Is Life Sentence Too Harsh For Man Convicted of Ninth DWI?

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Why not? Does being crazy deprive someone else of their right to life, liberty or happiness?

It does if the person is dangerously ''crazy''.

Are you seriously saying that if a schizophrenic had committed 9 violent crimes during various episodes of his illness, that he should just get let out again after serving his time ?

At what point do you decide that someone's freedom, and a precious attitude towards ''pre-crime'', outweighs the safety of innocent people in the community ?

Originally posted by mryanbrown

That's where we diverge, I maintain my empathy for humans despite their actions, especially when they're truly nearly almost uncontrollable
If we made screaming in public illegal, and started imposing sanctions against the disabled who make outbursts...

Would you feel the same? Who cares, the disabled person repeatedly screamed out loud! Lock him up!

A disabled person is always disabled , an alcoholic is not always drunk .

Originally posted by mryanbrown

That's where we diverge, I maintain my empathy for humans despite their actions, especially when they're truly nearly almost uncontrollable

It most certainly is ...

"... nearly almost uncontrollable" ...... in control of a truck ..... nice !

==============================================

I see where you are coming from regarding the Sovereign citizen travelling in his/her conveyance, not engaged in commerce etc angle ..... (i have many friends deep into the subject). But i just see a need to regulate some aspects of our lives with respect to endangering other people as a consequence of our actions.
Motorways and roads in general are cramped with other users - there must surely be some rules to maximise the safely of everyone.

I can`t rely on a repeat offender adhering to common law whilst under the influence of a mind altering substance .
Coercion remains the final sanction at this point.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Oh c'mon they weren't "violent crimes".

They were statutory infractions which had the potential to be more serious than they were, in every circumstance.

Does the fact it could be more serious actually make it more serious?

Under that system you could potentially make every single piece of personal property that could potentially seriously injure someone illegal while intoxicated.

Which essentially makes being intoxicated in public illegal, which is non-violent in nature.

Seems like a stretch? That's the inevitable and natural outcome. It's already true in many locations.

Which makes everything not private property a totalitarian state, and then I'm sure you would also rationalize the need for the government to still extend it's self into your private property for further non-violent offenses.

Ultimately making government totalitarian in every aspect of life.

And if you're advocating the need to imprison a man for life who could potentially be treated for his disease, thus rehabilitating his negative behavior allowing him to be a benefit as a responsible individual to society...

Then I'm not too sure what to say.

Like I said, DUI has nothing to do with the matter. It's only a crime because we've lost the knowledge of what a crime is.

DUI it's self is non-violent it is a state. Not an action, not an outcome. If he was as you said, "reckless" then convict him for the crime of being reckless in action, not in state.

Take his state into account, that he has a disease that debilitates his behavior so that for his sentencing he could be made to undergo detox, possibly be placed into a half-way program to learn alternative behavioral habits and come out of his sentence a better individual. And if he can't due to the severity of the nature, undergo testing for commitment not imprisonment. Either way the taxpayers will still pay. At least in the latter he's not with actual criminals and still has the potential to reform.

That's real justice.

EDIT: I'm not arguing the right to travel angle as much I am what a crime is angle and what is a reasonable punishment under the law considering the circumstances.

You're right, an alcoholic isn't always drunk.
And a disabled person isn't always screaming. (To clarify I'm not intending to offend anyone with disabilities. I understand it's a broad generalization.)

Both are simply possibilities. The alcoholic will continually seek alcohol, ultimately leading to intoxication. So I fail to see what "not always drunk" has to do with it.

The disability can push them to do any task while intoxicated.



[edit on 14-8-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by Hefficide
Statistically many criminals end up engaging in recidivist behaviors. Many don't. We cannot rationally base our justice system upon the idea that a person is simply assumed to be guilty of a future indiscretion.

The problem here is that you're going along the lines of ''one size fits all'' in cases regarding criminal justice.

Different crimes and different circumstances lead to a variety of sentences and recommendations for the perpetrators.

Of course, once someone has served their time, then they should be viewed as a free man, and left to go about their lives.

If someone gets caught and convicted for drink-driving a second time, then they should get a life sentence.

People like that lack any kind of responsibility or concern for other people.
They recklessly risk the lives of all and sundry, and if they haven't learnt their their lesson the first time, then they are worthy of incarceration for the foreseeable, workable future.


There's no necessity for worrying about recidivism, because the lengths of sentencing should be in the statute books, and that should cover someone with multiple DWI convictions.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Only in the most extreme cases do we, as a society, ever blame judges or parole boards for recidivist problems. They make the best decision they can given law and situation.

Pardon my French, but... Bollocks !

Even in my local paper I read about ridiculously soft sentences that a judge hands down in some very serious cases, because they've heard a sob story from the defence counsel.

I sometimes wonder whether it ever weighs on their conscience if the said fortunately treated criminal goes on to commit a more serious crime...

I doubt it.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Personally I would be suprised if this man ever is allowed to legally drive again. And if he were to do so in the future - well that's an entirely different case with different consequences.

