PDA

View Full Version : Executing drunk drivers



gabosaurus
04-16-2008, 11:27 AM
My cousin Dahlia's husband, who is a legal assistant, believes repeat DWI/DUI offenders should be liable for the death penalty.
The reason I thought about this now is the thread about pedophiles being executed.
Early in his career, Dahlia's husband worked on a case where a drunk driver hit an SUV, seriously injuring a young mother and killing two of her three children. The drunk, who had a previous conviction, plea bargained for 25 years in jail.
In later cases he worked on, Dahlia's husband saw a woman who sold a small amount of drugs and guy in possession of kiddie porn both get stiffer sentences than a guy who killed two kids.

He now wants any drunk driver at fault in an accident that kills children or the mother of children to be eligible for the death penalty. I totally agree with him.

DragonStryk72
04-16-2008, 11:32 AM
My cousin Dahlia's husband, who is a legal assistant, believes repeat DWI/DUI offenders should be liable for the death penalty.
The reason I thought about this now is the thread about pedophiles being executed.
Early in his career, Dahlia's husband worked on a case where a drunk driver hit an SUV, seriously injuring a young mother and killing two of her three children. The drunk, who had a previous conviction, plea bargained for 25 years in jail.
In later cases he worked on, Dahlia's husband saw a woman who sold a small amount of drugs and guy in possession of kiddie porn both get stiffer sentences than a guy who killed two kids.

He now wants any drunk driver at fault in an accident that kills children or the mother of children to be eligible for the death penalty. I totally agree with him.

I agree with you, to be honest. No one makes a person drive drunk, because first, they have to get drunk in the first place. My father is a 27 year recovering alcoholic, and even when he was drinking, did not get behind the wheel drunk. It's a choice, one that put everyone around the driver in danger.

gabosaurus
04-16-2008, 11:45 AM
Here is a point that I have seen made. A bit controversial, but still one I agree with.
Let's say you have a couple of kids, and you allow them to play out in the yard. They sometimes cross the street to play with other kids.
Who poses more of a danger: The guy sitting at his computer, watching kiddie porn, or the dude who races down the street drunk in his vehicle?

Another case: Let's suppose your kid is out skating, or riding his bike. Which above person is more liable to cause injury or death?

I think convicted drunk drivers need to be registered, just like sex offenders. I don't want any drunk drivers living in my neighborhood. Or especially living near a school.

Abbey Marie
04-16-2008, 11:49 AM
What you are really expressing is a call to continue executing people for homicide.

mundame
04-16-2008, 11:57 AM
What you are really expressing is a call to continue executing people for homicide.


And calling drunk driving that kills someone homicide, rather than an "accident." Interesting thread!

Abbey Marie
04-16-2008, 12:01 PM
And calling drunk driving that kills someone homicide, rather than an "accident." Interesting thread!

Yes. Homicide, not necessarily murder. We already have criminally negligent homicide, for example. What would you call voluntarily getting drunk, then driving and killing people because you are impaired?

Nukeman
04-16-2008, 12:07 PM
Yes. Homicide, not necessarily murder. We already have criminally negligent homicide, for example. What would you call voluntarily getting drunk, then driving and killing people because you are impaired?Ummm I believe they call that


"vehicular homicide"

I could be wrong though!!!:coffee:

Abbey Marie
04-16-2008, 12:10 PM
Ummm I believe they call that


"vehicular homicide"

I could be wrong though!!!:coffee:

I was giving her an example of homicides that aren't murder. Exact names vary among states.

glockmail
04-16-2008, 12:13 PM
So now Gabs is conservative. I guess I knocked some sense into her.

remie
04-16-2008, 12:13 PM
My cousin Dahlia's husband, who is a legal assistant, believes repeat DWI/DUI offenders should be liable for the death penalty.
The reason I thought about this now is the thread about pedophiles being executed.
Early in his career, Dahlia's husband worked on a case where a drunk driver hit an SUV, seriously injuring a young mother and killing two of her three children. The drunk, who had a previous conviction, plea bargained for 25 years in jail.
In later cases he worked on, Dahlia's husband saw a woman who sold a small amount of drugs and guy in possession of kiddie porn both get stiffer sentences than a guy who killed two kids.

He now wants any drunk driver at fault in an accident that kills children or the mother of children to be eligible for the death penalty. I totally agree with him.

Dads dont count? Why not?

