|
On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o:
Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence.
I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions.
|
On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions.
You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment.
|
On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment.
Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars.
|
On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars.
This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you?
|
On January 03 2010 14:41 SuperJongMan wrote:
My last DUI cost me 7000...
Yeah, just never ever do it.
I had to drive ONE FUCKN BLOCK!!!
So I did, and a spy assassin cop just nailed me.
He's gonna lose a ton of money over this.
i just lost all my respect for you
|
how the fuck are people so self-centered that they live in a city and get charged with a DUI more than once.
ok, one time, i understand - you're retarded and ignorant.
but more than once....? you're just a self-centered asshole.
please note that I say "in a city" because in a city you can walk or get a taxi. out in the country there aren't so many options, not that it still isn't a terrible thing to do.
|
On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions.
There was a taxi. He could have called a taxi. He could have gotten rides from his friends. Lock him away and let him feel regret for his selfishness for a while.
|
On January 04 2010 04:18 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars. This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you?
I feel that way with many types of criminals, but not murderers. You are completely twisting my words and deliberately not seeing what I am saying. I explicitly said that I don't believe in locking away criminals that "aren't dangerous." Sure this sounds ambiguous, but someone convicted of manslaughter can hardly be argued to be as dangerous as someone convicted of murder. A man who has gotten one DUI who can no longer drive can hardly be considered a menace to society. I feel this way about most people convicted of 'soft crime' like Conrad Black. These people would serve better by giving back to society what they took, not being locked away.
Please don't say "by your logic" when I have made it clear that it is NOT by my logic that murderers should not be in jail. Please reread what I initially said.
|
On January 04 2010 04:26 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. There was a taxi. He could have called a taxi. He could have gotten rides from his friends. Lock him away and let him feel regret for his selfishness for a while.
Yeah, what he did was absolutely irresponsible and selfish and he should be punished for it. I am not defending drinking and driving. In downtown Montreal there are plenty of ways he could have gotten home safely. I was just explaining one other reason for why people drink and drive.
|
fwiw I agree with your general stance on imprisonment. I just think people who do this kind of shit deserve very harsh punishment.
|
So do all of you guys who want life time imprisonment agree for similar punishments for speeding, tailgating or driving in winter without winter tires? Because the effects (being less able to control your vehicle in dangerous situation) and the motives (save money, get to a place faster...selfishness) are the same, yet I remember some threat on TL where a lot of people admitted that they drove faster than allowed.
|
man, he's probably gonna get some serious jailtime 
|
Instead of the death penalty they could have a sentence of hard labour for their natural life, when they are too old to do anything and they cost more to detain then execute them. This way at least they did something productive for society with there lives and they get to keep living many years until they are a financial burden.
This is quite harsh but at least they can reduce the damage they have done to society for maiming/killing someone and the deterrent factor is maintained. Sounds very harsh still but this is ppls lives we are talking about.
The Breathalyzer cars idea is something I wouldn't like but would accept even though I don't drink as that way I know its helping keep ppl from drink driving as their are still those that do. The inconvenience is greatly outweighed by the gain of fewer/nill DUI crashes.
|
On January 04 2010 04:56 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
So do all of you guys who want life time imprisonment agree for similar punishments for speeding, tailgating or driving in winter without winter tires? Because the effects (being less able to control your vehicle in dangerous situation) and the motives (save money, get to a place faster...selfishness) are the same, yet I remember some threat on TL where a lot of people admitted that they drove faster than allowed.
Speeding might as well have the same punishments I don't see why not. Tailgating is rather difficult to detect someone doing without camera evidence/crash happening as a result to cause you to investigate. Driving without winter tires is a strange one as its only appropriate in places where there is this adverse weather and the government should just grit the roads so this shouldn't be necessary in most places but where the weather is truly that bad then sure, every car should have winter tires/chain links things for the cars.
Speeding could be immediately stopped on highways by putting in speed limiters in every car which is quite cheap anyways. To go a step further GPS + Speedlimiter working together could keep you from speeding at all, the only problem is ppl might accellerate to the limit all the time keeping their foot down which can be dangerous too as the speed limit is the limit not the speed you must go at if its not safe. But some form of technology could reduce this problem.
