← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 16740 | Posts: 50 | Started: 2005-02-14
2005-02-14 01:53 | User Profile
[img]http://www.foxnews.com/images/154022/2_22_scantlin_sarah2.jpg[/img]
"HUTCHINSON, Kan. ââ¬â For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin (search) has been mostly oblivious to the world around her ââ¬â the victim of a drunken driver who struck her down as she walked to her car. Today, after a remarkable recovery, she can talk again.
Scantlin's father knows she will never fully recover, but her newfound ability to speak and her returning memories have given him his daughter back. For years, she could only blink her eyes ââ¬â one blink for "no," two blinks for "yes" ââ¬â to respond to questions that no one knew for sure she understood.
"I am astonished how primal communication is. It is a key element of humanity," Jim Scantlin said, blinking back tears.
Sarah Scantlin was an 18-year-old college freshman on Sept. 22, 1984, when she was hit by a drunk driver as she walked to her car after celebrating with friends at a teen club. That week, she had been hired at an upscale clothing store and won a spot on the drill team at Hutchinson Community College (search).
After two decades of silence, she began talking last month. Doctors are not sure why. On Saturday, Scantlin's parents hosted an open house at her nursing home to introduce her to friends, family members and reporters.
A week ago, her parents got a call from Jennifer Trammell, a licensed nurse at the Golden Plains Health Care Center (search). She asked Betsy Scantlin if she was sitting down, told her someone wanted to talk to her and switched the phone to speaker mode:
"Hi, Mom."
"Sarah, is that you?" her mother asked.
"Yes," came the throaty reply.
"How are you doing?"
"Fine."
"Do you need anything," her mother asked her later.
"More makeup."
"Did she just say more makeup?" the mother asked the nurse.
Scantlin still suffers constantly from the effects of the accident. She habitually crosses her arms across her chest, her fists clenched under her chin. Her legs constantly spasm and thrash. Her right foot is so twisted it is almost reversed. Her neck muscles are so constricted she cannot swallow to eat.
The driver who struck Scantlin served six months in jail for driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident.
Scantlin started talking in mid-January but asked staff members not to tell her parents until Valentine's Day (search) to surprise them, Trammell said. But last week she could not wait any longer to talk to them.
"I didn't think it would ever happen, it had been so long," Betsy Scantlin said.
Scantlin's doctor, Bradley Scheel, said physicians are not sure why she suddenly began talking but believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated.
"It is extremely unusual to see something like this happen," Scheel said.
The breakthrough came when the nursing home's activity director, Pat Rincon, was working with Scantlin and a small group of other patients, trying to get them to speak.
Rincon had her back to Scantlin while she worked with another resident. She had just gotten that resident to reply "OK," when she suddenly heard Sarah behind her also repeat the words: "OK. OK."
Staff members brought in a speech therapist and intensified their work with Sarah. They did not want to get her parents' hopes up until they were sure Sarah would not relapse, Trammell said.
On Saturday, Scantlin seemed at times overwhelmed by the attention. Dressed in a blue warm-up suit, she spoke little, mostly answering questions in a single word.
Is she happy she can talk? "Yeah," she replied.
What does she tell her parents when they leave? "I love you," she said.
Family members say Scantlin's understanding of the outside world comes mostly from news and soap operas that played on the television in her room.
On Saturday, her brother asked whether she knew what a CD was. Sarah said she did, and she knew it had music on it.
But when he asked her how old she was, Sarah guessed she was 22. When her brother gently told her she was 38 years old now, she just stared silently back at him. The nurses say she thinks it is still the 1980s.
Her father, Jim Scantlin, understands that Sarah will probably never leave the health care center, but he is grateful for her improvement.
"This place is her home ... They have given me my daughter back," he said." [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147451,00.html[/url]
2005-02-14 02:08 | User Profile
Hi Gabrielle. Its so tragic how much damage can be done by one fool who mixes drugs/alcohol with driving.
Do you think the punishment should be harsher? Its easy to agree with you there when seeing real peoples' stories like this.
2005-02-14 02:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Righteous Fist]Hi Gabrielle. Its so tragic how much damage can be done by one fool who mixes drugs/alcohol with driving.
