A judge who's hand I want to shake!
- Thread starter Okiewan
- Start date
just_a_rider
Member
- Jul 25, 2006
- 394
- 1
Here in NC there has been quiet a few wrong way collision since Jan 07 on the interstates, and all were due to drunks driving while they were :think: DRUNK! Driving the wrong way and in each occasion inoscent people lost their lives. Not only did these people lose their lives but their families and friends lost a part of them that can't be replaced by any thing ever again. This is leaving out all the rural insodents that happen on a dailey basis. Driving drunk killing is no dif than taking a gun and killing. In fact in these cases what would have been the difference? None, the guilty just as well have been using a gun, same results. :yell: The ones that think driving while impared is ok are probably are drunk 99.999999% of the time.
HajiWasAPunk
Member
- Aug 5, 2005
- 807
- 0
Now the rumor is that Paris had herpes (or atleast was taking a prescription drug for it's treatment). sounds like they should've removed her to protect the other inmates.
I also like how she was paranoid about people taking pictures of her while she peed, b/c that's so much more revealing than the other porn...ERRRRR....Home videos she's made.
I'm with Okie, props to the judge. Rob, legalized drinking and driving? I know you're a libertarian and all but come on? Our society dictates that we all drive. I can concede that some people sober are worse than others after 3 beers, but it's fact that it impairs your judegement and reflexes after just a couple of drinks. Why wait unitl someone's actually hurt to prosecute? The punishment is worse if you do hurt someone but isn't this what "reckless endangerment" is supposed to cover?
I also like how she was paranoid about people taking pictures of her while she peed, b/c that's so much more revealing than the other porn...ERRRRR....Home videos she's made.
I'm with Okie, props to the judge. Rob, legalized drinking and driving? I know you're a libertarian and all but come on? Our society dictates that we all drive. I can concede that some people sober are worse than others after 3 beers, but it's fact that it impairs your judegement and reflexes after just a couple of drinks. Why wait unitl someone's actually hurt to prosecute? The punishment is worse if you do hurt someone but isn't this what "reckless endangerment" is supposed to cover?
wouldn't life be boring if a few folks didn't pop up with "alternative" opinions now and then? You have to admit, that even if you (or I) don't agree with RobRight, he does bring up some interesting points.
Most places serving alcohol have parking lots. And, most people that drink in those bars, drive home. This is reality folks, sorry...this is how society operates. And, very few people have an accurate way to determine BAC. So, the average bar patron, assuming they don't have a desig. driver, either
1. plays it really safe by only having say, 1 drink (not likely)
2. "guesses" at what is approximately the legal limit, having several drinks over the course of sevaral hours (more popular), or
3. drinks however much he or she pleases, figuring if they drive conservatively they will get by with it (also quite popular).
I'm sure we all know "lightweights" that are poor drivers to begin with, that could become reaaally poor drivers even with one or two drinks (legal but unsafe). And, we probably all know an alcoholic or two, let's say they are a skilled safe driver, that could have enough to be over that legal limit, but due to their body's tolerance, would be virtually unaffected. I've known people that could pound a twelve pack in short order, and show no signs of being intoxicated. So, let's say this guy has four beers, and is barely over the limit. Which would you rather meet on the road, the legal one or the illegal one?
What it really boils down to, is a system which is far from ideal, but is the best that we have come up with.
Another point is that while obviously as a person becomes increasingly intoxicated it affects their driving, when an accident happens we are quick to call it "alcohol related" if the person had ANY alcohol in their bloodstream, even though it is nearly impossible to prove one way or the other if the accident may have happened anyway if the person wasn't drinking. Certainly in some cases the answer is "yes", but still it is very skewed logic. A high percentage of drivers on the road at 2:30 AM Sunday morning have alcohol in their bloodstream. So, if an accident occurrs, there is a high probability it will be "alcohol related", regardless of what actually caused the accident. If we could magically make it so that no one on the road at that time had alcohol in their blood stream, would there be zero accidents? If the answer is anything other than "yes", then to be fair we better start compiling statisitcs on "tired driver related", "cold medicine related", "distracted by passenger/radio/cel phone related" and last but not least "I suk as a driver related" accidents. But then, there aren't simple test for all of those contributing factors...:blah: :blah:
Most places serving alcohol have parking lots. And, most people that drink in those bars, drive home. This is reality folks, sorry...this is how society operates. And, very few people have an accurate way to determine BAC. So, the average bar patron, assuming they don't have a desig. driver, either
1. plays it really safe by only having say, 1 drink (not likely)
2. "guesses" at what is approximately the legal limit, having several drinks over the course of sevaral hours (more popular), or
3. drinks however much he or she pleases, figuring if they drive conservatively they will get by with it (also quite popular).
