You have a list of ways to prevent a chronic abuser of license suspensions from driving while suspended?
No jail time for man with 17 DUIs
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
You have a list of ways to prevent a chronic abuser of license suspensions from driving while suspended?
Perhaps all sentences should be overturned. Paul Bernardo hasn't killed in years. Perhaps he should be set free as a reward! :roll:
The guy ****ed up before. He has shown disrespect for the punishment's he has earned. He got a lifetime ban from driving sober or otherwise. He should be thankful he didn't spend years rotting in jail.
I'm not sure we do!
I see merit in what you say, but I also see merit in letting a guy try to get on with getting his life back in order. It's a tough call to make.
That in itself doesn't justify warehousing him.
Now you are starting to make sense. We should jail people who are a hazard to the safety of others. If we jail people for breaking the law, we would probably all be going to jail about once a week.
So crimes should go unpunished?
Jail is part punishment and/or deterrent. If its just a fine, why would anybody care if they get their licence suspended? Just keep on driving. Hell I may take my chances and save the money on renewals. Over a 5 year period the number of times I get pulled over, I could likely save a bundle.
Jail is only one form of punishment. The U.S. who are famous for jails are starting to shut them down. They are an expense and they are counterproductive to people trying to improve their lot in life. They have their purpose like axe murderers, child molesters, rapists, drug importing kingpins (they are in fact murderers).
We could give him his license back.
Are you saying Paul Bernardo is not a threat?
I agree. He's screwed up. He's shown disrespect. Some judge has taken away his license forever. That said, none of the folks that want him back in jail have explained how taking somebody that is a productive member of society (is paying taxes, owns a business and creates employment) and throwing him in jail (where society has to pick up the cost) is benefiting society. Clearly Paul Bernardo is a threat to society and that I support keeping him in jail (Clearly Karla Homolka isn't a threat and I supported having her released btw).
I have no problem with jail. The crux of my argument is what the purpose of jail is. If it is to deter crime, clearly it doesn't work. If is to rehabilitate criminals, clearly it doesn't work. The only real value I see to the prison system is in protecting people and giving vindictive people the satisfaction of punishing people. Is there another benefit?
I have no problem if you wish to punish criminals. There are better ways to do it than to place them in a facility and charging us taxpayers $50-70,000/year to support them
Maybe a different route needs to be taken with this guy. After you've gotten more
DUI's than you have toes...and keep racking them up...a means of physically
keeping you out'a the drivers seat needs to be created.
Prison would do it, but as is pointed out above, isn't cost effective.
Perhaps a light-weight metal frame on wheels, that can't be folded, that's connected
to this guy (like with a tether), that still fits through doorways in buildings, but just can
NOT fit into the frontseat of any vehicle along with a driver....?
Maybe an open framework box measuring 26"x26"x48" on wheels. Just try'n to think
"outside the box". I know this sounds crazy, but it might inspire someone else with a
better idea.
DUI's than you have toes...and keep racking them up...a means of physically
keeping you out'a the drivers seat needs to be created.
Prison would do it, but as is pointed out above, isn't cost effective.
Perhaps a light-weight metal frame on wheels, that can't be folded, that's connected
to this guy (like with a tether), that still fits through doorways in buildings, but just can
NOT fit into the frontseat of any vehicle along with a driver....?
Maybe an open framework box measuring 26"x26"x48" on wheels. Just try'n to think
"outside the box". I know this sounds crazy, but it might inspire someone else with a
better idea.
First of all he should be prevented from owning and insuring a car, that is not fool proof however, but it would only be a complete knucklehead who would let such a person drive his vehicle, especially if there was a $5000 fine for doing do.
Why? His initial problem was with drinking and driving. Since he hasn't had a drink in years, I would be more concerned with most seniors on the road than this guy. If getting a license helps a productive member of society be more productive then why not? He could always have restrictions on the license.
Exactly, he has proven that he will continue to drive without a license or insurance continually and apparently for many years even when faced with possible jail time. Now some wacko judge has let him off the hook for it he is given the lesson that what he is doing is ok. I would call that being a hazard to the safety of others.
So there is two possible solutions then. Putting him in jail or giving him his license back would both stop him from driving without a license. One generates tax dollars and costs tax dollars. I known rich route I favour.
As of yet, you still haven't explained how this is a hazard. Driving without a license isn't a safety issue. It is a regulatory issue.
The problem is that if people are free to ignore the law, they will do so.
This guy has shown that there is no consequence to ignoring the law.
Driving without a license is not a danger to anyone, so why would anyone bother to get a license in the first place? After all, there apparently is no penalty for driving without one. So nobody needs to bother getting one in the first place.
This guy has shown that there is no consequence to ignoring the law.
Driving without a license is not a danger to anyone, so why would anyone bother to get a license in the first place? After all, there apparently is no penalty for driving without one. So nobody needs to bother getting one in the first place.
Aren't regulatory laws there to provide enforcement of such things as vehicle street worthiness, proper insurance, driver competence?
Especially when the legal minimum of insurance is PLPD.
Public Liability, Public Damage.
Without that, you are a liability to the public. Sure, you can sue, but that doesn't mean you can or will recoup all losses.
Especially when the legal minimum of insurance is PLPD.
Public Liability, Public Damage.
Without that, you are a liability to the public. Sure, you can sue, but that doesn't mean you can or will recoup all losses.
I'm not saying that anybody should be free to ignore the law. Of course there should be consequences. My issue is whether or not jail is the best option. I don't think so and none of the people that think this guy should be in jail have given a compelling reason for it.
Because he continues to drive while his license is suspended, that's why. It is a way to stop him from driving, which he is not supposed to do. He continues to do the things that he is banned from doing, so a suitable punishment is to take away his liberty, which apparently he values.
...and around and around and around we go. Since his driving is not a threat to anybody, give him his license back and punish him in some other way. That way, those that want him punished can be happy, those that want him to stop driving without a license can be happy, those that do not wish to spend $50K+ looking after him can be happy and the people that rely on him for employment can be happy. For me, the judge that took away his license forever was one that also made a mistake and that mistake should be corrected.