Do you think the punishment should be harsher? Its easy to agree with you there when seeing real peoples' stories like this.[/QUOTE]
I was wondering if they should be put to death. What do you think?
2005-02-14 02:16 | User Profile
Actually the punishment for drunk driving is pretty harsh as it now stands. I'm not quite sure exactly what happens on the first offence, but the second one entails loss of your llicense for six months, a large fine, and a breathalyzer installed in your vehicle for a substantial amount of time after that six months expires. The third offence is something like 90 days in jail followed up by a lifelong cancellation of your license and the regular enormous fine. Im not sure about the lifelong cancelation of your driver's license but that is what someone at work was saying the other day.
2005-02-14 02:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I was wondering if they should be put to death. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
No.
2005-02-14 02:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I was wondering if they should be put to death. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
LOL. Are you serious?
2005-02-14 02:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]LOL. Are you serious?[/QUOTE]
I mean if they kill someone.
2005-02-14 02:31 | User Profile
My opinion on the matter is pretty simple: If your willful negligence (of any kind) causes someone else harm, then you should be required to provide full restitution. The punishment shouldn't be as harsh as if you deliberately harmed someone; the focus should be on paying back the victim (to the extent possible). Forcing someone to work a crappy job indefinitely to support the victim seems like the most appropriate punishment, but that's something for the parties involved and the courts to work out.
Incidentally, although drunk drivers have caused some terrible tragedies, so have sober people who were driving on too little sleep. (Driving when sleepy is actually supposed to be more dangerous than driving drunk.) So have people who were sober and well-rested but were simply stupid and had poor driving skills. Some people drive better after a six-pack than others drive sober (I've seen this many times). So it isn't so much drunk driving I'm concerned about as negligent driving in general.
2005-02-14 02:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I mean if they kill someone.[/QUOTE] I would still say no. Because, while they did make the decision to drive while they had been drinking, their intent was not to kill anyone. Many people have driven drunk before, and the only thing that seperates the ones that get away with it, and the ones that end up harming or even killing someone is that they got lucky.
2005-02-14 03:10 | User Profile
Drunk drivers who kill people can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, which I think is appropriate. I don't think you can justify handing down a death sentence for anything other than deliberate murder, or particulary despicable sex offences.
Surgeons can be charged with involuntary manslaughter for botched operations, which is a bit harsh IMO but there are several graduations to the charge.
2005-02-14 06:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Drunk drivers who kill people can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, which I think is appropriate. I don't think you can justify handing down a death sentence for anything other than deliberate murder, or particulary despicable sex offences. to the charge.[/QUOTE] I agree. Usually a death sentence is given to someone who committed a particularily brutal murder, or at least murder that involved some type of premeditation. A death resulting from drunk driving obviously is not a henious act on the part of the drunk driver, nor does it involve any kind of planning. It just happens and is stupid and pointless, but the death that occurs is basically accidental, and not the result of any malicious intent.
2005-02-14 06:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]A death resulting from drunk driving obviously is not a henious act on the part of the drunk driver, nor does it involve any kind of planning. It just happens and is stupid and pointless, but the death that occurs is basically accidental, and not the result of any malicious intent.[/QUOTE]
Just as a hypothetical, do you think that it's justified to execute someone for attempted murder? That seems to be the logical extension of the reasoning that intent is what counts, not outcomes. Personally, I think someone who attempts murder and fails should be considered just as guilty as someone who is successful. Why reward incompetence with a lesser sentence?
2005-02-14 07:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Just as a hypothetical, do you think that it's justified to execute someone for attempted murder? That seems to be the logical extension of the reasoning that intent is what counts, not outcomes. Personally, I think someone who attempts murder and fails should be considered just as guilty as someone who is successful. Why reward incompetence with a lesser sentence?[/QUOTE]That is a difficult question, and a good one:thumbsup: I would say it again goes to the motive. If the attempt was, like, as they say "in the heat of passion" basically unplanned. Example:man finds his wife cheating on him and reacts violently, I would say no. People are not to often sentenced to death for this type of thing( the charge would probably only have been voluntary manslaughter) when a murder does result anyway.
If it was however premeditated, example: man plans and attempts to kill his wife for insurance money,etc. then I would say yes.
