= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on The Preference Utilitarian’s Time Inconsistency Problem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (104)
That's what I told the judge when loaded one bullet into my revolver and went on a 'Russian killing spree'. He wasn't impressed.
If you didn't kill anyone, what were you convicted of - and what sentence did you get?
Edit: Blueberry's interpretation may be more accurate.
The sentence would be reckless endangerment in that case, possibly multiple counts; search engines suggest this is a gross misdemeanor in Washington State, which would make a typical maximum sentence of about a year. (Were I the judge, I would schedule the year for each count to be served successively, but that's me.)
In Washington, that's at least attempted manslaughter, which leads to a 10 year maximum. It may even be attempted murder, though we'd need to check the case law.
This is Australia. He started with possession of an unlicensed firearm and worked up from there.
The worst part was the appeal. I showed them the security footage in which I clearly reseeded the revolver between each of my four shots rather then firing four chambers sequentially and they wouldn't reduce the sentence by 22%.
If one of my shots had gone off on the second shot we could have seen if the judge was a frequentist. Would he call in a psychologist as an expert witness? "Was the defendant planning to shoot twice or shoot up to four times until the gun fired?"
Correction: a Class A felony has a maximum sentence of life in prison, according to your link. Otherwise, yeah, you're right.
That would be attempted murder, with a sentence of usually at least 20 years.
There is a huge difference between choosing a random person to kill and endangering someone.
Our society already expects that there are risks to life that are not killing: for example airlines can make analysis about how much certain security procedures cost and how much lives do they save. If they can show that if it costs more than (I guess) 7 million dollars to save one life, then it is not reasonable to implement that measure.