>Current Chelsea full-back Marcos Alonso was arrested in 2011 for his involvement in a car crash in Spain’s capital Madrid. He was the driver of the car which collided with a wall and killing one of the fellow passengers in the car, a 19-year-old woman.
>Originally facing 4 years in prison, Alonso had his sentence reduced to 21 months and it was later dropped completely as the full-back paid 500,000 euros in an out-of-court settlement to the victim's family.
why is this allowed?
>why is the damaged party allowed to voluntarily settle out of court
Seems like they value 500k more than Alonso in prison for 21 months
it was allowed because he was a halal player at the time
what's his name again?
It's a criminal case, not a civil matter. The aggrieved party should not be able to make that decision, if a crime is committed, the government should hold all responsibility in determining sentencing. If they wanted to sue Alonso for damages, that should be a separate matter.
>Daughter gets killed
>Lol at least we're rich now
Marcos "call me fernando" Alonso
Family must have needed the money
Is 500k rich for Madrid?
Why though? Government is an outside third party that is not invovled in the crime. The victim holds the best claim and shouldnt their wishes be respected? Government should only step in if the victim asks for help or does nothing
>Government is an outside third party that is not invovled in the crime.
But the government set the laws so the crime is committed against the government
>3 drunk people go for a drive
>only the driver is at fault
>government set the law
To protect the citizens rights, not itself. Obviously the crime is against the victims life and not the government. In a world without the state it would still be considered a crime.
That's correct though
Marcos "Manslaughter your Daughter" Alonso
Not a crime to be drunk in the back seat of a car
>kill cunt
>threaten family
>profit
>German logic
One of the parties that's involved is dead and therefore incapable of claiming the justice for itself. That's where the government steps up.
That would be an above average house and an ok car i think (i'm a neet). Not quite rich but would it really be better for the family to see the guy behind bars?
>would it really be better for the family to see the guy behind bars?
Probably not considering that it wasn't murder, she was partially to blame and he was probably remorseful.
>Not quite rich
If I could sacrifice one of my relatives for an apartment to own, I'd do it. Because I will literally never be able to afford to buy an apartment, I can only live where I was registered into when I was born (my father's house) or nomad between my relatives's houses (assuming they want to accept me). I could rent a room (not really though), but that's pointless since I'm not gonna live alone anyway. I wouldn't sacrificing my relative or even all of my family for an apartment. Because it's like a castle in the sky for me.
>If I could sacrifice one of my relatives for an apartment to own, I'd do it
>I wouldn't sacrificing my relative or even all of my family for an apartment
So would you or would you not?
Also how come you've got so little money at the moment?
>trying to make sense of russian posters
Yes, but in a world with a state it is a crime against both - this is why you have civil cases following criminal ones in countries like the USA.
>In a world without the state it would still be considered a crime.
you seem to think morality is something intrinsic in human beings. how cute.
Marcos "drink it all then hit the wall" Alondo
when you know your friend is drunk and you let him drive, and even encourage it by joining him, it's your fault too
>Is 500k rich for Madrid?
maybe, but 500k is worth more than some random slut's life
Why is Sup Forums so obsessed with this?