Basically if it would have been the type of murder that could result in the suspect recieving the death penalty, yes. and if it would probably not, then no.
2005-02-14 08:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I was wondering if they should be put to death. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
Well, I think that if they actually harm somebody then they should get a long jail term. If they kill somebody than maybe they should suffer the death penalty, I'd have to think about that. My gut reaction is that the death penalty should be available in extreme cases.
I worked as a public defender for a while, and DUI cases were our daily bread.
I think that first offense (provided nobody was hurt) should result in a significant jail sentence (it should be a felony) with probation and expungement possible if the perp agrees to get an antibuse implant (this will make him/her sick unto death if even a drop of alcohol enters their systems), regular drug testing, together with mandatory alcohol and drug counseling, ankle braclets and so forth.
If they break probation, then they're back in jail. If they make probation, their first offense record is expunged.
Upon a second convictin we give them a life sentence in prison, with probation possible only if they get and keep the antibuse implant, ankle bracelets and so forth as described above. Probation would be for life. If they break probation again, we lock them up and throw away the key, no chance of parole.
Society has to protect itself after all.
I think that the point is to encourage people to act responsibly, and setting clear boundaries and consequences for crossing those boudaries.
2005-02-14 09:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]My opinion on the matter is pretty simple: If your willful negligence (of any kind) causes someone else harm, then you should be required to provide full restitution. The punishment shouldn't be as harsh as if you deliberately harmed someone; the focus should be on paying back the victim (to the extent possible). Forcing someone to work a crappy job indefinitely to support the victim seems like the most appropriate punishment, but that's something for the parties involved and the courts to work out.
Incidentally, although drunk drivers have caused some terrible tragedies, so have sober people who were driving on too little sleep. (Driving when sleepy is actually supposed to be more dangerous than driving drunk.) So have people who were sober and well-rested but were simply stupid and had poor driving skills. Some people drive better after a six-pack than others drive sober (I've seen this many times). So it isn't so much drunk driving I'm concerned about as negligent driving in general.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean by "willful negligence."
Drinking and driving is a crime because there was the intent to do a proscribed act - getting behind the wheel after voluntarily taking a drink. The mens rea element is met by voluntarily placing alcohol in the bloodstream and then starting up the car. Voluntary intoxication is the volitional element here.
Conversely, [B]involuntary intoxication [/B] is a complete defense, for just that reason. Although I've never even heard of such a case (but I think there are a few). "Your honor, I tripped and fell and a bottle of whiskey that was on the table fell and drained out in my mouth! And then I blacked out!! I didn't know what I was doing, and I got in the car!!! Then I woke up in the hospital!!!!"
Dog won't hunt.
2005-02-14 09:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
Conversely, involuntary intoxication is a complete defense, for just that reason. Although I've never even heard of such a case (but I think there are a few). "Your honor, I tripped and fell and a bottle of whiskey that was on the table fell and drained out in my mouth! And then I blacked out!! I didn't know what I was doing, and I got in the car!!! Then I woke up in the hospital!!!!"
[/QUOTE]Involuntary intoxication? You actually think there are a few people who have used such a defense? LOL. what were their attorneys thinking to even present something so crazy? If I was a juror or the Judge, I don't think I could even pay attention to the evidence, because I would be laughing to hard.:tongue:
2005-02-14 13:31 | User Profile
Any public official, police chief, legislator, whatever, who says we need traffic/spy cameras to "save" lives, is baldface liar and should be exposed as such publicly.
Any public official, police chief, legislator, whatever, who says we need to issue more speeding tickets to "save" lives, is baldface liar and should be exposed as such publicly.
These liars should be tried and executed. These same statists have no problem selling cold, ready to go alcoholic beverages at gas stations. Hypocritical, whether you object to alcohol or not.
The ratsnest in government needs to be cleaned up first. (There are probably enough laws on the books right now to properly deal with drunk drivers.)
After the ratsnest is purged. I'd say let the injured and the family of the injured decide on the punishment.
2005-02-14 15:17 | User Profile
A car is a deadly tool if not used correctly... just like a gun or a knife.
OK. Let me ask you a question. What if a guy goes drinking while hunting and ** accidentally ** shoots your son? Is that murder? (Now remember this was not premeditation.)