Abbey Marie
04-16-2008, 12:16 PM
So now Gabs is conservative. I guess I knocked some sense into her.

Now Glock, her husband is Republican. I think the term is "Conservative by injection". :laugh2:

(j/k! Hope you're not offended, Gabby)

Hagbard Celine
04-16-2008, 12:27 PM
So now Gabs is conservative. I guess I knocked some sense into her.

"Conservative" isn't a word that can be used to universally define what makes sense. You've got to get off this kick you're on of calling everything you don't like "lib" and everything that makes sense "Conservative." It's a joke man.
And putting DUI drivers up for the death penalty for repeat offenses is way over the top, extremist talk.
They shouldn't be liable for the death penalty at all. If they kill someone, they get a prison sentence just like they do now. I don't know why ya'll are so gung-ho to put our legal system under Shariah law. Next you'll be advocating chopping-off the hands of theives and stoning adulterers in the streets. C'mon people!

Sitarro
04-16-2008, 12:35 PM
Gee, if killing someone while driving drunk was a capital offense, we would have been rid of that asshat, Teddyboy Kennedy, a while ago.:salute:

Abbey Marie
04-16-2008, 12:37 PM
Gee, if killing someone while driving drunk was a capital offense, we would have been rid of that asshat, Teddyboy Kennedy, a while ago.:salute:

You mean ol' Gin-fer-brains? :laugh2:

manu1959
04-16-2008, 01:44 PM
what is you opinion on olde people that drive without a license or insurance and break the law and kill people...

who about criminals that drive without a license or insurance and break the law and kill people.....

or la girls talking on the phone and putting thier makeup on.....

or police officers on their cell phones not paying attention and wipe out a group of bikeriders.....

they all get the death penalty as well.....

Monkeybone
04-16-2008, 01:46 PM
we might as well just start cappin everyone that breaks a law! it would be so much easier and make an even better deterrent! and cheaper!

manu1959
04-16-2008, 01:51 PM
we might as well just start cappin everyone that breaks a law! it would be so much easier and make an even better deterrent! and cheaper!

you may be onto something.....

theHawk
04-16-2008, 02:09 PM
My cousin Dahlia's husband, who is a legal assistant, believes repeat DWI/DUI offenders should be liable for the death penalty.
The reason I thought about this now is the thread about pedophiles being executed.
Early in his career, Dahlia's husband worked on a case where a drunk driver hit an SUV, seriously injuring a young mother and killing two of her three children. The drunk, who had a previous conviction, plea bargained for 25 years in jail.
In later cases he worked on, Dahlia's husband saw a woman who sold a small amount of drugs and guy in possession of kiddie porn both get stiffer sentences than a guy who killed two kids.

He now wants any drunk driver at fault in an accident that kills children or the mother of children to be eligible for the death penalty. I totally agree with him.


You know, I'd go one step further and say that anyone who is unfit for rehablitation to be release back into society should be considered for the death penalty. The whole purpose of the prison system is to keep people who are too dangerous off the streets so they don't harm the law abiding citizens. If we as society deem someone too dangerous to ever be released back into the streets, we should just save the taxpayers alot of grief and execute them. Whether their crime be murder, child molestation, or multiple offences such as DUI or assault, why keep them in prison when we have no intentions of releasing them?

mundame
04-16-2008, 02:26 PM
You know, I'd go one step further and say that anyone who is unfit for rehablitation to be release back into society should be considered for the death penalty. The whole purpose of the prison system is to keep people who are too dangerous off the streets so they don't harm the law abiding citizens. If we as society deem someone too dangerous to ever be released back into the streets, we should just save the taxpayers alot of grief and execute them. Whether their crime be murder, child molestation, or multiple offences such as DUI or assault, why keep them in prison when we have no intentions of releasing them?


This whole imprisonment thing is an artifact of a wealthy society. It's very recent, and only in rich countries that there ARE prisons. Most societies can't afford to imprison people for long terms; they just hanged or shot them. Or transported them to Australia or Georgia.

gabosaurus
04-16-2008, 03:18 PM
I totally see your point. If someone rapes or molests a child, they should get the death penalty. But if someone kills a child, they should get a lighter sentence.

I guess this goes along with Americans being more enamored with drunks than sex offenders. You see tons of legal ads stating "We defend DWI cases!" But when was the last ad you saw reading "We defend sex offenders!"