I'm sure we all know "lightweights" that are poor drivers to begin with, that could become reaaally poor drivers even with one or two drinks (legal but unsafe). And, we probably all know an alcoholic or two, let's say they are a skilled safe driver, that could have enough to be over that legal limit, but due to their body's tolerance, would be virtually unaffected. I've known people that could pound a twelve pack in short order, and show no signs of being intoxicated. So, let's say this guy has four beers, and is barely over the limit. Which would you rather meet on the road, the legal one or the illegal one?
What it really boils down to, is a system which is far from ideal, but is the best that we have come up with.
Another point is that while obviously as a person becomes increasingly intoxicated it affects their driving, when an accident happens we are quick to call it "alcohol related" if the person had ANY alcohol in their bloodstream, even though it is nearly impossible to prove one way or the other if the accident may have happened anyway if the person wasn't drinking. Certainly in some cases the answer is "yes", but still it is very skewed logic. A high percentage of drivers on the road at 2:30 AM Sunday morning have alcohol in their bloodstream. So, if an accident occurrs, there is a high probability it will be "alcohol related", regardless of what actually caused the accident. If we could magically make it so that no one on the road at that time had alcohol in their blood stream, would there be zero accidents? If the answer is anything other than "yes", then to be fair we better start compiling statisitcs on "tired driver related", "cold medicine related", "distracted by passenger/radio/cel phone related" and last but not least "I suk as a driver related" accidents. But then, there aren't simple test for all of those contributing factors...:blah: :blah:
CR Swade
~SPONSOR~
- Jan 18, 2001
- 1,764
- 5
As far as I'm concerned...the judge in this case only deserves any kudos if this sort of sentencing is consistent w/ his/her other sentencing procedures. Sure smacks of a judge trying to make a name for themselves and get some airtime. I'm totally good w/ the sentence, so let's get that straight right now...but I'd be willing to bet that this judge would have just done the rubber stamp 3 -5 day sentence for somebody not named Hilton.
I know we have some people from the UK and Australia on this board, I would like to hear their take on drunk driving.
Most of the rest of the world is way more stringent than we are on drunk drivers. Basically if you get caught once your going to jail, heavy fines, lost licenses etc. Get caught a second time and it's very bad.
In Germany fines for moving vehicle violations are based on your income. Basically they look at your taxes to determine how much you have to pay. While the average Hans might get a $200 fine, some wealthy person might have to pay $5000 for the exact same crime.
On a related note, psychologists have studied the effects of parents on their children for years. It's called "nurture vs. nature." It is a 100% accepted medical fact that what parents do to their kids DOES have an effect on the rest of their lives. If you take the same exact child (DNA copy) and put him in 3 vastly different households odds are he will turn out different (how he was raised, or nurtured). There is also a chance that they will have a lot in common (his nature). For example if you cloned the same kid 100 times and put him into 100 ****ty households the majority of those kids (50+) would end up as ****ty people, the others would be the "exception."
The bottom line is parents are responsible for the way their children act. Just because you know a guy who had a ****ty up bringing and turned out ok, doesn't make that the rule. For every one of these guys, I can show you 5-10 who had ****ty parents and are ****ty people.
Feel free to put me on ignore all you want, that won't change the way the world works.
Most of the rest of the world is way more stringent than we are on drunk drivers. Basically if you get caught once your going to jail, heavy fines, lost licenses etc. Get caught a second time and it's very bad.
In Germany fines for moving vehicle violations are based on your income. Basically they look at your taxes to determine how much you have to pay. While the average Hans might get a $200 fine, some wealthy person might have to pay $5000 for the exact same crime.
On a related note, psychologists have studied the effects of parents on their children for years. It's called "nurture vs. nature." It is a 100% accepted medical fact that what parents do to their kids DOES have an effect on the rest of their lives. If you take the same exact child (DNA copy) and put him in 3 vastly different households odds are he will turn out different (how he was raised, or nurtured). There is also a chance that they will have a lot in common (his nature). For example if you cloned the same kid 100 times and put him into 100 ****ty households the majority of those kids (50+) would end up as ****ty people, the others would be the "exception."
The bottom line is parents are responsible for the way their children act. Just because you know a guy who had a ****ty up bringing and turned out ok, doesn't make that the rule. For every one of these guys, I can show you 5-10 who had ****ty parents and are ****ty people.
Feel free to put me on ignore all you want, that won't change the way the world works.
friar tuck
Member
- Feb 9, 2006
- 190
- 0
I like the idea of fines being based on income. GREAT idea. I didn't know it was like that in Germany. I DO know you can rack up several thousand in speeding tickets on the autobahn REAL quick. :)
Filthy_McNasty
Member
- May 9, 2007
- 104
- 0
That's because they're fricken' Socialists!mox69 said:
You mustbe a Liberal Democrat to actually agree with such a blatantly Socialist idea...why not take it a step further? If you kill a poor person, you spend a year in jail. But if you kill a rich person, the jail time increases based on the level of the wealth of the victim. After all, rich people's lives are worth more than poor people, right?
:|
truespode
Moderator / Wheelie King
- Jun 30, 1999
- 7,980
- 249
It's not always the parents faults. I know of one person who for 30 years was an upstanding citizen and did a lot of good things for herself, her family and others. Then she started doing crazy things including getting a dui and drug use.