2005-02-14 15:28 | User Profile
Walter, I disagree. Prisons should be holding cells for the accused until they go to trial. It is very non-white and ungodly to lock a man in a cage. If he is a danger to society than put him to death.
Rapists, murders, and kidnappers should be put to death, and thieves should be made to pay the victim double fold.
2005-02-14 18:03 | User Profile
Drunk driving, talking on a cell phone, putting on makeup, driving while tired, etc. are all very dangerious.
Driving is dangerous. People who are caught repeatedly driving imprudently should be severely punished, I don't care about what contributed to their poor driving. People with deminished capacity for reasons beyond their control should not be allowed to drive or be severely limited in the circumstances that they're allowed to drive.
If you're concerned about your own safty, drive less often, drive where the speed limit is lower, stick to safer roads, and drive defensively.
2005-02-14 18:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Drunk driving, talking on a cell phone, putting on makeup, driving while tired, etc. are all very dangerious.
If you're concerned about your own safty, drive less often, drive where the speed limit is lower, stick to safer roads, and drive defensively.[/QUOTE]It is well known that intoxication is the major contributor in 50% of all fatal accidents. Yet the state and local governments avoid addressing the issue by dispensing propaganda on the need for seat belt laws, the need for lower speed limits, the need for traffic cams. It's all about control. And it's all about political contributions.
Mark this down. You will never see the alcohol industry attacked, fined and sued like the tobacco industy. Never.
This same protection applies to dealing with high death rates due to alcohol. Our bought and paid for poly-ticks look the other way or invent a diversion when it comes to DUI's. The courts are accomplices in this, also.
IMO, the reason we don't have unlimited speeds on our Interstates is the gov't wants to make them safe for druggies, drunks and old people on medication.
2005-02-14 19:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]It is well known that intoxication is the major contributor in 50% of all fatal accidents.
The number of alcohol related fatal accidents is under 50% and even in many or most of those, alcohol is not a major contributor. It's just simplier to blame booze when someone false asleep at the wheel at 3AM. It's just simplier to blame booze when some hot-dogging teen runs off the road. Whatever causes non-drunk people to wreck can also cause drunk people to wreck.
Mark this down. You will never see the alcohol industry attacked, fined and sued like the tobacco industy. Never.
Why not? Political contributions you say? You don't think the tabacco companies made political contributions? Rubbish.
The government is still trying to put the screws to tobacco. Just this month a judge issued a ruling on a new $280billion suit... Although, this judge sided with the tobacco industry. When the enemies of tobacco are satisfied, they'll turn against alcohol.
The alcohol industry has already taken a lot of defensive action against future lawsuits. For example, modern TV commercials and ads focus on "responsible" drinking.
It sounds is if you want the alcohol industry to be sued.
2005-02-14 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Rapists, murders, and kidnappers should be put to death, and thieves should be made to pay the victim double fold.[/QUOTE]
But when Saddam Hussein did this exact same thing, he gets named an evil tyrant and his country gets demolished in order for a "democratic" puppet government to be installed and will not be permitted to put to death rapists, murders, and thieves, but will have to lock them up in prison instead????????????????????? You support BUSH, you support this arrangement, sorry.
Also, Saudi Arabia, the former Taliban, Iran, Syria, Egypt and other Muslim countries, routinely execute rapists, murders, kidnappers or chop off the hands of thieves. Thing is, there's not much of those crimes in those countries because the people are well aware of the consequences. So, it's ok, and BUSH supporters should applaud these Muslim countries for their tough stance on crime and criminals, no?? Stop calling them "tyrannies", right?
Let me know.
2005-02-14 19:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Rapists, murders, and kidnappers should be put to death, and thieves should be made to pay the victim double fold.[/QUOTE]
But when Saddam Hussein did this exact same thing, he gets named an evil tyrant and "war criminal" and his country gets demolished just so a "democratic" puppet government is installed that [U]will not[/U] be permitted to execute rapists, murders, and thieves, but will have to lock them up in prison instead????????????????????? You support BUSH, you support this arrangement and change of events.