What's the difference between ''legally'' driving and ''illegally'' driving in this situation ?

I thought the guy was already illegally driving under the influence of alcohol.

Why would someone who broke the law in this way worry about breaking another similar law ?


''And if he were to do so in the future''

Nine times previously, so I would say that that's enough cause to make sure that he never does it again in future.

Maybe the tenth time, he'll kill someone... Then some people will be happy that he gets locked up for a very long time.

Talk about: ''Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted''...

Some people just have no sense of responsibility.



[edit on 14-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by mryanbrown

The alcoholic will continually seek alcohol, ultimately leading to intoxication. So I fail to see what "not always drunk" has to do with it.

The difference is - choice .

A disabled person has no choice whether or not they are disabled.

An alcoholic has a choice whether or not to be a drunk.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by mryanbrown

The alcoholic will continually seek alcohol, ultimately leading to intoxication. So I fail to see what "not always drunk" has to do with it.

The difference is - choice .

A disabled person has no choice whether or not they are disabled.

An alcoholic has a choice whether or not to be a drunk.

No, I'm sorry that's a fallacy. You're in effect stating that getting drunk while being an alcoholic which is a disease is a choice. That the effects of said disease, are a choice.

Who is the victim?

Let us say you were convicted of running a business with no license nine times?

Does that mean you should go to jail for life?

Breaking contractual agreements should never have ANY jail time.

That is not specific to this case though. Did he ever harm another person in his DUI convictions?

Pfffft. Good little statist.

Originally posted by mryanbrown


You're in effect stating that getting drunk while being an alcoholic which is a disease is a choice.

It most certainly is a choice.
The alcohol doesn`t pour itself down their throats does it.

I have no problem with an alcoholic driver ......... just the ones who are over the legal blood alcohol limit.

==============================================

So if you are so certain that these people aren`t in control of their actions and have no choice but to seek out alcohol ........ why are you so sure they are capable of making the right choice whether or not to drink and drive.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Oh c'mon they weren't "violent crimes".

They were statutory infractions which had the potential to be more serious than they were, in every circumstance.

Does the fact it could be more serious actually make it more serious?

I'm talking about a schizophrenic that commits nine violent crimes.
Should anybody in the Justice or Prison system do anything when he's served his time after his ninth crime ?

Perhaps it might be safer for the public if this schizophrenic was detained indefinitely until he's cured and doesn't pose a danger to the public.


Now, how about a drink driver that commits nine potentially fatal crimes ?
Should anybody in the Justice or Prison system do anything when he's served his time after his ninth crime ?

Perhaps it might be safer for the public if this drink driver was detained indefinitely until he's cured and doesn't pose a danger to the public.


Spot the difference...

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Can't reply to the rest of your post, as it seemed like a thinly-veiled attempt to justify driving under the influence...

Poor show.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
No, I'm sorry that's a fallacy. You're in effect stating that getting drunk while being an alcoholic which is a disease is a choice. That the effects of said disease, are a choice.

Nonsense.

An alcoholic does have a choice, or at least a chance, to cure himself.

A mentally or physically disabled person clearly doesn't.

It's absurd to compare the two.

EDIT: Double Post.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
If someone gets caught and convicted for drink-driving a second time, then they should get a life sentence.

A two strikes - you're out law has yet to be passed, as far as I know. And even that would only apply to violent crimes
if I understand it correctly. Not the threat of future crime.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Only in the most extreme cases do we, as a society, ever blame judges or parole boards for recidivist problems.
They make the best decision they can given law and situation.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Pardon my French, but... Bollocks !
Even in my local paper I read about ridiculously soft sentences that a judge hands down in some very serious cases,
because they've heard a sob story from the defence counsel.
I sometimes wonder whether it ever weighs on their conscience if the said fortunately treated criminal goes on to commit
a more serious crime...
I doubt it.

The defense of the accused is a necessary part of a judicial system, is it not? Are we naive enough to envision prosecutors
as crusading do-gooders and defense attorneys as slimey hacks who would sell their souls for a buck?

C'mon.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
What's the difference between ''legally'' driving and ''illegally'' driving in this situation ?
I thought the guy was already illegally driving under the influence of alcohol.
Why would someone who broke the law in this way worry about breaking another similar law ?

Legally means operating a properly registered motor vehicle while in possession of a valid drivers permit or license.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Talk about: ''Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted''...

Some people just have no sense of responsibility.

Obviously we both believe ourselves to be in the right here. My feeling is that if I allow the law to bend a bit, just
to suit my drothers then it serves no good purpose because the next person who is treated a little wrongly, out of
public opinion, might just be me or one of my loved ones. Seriously, do you think this mans family wants him
in prison for life, or do you think they might be desperate for some kind of help in getting their loved one back to
his right mind?

I cannot change my opinion here that this man is sick and needs help. He has't killed anyone. In fact his behavior can
be seen just as self-destructive as it is outwardly destructive.

Either way, none of this matters as a judge will sort it all out. I guess then we'll all see which side of things the judgment
comes down on.