I would never want to make the choice, but if I totally had to, I would rather have my child molested than dead. Perhaps you wouldn't.

Dilloduck
04-16-2008, 03:52 PM
I totally see your point. If someone rapes or molests a child, they should get the death penalty. But if someone kills a child, they should get a lighter sentence.

I guess this goes along with Americans being more enamored with drunks than sex offenders. You see tons of legal ads stating "We defend DWI cases!" But when was the last ad you saw reading "We defend sex offenders!"

I would never want to make the choice, but if I totally had to, I would rather have my child molested than dead. Perhaps you wouldn't.

Good luck with the liquor lobby !

Little-Acorn
04-16-2008, 04:15 PM
we might as well just start cappin everyone that breaks a law! it would be so much easier and make an even better deterrent! and cheaper!

Any law in particular you wanna start with?

How about the people who violate the 2nd amendment? The 2nd is a ban on GOVERNMENT, prohibiting them from making laws that restrict people's gun rights. So most of the violators are government officials. Sounds like a win-win situation all around!

:D :D

glockmail
04-16-2008, 06:54 PM
"Conservative" isn't a word that can be used to universally define what makes sense. You've got to get off this kick you're on of calling everything you don't like "lib" and everything that makes sense "Conservative." It's a joke man.
.... Conservatives believe in the rule of law. Libs are iffy about it at best.

glockmail
04-16-2008, 06:55 PM
Now Glock, her husband is Republican. I think the term is "Conservative by injection". :laugh2:

(j/k! Hope you're not offended, Gabby) Someone in the house has to carry all that dead weight.

gabosaurus
04-17-2008, 09:20 AM
Someone in the house has to carry all that dead weight.

Dead weight? Both of us work. Both of us earn a paycheck. Both of us have degrees.
What about the dead weight in your house? Perhaps it is you, in the separate bedroom. :lmao:

Hagbard Celine
04-17-2008, 10:32 AM
Conservatives believe in the rule of law. Libs are iffy about it at best.

Completely untrue. Where do you get this stuff from? Liberals aren't a green-skinned separate species. They're people just like you and they aren't out to destroy the country--your opinions of them not withstanding.

glockmail
04-17-2008, 11:51 AM
Completely untrue. Where do you get this stuff from? Liberals aren't a green-skinned separate species. They're people just like you and they aren't out to destroy the country--your opinions of them not withstanding. Actually they are out to destroy this country, through incrementalism and gradual re-writing of the Constitution. And if you don’t think Libs are soft on crime you really need to read more.

Hagbard Celine
04-17-2008, 11:55 AM
Actually they are out to destroy this country, through incrementalism and gradual re-writing of the Constitution. And if you don’t think Libs are soft on crime you really need to read more.

Like the way Conservatives wanted to amend the Constitution to exclude gays from the marriage club less than three years ago? Give me a break with this "Vast Lib Conspiracy" crap. You need meds if you're really that delusionally paranoid.

glockmail
04-17-2008, 12:01 PM
Dead weight? Both of us work. Both of us earn a paycheck. Both of us have degrees.
What about the dead weight in your house? Perhaps it is you, in the separate bedroom. :lmao: Nice to see that you've finally joined the work force. How long before you boss finds out how much time you’re spending on line and fires your ass? Or do you bring your mattress to work?:ssex:

What’s with the separate bedroom thing? Where do you get that assumption?

glockmail
04-17-2008, 12:05 PM
Like the way Conservatives wanted to amend the Constitution to exclude gays from the marriage club less than three years ago? Give me a break with this "Vast Lib Conspiracy" crap. You need meds if you're really that delusionally paranoid. An Amendment of that type wouldn’t re-write the Constitution, it would simply affirm the obvious. Just like the Bill of Rights, by the way.

You used the conspiracy term not me. Libs are out in the open about it.

diuretic
04-17-2008, 04:13 PM
Dahlia sounds as if she would have approved of English criminal justice in the 18th Century. All those capital crimes yet the system was so ineffective that crime was absolutely rampant. The problem for the system was that it was difficult to get caught.

What changed the game was the introduction of the New Police in 1829 in London, an idea which spread to the rest of the country in the ensuring years. Yes, there should be appropriate punishment for crime but the chances of actually being apprehended should be increased so that the deterrent value of punishment is enhanced.