Also, Saudi Arabia, the former Taliban, Iran, Syria, Egypt and other Muslim countries, routinely execute rapists, murders, kidnappers or chop off the hands of thieves. Thing is, there's not much of those crimes in those countries because the people are well aware of the consequences. So, it's ok then, and BUSH supporters should applaud these Muslim countries for their tough stance on crime and criminals, no?? Stop calling them "tyrannies", right?
Let me know.
2005-02-14 20:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
After the ratsnest is purged. I'd say let the injured and the family of the injured decide on the punishment.
[/QUOTE]I can agree with this to some extent for a suspect who willfully committed a crime, where the intent was to do harm. But in this type of case, do you think that the family of the injured or dead victim would, in their state of mind, have the capacity to decide on a fitting punishment? In many cases, "taking the law in one's own hands" can be justified in the right circumstances, but vigilantism as a whole can be a very dangerous concept for very obvious reasons.
2005-02-14 23:46 | User Profile
Also, drunk drivers should have their right to refuse to be an organ donor revoked, as a symbolic gesture of atonement (they can keep their livers though). This isn't enough of a punishment on it's own, however it's a nice little "coup de grace" to deliver in addition to any fine or imprisonment they receive. "Take THAT!... aaaaand THAT!"
2005-02-15 01:51 | User Profile
Only time that I got drunk was when I was seventeen, puked for three days and in bed for one week, never drank again, not even beer.
I did try pot back in the sixties (3 times) and I really didn't like it and that's my whole experience with "drugs"
I don't know but I believe that in my subsconsience I was ready not to like drinking or drugs because I knew that it would be bad for me.
I think that's one of the reasons that I never get sick and catch a cold only once in a blue moon.
By the way, what to do with drunk drivers........ revoke their driver licenses, after all that's why they are called drunk "drivers".
2005-02-15 02:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Ponce]Only time that I got drunk was when I was seventeen, puked for three days and in bed for one week, never drank again, not even beer.[/QUOTE]
Whoa. How much did you drink?:eek:
[QUOTE]By the way, what to do with drunk drivers........ revoke their driver licenses, after all that's why they are called drunk "drivers"[/QUOTE] Maybe on the first offense. The only problem with this as the only punishment is that many people will continue to drive even with a suspended or revoked license.
2005-02-15 11:46 | User Profile
What is the difference between a man that drinks and drives and a man that drinks and hunts?
2005-02-15 11:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]But when Saddam Hussein did this exact same thing, he gets named an evil tyrant and "war criminal" and his country gets demolished just so a "democratic" puppet government is installed that [U]will not[/U] be permitted to execute rapists, murders, and thieves, but will have to lock them up in prison instead????????????????????? You support BUSH, you support this arrangement and change of events.
Also, Saudi Arabia, the former Taliban, Iran, Syria, Egypt and other Muslim countries, routinely execute rapists, murders, kidnappers or chop off the hands of thieves. Thing is, there's not much of those crimes in those countries because the people are well aware of the consequences. So, it's ok then, and BUSH supporters should applaud these Muslim countries for their tough stance on crime and criminals, no?? Stop calling them "tyrannies", right?
Let me know.[/QUOTE]
No, start a new thread.
2005-02-15 11:51 | User Profile
Tell me please, what is the difference between a man that drinks and drives and a man that drinks and hunts?
2005-02-15 12:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Tell me please, what is the difference between a man that drinks and drives and a man that drinks and hunts?[/QUOTE]
I give up, what?
If you accidentally killed someone while drunk you'd end up in jail for "reckless discharge of a firearm causing death" or whatever the equivalent offense is in your neck of the woods. Not much different to a drunk driver.
2005-02-15 14:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Involuntary intoxication? You actually think there are a few people who have used such a defense? LOL. what were their attorneys thinking to even present something so crazy? If I was a juror or the Judge, I don't think I could even pay attention to the evidence, because I would be laughing to hard.:tongue:[/QUOTE]
You inspired me to look into the matter further.
Do a google search "involuntary intoxication defense dui". You'll find a few cases. I reviewed some, and none of the attempts were successful.
One woman in PA tried to convince the court that it was all the fault of a prescription medicinal patch she was wearing for pain. The appellate court didn't take it seriously.