Her other sister is a great mother of 2 and a teacher.
The parents are very loving and wonderful. They have done a good job.
Ivan
Her other sister is a great mother of 2 and a teacher.
The parents are very loving and wonderful. They have done a good job.
Ivan
The whole point of the income based punishment is so the punishment actually means something!
First of all, I consider myself a moderate republican. So this isn't some whacky idea from a radical.
This is the EXACT same method of punishment your mother used on you as a kid. When you misbehaved, she took away your GI joes. When your sister mis behaved she took away her barbies or maybe her phone privileges.
Next time one of your daughters misbehaves, tell her that she cannot watch SPEED channel for 2 months! Watch how effective that punishment probably is. (exceptions for those of you with daughters who actually like SPEED of course).
This has absolutely nothing to do with murder or any other serious crimes where a jail sentence is mandatory. Nor am I even remotely advocating punishment based on the value of the victims life.
First of all, I consider myself a moderate republican. So this isn't some whacky idea from a radical.
This is the EXACT same method of punishment your mother used on you as a kid. When you misbehaved, she took away your GI joes. When your sister mis behaved she took away her barbies or maybe her phone privileges.
Next time one of your daughters misbehaves, tell her that she cannot watch SPEED channel for 2 months! Watch how effective that punishment probably is. (exceptions for those of you with daughters who actually like SPEED of course).
This has absolutely nothing to do with murder or any other serious crimes where a jail sentence is mandatory. Nor am I even remotely advocating punishment based on the value of the victims life.
- Aug 2, 2000
- 13,510
- 19
Kind of like income-based tax brackets. Gotta pay a higher percentage if you make more so it means something, eh?mox69 said:
Gotta pay a higher percentage if you make more so it means something, Unless you are running a moto church!
Filthy_McNasty
Member
- May 9, 2007
- 104
- 0
That's not an applicable comparison, because those two punishments are basically equivelent. In each case, a doll is being taken away from a child. What you are proposing (and supporting) would be more along the lines of taking away your daughter's $30 barbie, but taking away your son's $3000 KX65. Not an equitable exchange at all...mox69 said:
friar tuck
Member
- Feb 9, 2006
- 190
- 0
LOL. I'm conservative, and independent, but mostly vote for republicans. I don't get why you see this issue the way you do. If I make 100k a year, what's the impact on my life if I get a 250 dollar ticket? Now if I make 20k a year, and have a family, how does that same ticket impact my world? 6 months in jail, is 6 months in jail...a fine should hurt people equally as well.
This depends on how much the doughter treasures the Barbie, and how the boy feels about the bike. With children the dollar value has no effect on the enjoyment that they have on their belongings. The purpose for punishment is to create a hardship that is commensurate with the offense. In the case of children, taking playstation priveledges from one child may suffice, where removing motorcycle priveledges from another would have the same result. Another child would benefit from not being allowed to talk on the phone, while the older ones a better affected but having the car keys taken away. At this point, we see that it isn't about the money, but the misery (for lack of a better term).Filthy_McNasty said:
On that note, having the courts check into your income before assessing a fine seems like a bit of an invasion to me. So perhaps the wealthy, who aren't hindered by a $300 fine will just continue to break the law and pay the fines. While those of use who aren't wearing $500 shoes will try harder to not get caught. If only the police would just target the luxury cars. ;)
Filthy_McNasty
Member
- May 9, 2007
- 104
- 0
I see the issue the way I do because income-based fines are as blatantly unfair as a graduated tax system. Both absolutely reek of Marxism...friar tuck said:
"From each, according to his means, to each, according to his needs..."-Karl Marx
Although I see the logic in your argument about rich people being harmed less by a fine that can be a real burden to someone with low income, it still goes against my concept of fairness. Regardless of the person's income, a punishment should be equally applied. If the punishment for an offense is a $250 fine, then that is what it should be for everyone that is guilty of that offense. I don't subscribe to the nasty Liberal attitude of punishing the rich simply for being succesful...
Giving a more wealthy person a larger fine is extremely unfair. If Bob down the road earns 20k a year, then he earns 20k a year. If John earns 100k a year, then he earns 100k a year. Each person has worked to get to that salary, and cleeary (in most instances) John has worked harder than BobIn order to earn more money. John should not have to pay more money for a fine than Bob, as this demotes Bob as a person, giving him less human value than John.
friar tuck
Member
- Feb 9, 2006
- 190
- 0
To make it fair, instead of dollar amounts on fines, they could put percentages. Speeding, .001%; DUI .002%...percentage of income. Then it's the same for everybody :-D
Actually, you guys are starting to make me rethink my position on this...something that doesn't happen very often. I got a citation today, so maybe that has something to do with it as well. lol
Actually, you guys are starting to make me rethink my position on this...something that doesn't happen very often. I got a citation today, so maybe that has something to do with it as well. lol