What are your DUI laws like? Where I am it's illegal to drive above .05%. Every police officer here is permitted to stop any driver to test them at any time. We also have breath testing stations which test large numbers of drivers for alcohol or drugs On the sentencing end of the equation for a first offence the max is 3 mths in prison, for a subsequent offence the max is 6 mths and disqualification from driving is lengthy.

It has had an effect. But the most important change in the last twenty or so years has been the social disapproval of DUI. No longer is is acceptable when you're at the pub to boast about how off your face you were last night but you managed to get home in one piece.

In the state next to mine some years ago the traffic safety authorities ran a series of tv, radio and print ads which were aimed to stigmatising DUI drivers. The line went, "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot!" At one inner city pub someone had scrawled underneath one of the ads, "But if you get home you're a bloody legend!" That caused great mirth at the time. Nowadays it would be seen as poor taste humour.

Hagbard Celine
04-17-2008, 04:18 PM
Dahlia sounds as if she would have approved of English criminal justice in the 18th Century. All those capital crimes yet the system was so ineffective that crime was absolutely rampant. The problem for the system was that it was difficult to get caught.

What changed the game was the introduction of the New Police in 1829 in London, an idea which spread to the rest of the country in the ensuring years. Yes, there should be appropriate punishment for crime but the chances of actually being apprehended should be increased so that the deterrent value of punishment is enhanced.

What are your DUI laws like? Where I am it's illegal to drive above .05%. Every police officer here is permitted to stop any driver to test them at any time. We also have breath testing stations which test large numbers of drivers for alcohol or drugs On the sentencing end of the equation for a first offence the max is 3 mths in prison, for a subsequent offence the max is 6 mths and disqualification from driving is lengthy.

It has had an effect. But the most important change in the last twenty or so years has been the social disapproval of DUI. No longer is is acceptable when you're at the pub to boast about how off your face you were last night but you managed to get home in one piece.

In the state next to mine some years ago the traffic safety authorities ran a series of tv, radio and print ads which were aimed to stigmatising DUI drivers. The line went, "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot!" At one inner city pub someone had scrawled underneath one of the ads, "But if you get home you're a bloody legend!" That caused great mirth at the time. Nowadays it would be seen as poor taste humour.
Here it's .08 percent in most, if not all places. You get carted off to the drunk tank to sober up and then you're faced with a license suspension and/or community service. I think you can go to prison after three of them.

gabosaurus
04-17-2008, 05:25 PM
My primary objection is that being drunk is pretty much considered acceptable. You read of people who have a half-dozen DUI/DWI convictions, and yet they are still driving around.
Compare that with sex offenders, who have to register the first time they are convicted, and are forever stigmatized.
I want much harsher sentences for DUI/DWI. First conviction should include a six-month license suspension. Second conviction should have mandatory jail time.
I would also like to see registration for convicted drunk drivers. I don't want one living in my neighborhood. Or in the vicinity of a school.
Too many idiots still believe it is "cool" to get drunk and drive around.

DragonStryk72
04-17-2008, 09:33 PM
I totally see your point. If someone rapes or molests a child, they should get the death penalty. But if someone kills a child, they should get a lighter sentence.

I guess this goes along with Americans being more enamored with drunks than sex offenders. You see tons of legal ads stating "We defend DWI cases!" But when was the last ad you saw reading "We defend sex offenders!"

I would never want to make the choice, but if I totally had to, I would rather have my child molested than dead. Perhaps you wouldn't.

But why does it have to be a choice, gabs? Both of them deserve to die for what they did to your child. Now, let's look at your scenario, and put a little more substance to it:

Which is better to you:

The memories of your happy child up until the moment of their death, and the pain of losing them.

Watching every day for ten years as your child cringes whenever you or her father tries to hug her, who, once active and vibrant, now is sullen, and quiet, their eyes looking for threats, instead of simply looking at the world as a child. Her whole life scarred, her childhood robbed, unable even to move onto the afterlife without knowing the pain and fear of what was done to her. Her first kiss, her first sensation of making love all horribly ruined, stolen away from her. It will color all relationships that come after it.


Btw, I happen to like having my children both alive, and unmolested. And, were either done to child, there will be a death penalty on the one who did, court or no court.

diuretic
04-17-2008, 09:38 PM
The thread's going wacko. Tell me I'm not reading that a molested child should die to avoid the suffering. Tell me that and I'll be reassured.