There must be a successful one out there someplace, when I get some time I'll take another look.
2005-02-15 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You inspired me to look into the matter further.
Do a google search "involuntary intoxication defense dui". You'll find a few cases. I reviewed some, and none of the attempts were successful.
One woman in PA tried to convince the court that it was all the fault of a prescription medicinal patch she was wearing for pain. The appellate court didn't take it seriously.
There must be a successful one out there someplace, when I get some time I'll take another look.[/QUOTE] I think I might just have to do that for a good laugh.:thumbsup: That is funny about the woman in PA, since most heavy prescription pain medications would contain a label warning against driving,etc. I think the only way this could possibly work would be if someone were to say they were served drinks that, unknown to them, were spiked with alcohol, or something to that effect. Of course, even then, they would have to realize at some point that they are starting to feel a little funny. LOL.
2005-02-15 20:11 | User Profile
I think it's worth noting that the growing multiculturalism in the USA coinicides with more draconian DWI laws. I'm surprised no one picked up on that theme. I'd wager that non-Whites are much more likely to be reckless drunk drivers.
Many, at least a dozen, 50-55 year old guys I know recall back in the late '60's to mid '70's that getting arrested for DWI wasn't even a [U]passing thought[/U] to them when they went out to bars and clubs back then. Several of them tell me that if cops pulled them over for speeding and they thought alcohol was a factor, the cops would just follow them home.
Need I remind you that those days many towns and cities were still overwhelmingly White. I think there's a correlation.
2005-02-15 20:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I can agree with this to some extent for a suspect who willfully committed a crime, where the intent was to do harm. But in this type of case, do you think that the family of the injured or dead victim would, in their state of mind, have the capacity to decide on a fitting punishment? In many cases, "taking the law in one's own hands" can be justified in the right circumstances, but vigilantism as a whole can be a very dangerous concept for very obvious reasons.[/QUOTE]The overwhelming majority of drinkers do so willingly. Alcoholics (ie, drunks) were not born with a bottle of Jack Daniels in their mouth. At some point in their life, they willingly made the decision, (on their own, taking full responsibility of the consequences), to start drinking. At a defining moment, they passed from dry to wet. And what happens after that is entirely their responsibility.
Manslaughter of an innocent driver or pedestrian is serious business. I like the Old Testament methods of settling a matter like damages caused by drunk driving.
If one can't be responsible in driving and drinking, one shouldn't drink and drive. But that's not reality.
Another thing that's not reality is a just judicial system. Too often, the court sides with the guilty and soft decisions are made which are unjust.
2005-02-15 20:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [QUOTE=xmetalhead] Many, at least a dozen, 50-55 year old guys I know recall back in the late '60's to mid '70's that getting arrested for DWI wasn't even a [u]passing thought[/u] to them when they went out to bars and clubs back then. Several of them tell me that if cops pulled them over for speeding and they thought alcohol was a factor, the cops would just follow them home. [/QUOTE]
This is funny. I think you are right. And it reminds me of my dad back in the early 80s. After a night of hanging out and drinking with his buddies, he was pulled over practically right outside our house. He is a diabetic and he was actually able to convince the cops that his erratic driving was caused because he was having a severe insulin reaction. We used to laugh about this, but I cannot imagine the cops were actually this stupid, I am thinking maybe they just didn't care, since he was home, didn't harm anyone, and didn't have any kind of record. That certainly would not happen today.
2005-02-15 20:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The number of alcohol related fatal accidents is under 50% and even in many or most of those, alcohol is not a major contributor. It's just simplier to blame booze when someone false asleep at the wheel at 3AM. It's just simplier to blame booze when some hot-dogging teen runs off the road. Whatever causes non-drunk people to wreck can also cause drunk people to wreck.
Why not? Political contributions you say? You don't think the tabacco companies made political contributions? Rubbish.
The government is still trying to put the screws to tobacco. Just this month a judge issued a ruling on a new $280billion suit... Although, this judge sided with the tobacco industry. When the enemies of tobacco are satisfied, they'll turn against alcohol.
The alcohol industry has already taken a lot of defensive action against future lawsuits. For example, modern TV commercials and ads focus on "responsible" drinking.
