While I understand what you're saying, this sentiment can sometimes be a slippery slope. I mean, imagine how much insurance rates would drop if they dropped all smokers. That's only the start though. Overweight? No insurance for you. After all, heart disease probably has more insurance money thrown at it than anything else.
Glad to know you feel it is important for everyone else to pay for someone's medical bills because they were too f*****g "cool" to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. I'll tell you what - why doesn't everyone who feels this way start writing checks to a designated fund to pay for the bills and the rest of us (the responsible ones) can have our insurance rates and taxes reduced - yeah, that's what I thought....
Put your $$$ where your mouth is, then tell us why we should pay for stupid people's medical bills.
I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.
Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.
OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder.I see. Phrased that way I understand your point. However, I still feel that manslaughter is [still only] manslaughter, regardless if drinking alcohol is an easily accessible way for most people to get into a terrible situation such as that. On this point we disagree.
f you feel the sentences for unpremeditated murders (i.e., manslaughter) are too lenient, that is a different issue
My point was that the monetary cost to society due to cranial or similar injuries is not worth the loss of freedom associated with instituting forced behavior on people by passing laws to protect themselves from hazardous behaviour
I was attacking the proposition that DUI related deaths be charged as premedited murder. People who get into cars and drive after drinking, are not intending to go out and kill someone else. That is what premeditated murder is. They obviously are guilty of premeditated drunk driving, but there is no prior planning or intent to kill another human being.
I do not see why you are equating 4 years in state prison (that the woman received in your example) to 'tongue lashings and 20 Hail Marys.'
Clearly in this example the woman had alcohol abuse problems that were not 'cured' by locking her up, whether it was 4 years or 15.
I did not say I 'feel it is important for everyone else to pay for someone's medical bills because they were too f*****g "cool" to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.' My point was that the monetary cost to society due to cranial or similar injuries is not worth the loss of freedom associated with instituting forced behavior on people by passing laws to protect themselves from hazardous behaviour.
I do put my money where my mouth is, by gladly paying the extra in insurance and taxes (a very small percentage, btw) which helps keep such freedoms available to me. Surely you know this is how our society works. You pay for something I believe in and you don't, and I do the same. The difference is in who we both decide to vote into office to pass the budget and laws for us. Not to start separate funds for small cases.
A few years ago they took all the playground equipment out of my elementary school playground, not because someone was hurt, but because a child might someday get hurt. Now the kids enjoy nothing more than a flat field to run around in. I do not call this progress. Broken bones and chipped teeth are not excessive prices to pay in childhood for learning the limits of your body, and are in fact important so that when you are older and driving around a car, intoxicated, you realize that you can in fact get hurt.
Well, why not just put prohibition back on the books? Idiots.
This is the same person that when you argue with him here and prove him wrong on a point he resorts to pointing out grammatical errors you make in your comments and starts the personal attacks and calls you profane names and labels you in derogatory terms.
Drunk driving related deaths premeditated murder? Look up the definition of premeditated. High risk and preventable, yes, which is why they are charged with manslaughter (3rd degree murder). If you are not drunk and kill someone while driving, you are not charged with manslaughter. Don't pretend that manslaughter is an insignificant crime to be charged with.
Lawrence Wolf has been a pioneer in developing all forms of alternative sentencing such as house arrest and diversionary programs. He has established relationships with Judges and District Attorneys throughout Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties.
Your arrest depends on what the police see, hear and do but your freedom can depend on your attorney.
Jail time is not always the right sentence and many judges will agree that alternative methods of punishment will benefit all concerned far more than traditional methods of incarceration. There are some alternative forms of punishment that an attorney experienced in DUI law will recommend. Some examples of alternative sentencing are as follows:
Sacramento, CA – Governor Gray Davis signed into law on October 13, 2001 Assembly Bill-1078. This new law, named Joshua’s Law, stops the effective removal of felony vehicular manslaughter convictions from the records of drunk drivers.
The motivation for Joshua’s Law was found in the outrage and disbelief that someone could be sentenced as a first-time offender when he or she had previously been convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter in connection with driving under the influence (DUI). This was the case for a Ventura County woman who in 1989, with a blood alcohol content later measured at .20 (twice the legal limit at the time), swerved off the road killing Joshua Oxenreider, Scott Mullins and Jacob Boyd. The issue with the former law surfaced in August of 2000 when Linda Oxenreider, Joshua’s mother, was notified by Michael Bradbury and Gregory Totten of the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office that the woman who had killed her son had been arrested again for DUI. Bradbury and Totten explained that because the recent offense had occurred ten years after Joshua was killed, the offender would be sentenced as if she had never previously been convicted of DUI and had never killed the three boys. Linda Oxenreider was outraged that the judicial system would not recognize and consider the life and death of her son. Bradbury and Totten, as well, were troubled that the law would treat people who drive drunk and kill, and then drive drunk again, the same as a first-time DUI offender. Together, Oxenreider, Bradbury and Totten urged California State Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson, to author a bill that would change the law and eliminate the 10-year "washout" period.
The case prompting "Joshua’s Law" began with a drunken driving crash on March 31, 1989 in Ventura County. After being arrested the previous day for drunk driving, Diane Mannes was released. She borrowed a car and continued drinking. With a blood alcohol content (BAC) later measured at .20 she veered off the road striking five teenage boys, killing three of them and critically injuring the other two. A small plastic sign with the inscription "I swerve and hit people at random" was in the window of the car Mannes was driving.
Convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter, Mannes served four years in state prison before being released in September of 1996. Mannes was in and out of jail for probation violations. She was discharged from parole in June 1999. On August 11, 2000 Mannes was again arrested for drunk driving, this time with a BAC of .28. The 1989 offense, having occurred 10 years before the current case, could not be considered when prosecuting under current law. Mannes was therefore sentenced as if she were a first-time offender.
When I was in college Colorado passed a law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. It has since been repealed. What about society paying for medical costs associated with helmetless motorcyclists braining themselves, you ask? The monetary cost is not worth the loss of freedom to make decisions, good or bad, and take responsibility thereof, of members of this society, I say. I do not ride motorcycles and would absolutely wear a helmet if I did, but do not want the gov't legislating into my life anymore than is necessary to protect the Earth.