Also a black box in every car to record any speeding done would further keep ppl from ever speeding. I mean even if you speed on short journeys you save very little time and just waste petrol.
|
On January 04 2010 04:27 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 04:18 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars. This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you? I feel that way with many types of criminals, but not murderers. You are completely twisting my words and deliberately not seeing what I am saying. I explicitly said that I don't believe in locking away criminals that "aren't dangerous." Sure this sounds ambiguous, but someone convicted of manslaughter can hardly be argued to be as dangerous as someone convicted of murder. A man who has gotten one DUI who can no longer drive can hardly be considered a menace to society. I feel this way about most people convicted of 'soft crime' like Conrad Black. These people would serve better by giving back to society what they took, not being locked away. Please don't say "by your logic" when I have made it clear that it is NOT by my logic that murderers should not be in jail. Please reread what I initially said.
Murderers without weapons are also not dangerous. So I think we are perfectly fine to make them under house arrest and have them doing whatever they want as long as they do not endanger anyone else. Same with criminals convicted of manslaughter - in fact, since you think criminals deprived of their weapons (which can be a hand gun, a kitchen knife, or a car; all of them are dangerous weapons when used "correctly") are not menace to the society,
Actually, I probably do not want to live in a world bond by the kinds of laws you mentioned. In your imaginary world, I can get angry, shoot and kill you, charged with manslaughter, and walk away simply by depriving me of my gun liscense. Alternatively, I can run you over with a car, and walk away simply by forfeiting my driver's liscense. Does that sound fair to you?
In my old neighbourhood, there is an old lady who always sit and watch over an intersection psychotically - accordingly, she has been doing it for many years because her only grandchild was killed on that intersection because of a drunk driver. You probably have not lost anyone to DUI before, and either have I, but statistics show that about one third of fatalities are caused by DUI, and lives that are lost to DUI is very real. That's why the law is tough on DUI. Now grow up.
|
On January 03 2010 15:09 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 14:57 Rainmaker5 wrote:On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. Right because that will solve all of our problems. Well, something is wrong with the system of deterrents in place if people continue to drink and drive, and in the process put other people at risk. If the punishment is harsh enough, you're not going to drink and drive. Simple as that.
Yet if you get the death penalty for murder...people still murder gee i wonder why?!??
|
On January 04 2010 07:11 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:09 Two_DoWn wrote:On January 03 2010 14:57 Rainmaker5 wrote:On January 03 2010 14:54 psion0011 wrote:
Your buddy should get the death penalty. Right because that will solve all of our problems. Well, something is wrong with the system of deterrents in place if people continue to drink and drive, and in the process put other people at risk. If the punishment is harsh enough, you're not going to drink and drive. Simple as that. Yet if you get the death penalty for murder...people still murder gee i wonder why?!??
Coz most of the people who do dumb things are... pretty dumb. Go figure!
|
On January 03 2010 15:12 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 15:10 Snet wrote:
What was his BAC? When police say he failed the test, in some states that's as low as .02 BAC which wouldn't of been the cause of this accident.
He's probably getting up to a year for seriously injuring 2 people while under the influence. He better hope to god no one dies.
Then he has to worry about being sued. Your friend is fucked for a long time. It's 0.08 in most provinces in Canada. And since it's DUI causing bodily harm, the Crown Attorney is obviously going to press charges.
It actually recently went from .07 to .04 in Ontario. In terms of if alcohol actually caused the accident, seems like bad asian driving and 'weather' was a much larger factor than a couple of minishots.
|
On January 03 2010 15:00 illu wrote:He is screwed. If that person dies, he could be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, and manslaughter. Except no less than 10 years. All we can do is to pray for the well-being of the victims. EDIT: some information for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_(Canada)Show nested quote +
If no one is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail.[16]
If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail.[18]
If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence.[19]
Since someone is seriously hurt (actually, two people), he is looking at around 10 years assuming they don't die. If that person dies, o boy.
Oh wow I'm jealous of Canada.