It sounds is if you want the alcohol industry to be sued.[/QUOTE]Mark it down, IMO the booze industry will not get whacked like 'baccy did.
Booze is an eternally protected industry due to its perceived "necessity". 'baccy does not hold the same "need" level. Can't get stoned on 'baccy.
IMO, The rest of you post reads like a naive assumption. Do you drink responsibly?
BTW, a free republic cannot be maintained if its citisens are stoned or drunk.
2005-02-15 20:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]BTW, a free republic cannot be maintained if its citisens are stoned or drunk.[/QUOTE]
Are you for total prohibition?
2005-02-15 20:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Are you for total prohibition?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Originally Posted by CWRWinger BTW, a free republic cannot be maintained if its citisens are stoned or drunk. [/QUOTE] I see nothing wrong with drinking alcohol occassionally or even smoking a little pot, now and then. It is when people allow these things to take over their lives that the problem starts,and those type of people, if they didn't have alcohol, marijuana,etc, they would just turn to another type of "vice" such as gambling, overeating,promiscuity,etc. And of course the criminal element would just obtain these things(alcohol, pot) illegally.
2005-02-15 20:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You inspired me to look into the matter further.
Do a google search "involuntary intoxication defense dui". You'll find a few cases. I reviewed some, and none of the attempts were successful.
One woman in PA tried to convince the court that it was all the fault of a prescription medicinal patch she was wearing for pain. The appellate court didn't take it seriously.
There must be a successful one out there someplace, when I get some time I'll take another look.[/QUOTE] People v. Turner, 680 P.2d 1290 is a Colorado case that fleshes out the nuances of "involuntary intoxication" quite nicely. Its an affirmative defense which requires the Defendant to prove up factual assertions...and an instruction will be included in the pattern jury instructions if the facts presented warrant it. However, even though there is a relatively low threshold to get such an instruction to the jury, juries don't usually buy it.
2005-02-15 20:54 | User Profile
About "involuntary intoxication"......while serving in the US Army in my first hich I was stationed in Alaska (FT Rich.) and all you coud do in winter was either read or drink, I could only read so much so once in a while I went to the beer hall and drank a Coke while the rest of the guys drank beer.
There was no ventilation and there was a heavy fume in the air and I was told that by the end of the night I acted drunk, I don't know if they were making fun of me or what but after reading your postings about involuntary intoxication I am beggining to wonder if it was really true.
I only drank one time in my life at the age of 17 and never touched the stuff again, I am glad.
2005-02-15 21:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Are you for total prohibition?[/QUOTE]I am for letting each community decide. A Fed'ral prohibition is outside the Constitution. No, I'm not for Fed'rally mandated prohibition.
The purpose of my little ditty on maintaining a free republic, is to place the responsibility of self gov't squarely on the shoulders of the citisen.
There has to be a certain level of sobriety in order for a culture or society to survive and be productive.
BTW, no where in my statement do I mention prohibition. Your response is typical.
2005-02-15 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]The purpose of my little ditty on maintaining a free republic, is to place the responsibility of self gov't squarely on the shoulders of the citisen. [/QUOTE]
Maybe in a White world.
2005-02-15 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Maybe in a White world.[/QUOTE]Generally speaking, yes.
2005-02-20 21:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]My opinion on the matter is pretty simple: If your willful negligence (of any kind) causes someone else harm, then you should be required to provide full restitution. The punishment shouldn't be as harsh as if you deliberately harmed someone; the focus should be on paying back the victim (to the extent possible). Forcing someone to work a crappy job indefinitely to support the victim seems like the most appropriate punishment, but that's something for the parties involved and the courts to work out.
Incidentally, although drunk drivers have caused some terrible tragedies, so have sober people who were driving on too little sleep. (Driving when sleepy is actually supposed to be more dangerous than driving drunk.) So have people who were sober and well-rested but were simply stupid and had poor driving skills. Some people drive better after a six-pack than others drive sober (I've seen this many times). So it isn't so much drunk driving I'm concerned about as negligent driving in general[/QUOTE]I remember seeing some comedian adress this issue in the course of his shtick: "According to statistics, 20% of all traffic fatalities are caused by drunk drivers [Pregnant pause]. What about the other 80%? Hey! Someone get these morons off the road! [VERY nervous laughter]"
His flip observation wrapped in a joke contained more intelligent analysis than the aggregate of the Hannity/Limpblow "Hang em high" eructations regurgitated by some board members on this particular thread. Angler's thoughtful and commonsense remarks are hereby gratefully acknowledged. I guess common sense is not all that common.
