity.


Well, that's up to a jury. I see no problem with jail for unvoluntary manslaughter and other accidental (whether neglient or reckless) crimes. It's kind of like if he was driving recklessly and forced a bus full of people off a cliff. He didn't intend any harm, but he was being stupid, and many people paid for his stupidity with their lives.

Seriously, pyrotechnics with a 10 foot ceiling? Idiot.

I don't have a problem with him going to jail. Ten years seems like a lot, but he'll probably get out early.

Why just him, though? To say he was the only one to make that choice is like saying that no one else - band included - knew that the pyrotechnics were there. And I'm pretty damn sure that's not the case.

Well, they should have charged the club owner too, but I don't think the fact that multiple people were stupid should excuse any one individual's stupidity.

To use PD's example, if two dudes are drag racing and drive a bus off a cliff, you don't give the drivers a pass b/c two people were doing it at once.

No, but you sure as hell would have charged them both.

And though dangerous, of course, the pyros weren't as OBVIOUS a danger as driving wrecklessly. In the video, they were like big sparklers. Had the soundproofing around them not been so extremely flamable, it may not even have been an issue. It's not like it was the first time the band had ever used pyros. Why were some of the emergency exits bolted and locked shut? It was clearly a combination of factors, a lot of which were the fault of the club, not the band manager.

I'm not condoning his decision, and I'm not saying that he shouldn't get SOME punishment. I'm asking what end prison would serve over a monetary fine, and why is allll of the blame his?

Well, NaT,

You asked if it was fair that this dude was going to jail and forced to listen to victim testimony. You didn't ask if it was fair that he co-stupids got away with it.

Well, dammit, I'm asking now.

I just think, considering everyone complaining about prisons being over crowded and such, if it makes sense to put someone away who's clearly not going to repeat a 'crime' (If you can call an accident a crime).

NaT,

How do you know that other people weren't charged in this case?

I believe that the other people plead guilty years ago. Might want to check this out before you get all outraged.

NaT, you may be losing your touch.

I agree that he should have to sit through the families' testimonies, not as punishment for him but as a way for the families to confront the guy. How they choose to do that, like the man mentioned was forgiving but others probably were not, is up to them. But they should have the chance to do that. He shouldn't have to go to jail though, in my opinon.

I'm not outraged, I just wondered if it would be as useful to punish accidents the same as intentional crimes. I mean in general, not just this case specifically.

They’re not punished “the same” as intentional crimes.

Take homicide for example. You generally have these levels of culpability:

1st Degree (Premeditated Homicide) – Plotted out, planned, executed.

2nd Degree (Intentional Homicide) – Also involves intent and malice aforethought, but for some mitigating factor or another, it does not rise to the level of being premeditated.

Voluntary Manslaughter – No prior intent to kill, often defined by the “heat of passion”.

Involuntary Manslaughter – Unintentional killing resulting from reckless of criminally negligent behavior. No intent to kill, but often the result of a lower lever crime or misdemeanor.

The justice system punishes the intent, but also the result, in criminal as well as in civil cases.

Which is fine. Maybe I just don't think prison has a point if the person did something unintentional, and isn't likely to commit a crime in the future.

Maybe I agree with you, but then we're getting into the more fundamental questions of the philosophy of criminal justice.

Questions like, “What is the purpose of criminal punishments?”

There are basically three answers: Retribution; Rehabilitation; or Deterrence, and within Deterrence there is the question of Specific Deterrence or General Deterrence.

Retribution is the most basic concept, and the one that even the most simple-minded can fathom. You do wrong, you get punished. “An eye for an eye” is the prototypical retributive concept. It’s also terribly simplistic, and not particularly effective in combating crime, especially lesser crimes. While I don’t dismiss retribution entirely as an element of why or how criminals should be punished, it’s often a sign of unsophisticated thinking when retribution is a person’s primary concept of criminal justice. However, retribution does satisfy the populus, and that cannot be forgotten as a concern of justice. The people must believe that the punishment fits the crime, and this is something that even the most primitive societies understand. You can have a representative democracy, or you can have a tribal warlord chief, but if the leader(s) cannot dispense justice that the people consider wise and fair, the government will lose legitimacy. More than any other prop of government, justice is what people care about.

What you’re talking about is Specific Deterrence, or the concept of preventing this specific actor from committing crime in the future. You may be right that the pain and suffering and guilt of what he has done (accidentally, negligently, recklessly, whatever) may be enough to specifically deter him from similar actions in the future, that is not necessarily enough to be useful to society as a whole. You need to consider the General Deterrent factor of a punishment, how the punishment prevents similar crimes by OTHERS. Making an example of someone. Does putting this person in jail prevent other people from making the same stupid decisions that lead to all of these deaths? In this case, I would say that it does.

You've used this before. Did you copy and paste this from a college paper?

No, I went to law school.

I think the one problem with the statement you posted was that these people lost their lives, this guy will lose 4 years of his life, then is free. He is still free to breathe, sleep, dream, and grow and all the other stuff that being alive rewards us with. So my line of thought for involuntary manslaughter and harm is in some way for the individual to maybe lose a little bit of what the deceased lost.

I also think that the club owners and possibly the band should be brought up on charges (if they haven't already) and should be held responsible for the actions taken that night. Being stupid is never an excuse. It is part of a club or venue owners job to help ensure public safety and order when they are in that venue for whatever reason. With the job and pay comes the responsiblity for the others in your place of business.

I'll be back after I look and see if anyone else was charged with anything.