In Texas Intoxication Manslaughter only gets you twenty years maximum
|
On January 04 2010 07:02 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2010 04:27 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 04:18 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:54 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 04 2010 03:49 illu wrote:On January 04 2010 03:38 GreenManalishi wrote:On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/
Drunk driving happens a lot because:
a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink."
b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think?
c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks."
d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: Being from the interior of British Columbia, the reason most people there drink and drive is due to the setting. People live far apart, there is no traffic, no pedestrians, and it is too cold to walk home. There are no cabs. My circle of friends never drink and drive, but we also don't live in the interior anymore. If you drink and drive in my hometown the worst thing that could happen is you drive your car into a ditch or fence. I personally don't like the idea of locking this guy away, I don't see the value to society of imprisoning criminals that aren't dangerous. Give him community service, take away his license, hell you can even brand him to let everyone know his crime, just don't lock him away. There is currently a deterrent being considered here in Vancouver where convicted DUI drivers that regain there licenses have different coloured license plates to warn everyone of their past transgressions. You got to be kidding. DUI kills - everyone agrees with that. How is that not dangerous? By your logic even people who are convicted of manslaughter do not need to go to jail - after all, they are not dangerous people; they just happened to have killed someone in the heat of the moment. Depends on what they did. Sure DUIs kill, but the person isn't dangerous as long as they don't drive. Don't put them in prison, give them house arrest if you must, make them work in soup kitchens and clean our roads as compensation. Locking them away does nothing for us and just costs us money. We are no safer having them behind bars. This is the same to say for all of the other kinds of criminals. In fact, by your logic, a murderer does not need to stay in jail - all we need to do is to put him into house arrest away from dangerous weapons. But I am pretty sure you are not OK with that, are you? I feel that way with many types of criminals, but not murderers. You are completely twisting my words and deliberately not seeing what I am saying. I explicitly said that I don't believe in locking away criminals that "aren't dangerous." Sure this sounds ambiguous, but someone convicted of manslaughter can hardly be argued to be as dangerous as someone convicted of murder. A man who has gotten one DUI who can no longer drive can hardly be considered a menace to society. I feel this way about most people convicted of 'soft crime' like Conrad Black. These people would serve better by giving back to society what they took, not being locked away. Please don't say "by your logic" when I have made it clear that it is NOT by my logic that murderers should not be in jail. Please reread what I initially said. Murderers without weapons are also not dangerous. So I think we are perfectly fine to make them under house arrest and have them doing whatever they want as long as they do not endanger anyone else. Same with criminals convicted of manslaughter - in fact, since you think criminals deprived of their weapons (which can be a hand gun, a kitchen knife, or a car; all of them are dangerous weapons when used "correctly") are not menace to the society, Actually, I probably do not want to live in a world bond by the kinds of laws you mentioned. In your imaginary world, I can get angry, shoot and kill you, charged with manslaughter, and walk away simply by depriving me of my gun liscense. Alternatively, I can run you over with a car, and walk away simply by forfeiting my driver's liscense. Does that sound fair to you? In my old neighbourhood, there is an old lady who always sit and watch over an intersection psychotically - accordingly, she has been doing it for many years because her only grandchild was killed on that intersection because of a drunk driver. You probably have not lost anyone to DUI before, and either have I, but statistics show that about one third of fatalities are caused by DUI, and lives that are lost to DUI is very real. That's why the law is tough on DUI. Now grow up.
You have absolutely missed what I am saying. A murderer purposefully killed someone. Killing someone while drunk driving is an accident. Sure the act is selfish and irresponsible but the man didn't intend to kill someone. The difference is intent. I said that someone who is not dangerous (ie. a man convicted of manslaughter) should not be locked away in prison but should serve in a more meaningful manner. I never said their punishment shouldn't be as severe. You seem to be arguing that somehow I want murderers out of jail and running around the streets, when what I want is nonthreatening criminals paying back their debt to society instead of costing it money.
I repeat, I do NOT want criminals to have lighter sentences, I want them to have different sentences. The current way has a miserable rate of reform, and it doesn't make sense to lock away people that aren't a threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