Regardless of what our resident shyster may proffer in the way of obfuscation, criminalizing drunk drivers is a prime example of preemptive punishment, which by definition is the punishment of innocent people. Dire exigencies may occasionally warrant such action, but one should be very careful treading that path. The people on the roads who frighten me are not the southern blue collar white guys throwing back a couple of brews and deciding to drive home instead of walking the 30 miles, but rather the stone-cold sober yet dizzy soccer moms yakking on their cell phones behind the wheel of a pachydermous SUV. Yet even I would not jail these garrulous dingbats until such time as they actually caused concrete mischief, like, say, an improper lane change, swerving on the highways, or an actual traffic "accident".
There is nothing "conservative", paleo or otherwise, about jailing people who have done no one any harm. The essence of conservatism is leaving people alone, unless they don't leave you alone. As Orwell observed, "He who defines controls." The masters of the propasphere have redefined what it means to be Christian, what it means to be liberal (which is not a bad thing to be, as the vast majority of the founding fathers were liberals), and what it means to be conservative. Seems all they have to do to get you some of you to oppose something is to imply that only leftwing faggots would support it.
2005-02-21 03:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]There is nothing "conservative", paleo or otherwise, about jailing people who have done no one any harm. The essence of conservatism is leaving people alone, unless they don't leave you alone.[/QUOTE]
True enough, but most of the "Hang em high eructations" expressed on this thread are for drunk drivers who have actually killed someone in an accident, not for simple DUI. I think jailing drunk drivers who have killed someone for involuntary manslaughter is a defensible conservative position.
P.S. I'm not sure exactly which posts you were referring to with your remarks, as you didn't say which, so my apologies if I am misrepresenting your views.
2005-02-21 18:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Regardless of what our resident shyster may proffer in the way of obfuscation, criminalizing drunk drivers is a prime example of preemptive punishment, which by definition is the punishment of innocent people. Dire exigencies may occasionally warrant such action, but one should be very careful treading that path. The people on the roads who frighten me are not the southern blue collar white guys throwing back a couple of brews and deciding to drive home instead of walking the 30 miles, but rather the stone-cold sober yet dizzy soccer moms yakking on their cell phones behind the wheel of a pachydermous SUV. Yet even I would not jail these garrulous dingbats until such time as they actually caused concrete mischief, like, say, an improper lane change, swerving on the highways, or an actual traffic "accident".[/QUOTE] Well said, and welcome.
2005-02-22 07:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]Regardless of what our resident shyster may proffer in the way of obfuscation, criminalizing drunk drivers is a prime example of preemptive punishment, which by definition is the punishment of innocent people. [/QUOTE]
Why preemptive?
It's punishment for proscribed actions already taken, and thus there is no preemptive punishment here.
[QUOTE]The people on the roads who frighten me are not the southern blue collar white guys throwing back a couple of brews and deciding to drive home instead of walking the 30 miles, but rather the stone-cold sober yet dizzy soccer moms yakking on their cell phones behind the wheel of a pachydermous SUV. [/QUOTE]
You assume that one somehow excludes the other.
But both driving under the influence and driving while talking on a cellphone are acts proscribed by law to various degrees, and rightly so. I think that reasonable minds can differ as to the punishments that should be met out to each, but I fail to see why society should tolerate behaviour that is dangerous to society at large in its purely public places such as, especially, the roads.
You seem to be confusing here private and public behaviour. I agree that people should be free to drink and do basically whatever they want in their own homes or, say, drink and drive on a road that they own, but not on a road that we collectively own provided that we as a people find such behaviour disagreeable.
This is the same error that underlies our inability to enforce standards in other public spaces, such as schools. If it's the public's space, the public gets to set the rules, at least to a much higher degree than in private homes.
I see no inherent injustice there.
Please explain.
Walter
2005-02-22 12:31 | User Profile
Well said, Walter!:)