19th drunk driving incident is horrible

[Garrett]

This may be my last post, since I'm apparently about to be banned (for this post (["http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=66587&#post66587")). But this news caught my eye: http://news.aol.com/article/canadian-gets-life-sentence-for-driving/663196?icid=main|aimzones|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fn ews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fcanadian-gets-life-sentence-for-driving%2F663196

Over 90% of you, per the poll, see no problem. But I wonder why he wasn't sentenced to life after his 18th drunken driving conviction? Because no handicapped person got killed? The drunk had a problem and the system failed to address it in any meaningful way, and now because of an accident the system overreacts.

You might accidentally kill a person tomorrow. You might be battling demons too. Should you be locked up for life?

[Faerie]

Walsh's 18 previous impaired driving convictions and 114 previous convictions in total for assault, uttering threats, breaking and entering, and theft were entered into evidence.

A tad harsh in my mind, but there seem to be more to the history of this man than just drunk driving. Punishment (or rehabilitation for that matter) should fit the crime. Locking him up because he's a drunk will likely get him off the booze but its not going to accomplish anything else, he'd be better off serving time at a home for disabled people whilst being managed for his alcohol problem.

[Garrett]

Pretty sure you aren't run of the mill, Faerie.

I'm not bothered that the guy is locked down forever. I'm bothered by our flaky system. 18 convictions but let him go? What if he ran into and killed a handicapped person on his first offense?

Prisons are schools on how to be a criminal. Rehabilitation isn't attempted in a serious way. But over 9 out of 10 people think bad luck should determine our fate.

[Faerie]

I dont think there is a system in the world that isnt flaky. Its a sad fact of human nature. He should have been managed after the first conviction, but in the end, nobody really cares unless it affects them directly.

[Anne]

We had a young (24) mother of two killed down the road from us when a drunk 21 yo ran a red light.

Her 3 year old son got to watch her bleed to death, as she was walking across the street with him. He also sustained injuries.

It was the drivers 2nd arrest for drunk driving. :(

[DMB]

I think most systems make a distinction in handing out punishments between some particular driving infraction and the same thing when it results in someone's death. And I think that is wrong, because if it is the kind of driving that can cause someone's death then it is as reprehensible whatever the particular result. Nevertheless, that's the way it works, and I think it has a lot to do with public emotions. People don't tend to get all that worked up about the infraction, but do about the death. As soon as anyone is killed by someone else's bad driving, there is a demand for punishment.

What I'd like to know is how his previous 18 offences were dealt with. Did he get terms of imprisonment for any of them? If not, it would seem a bit extreme to jump from no imprisonment to life in one go, because of the outcome rather than the offence.

You do get some habitual drunk drivers who are incorrigible. I suppose that even if prison doesn't reform them, at least it keeps them off the roads.

There was a guy in this part of Switzerland some years ago who had repeated drunk-driving convictions. After one of them, he was imprisoned for a while and remained disqualified from driving when he was let out. He immediately went out, driving without a licence, and got drunk. On the way home he ploughed into a car containing a family of four, who were all killed. At his trial he did not express remorse, but whined that his life would not be worth living if he couldn't go out and sink the odd drink with his chums.

[willynilly]

We had a young (24) mother of two killed down the road from us when a drunk 21 yo ran a red light.

Her 3 year old son got to watch her bleed to death, as she was walking across the street with him. He also sustained injuries.

It was the drivers 2nd arrest for drunk driving. :(

I had an great uncle who saw his mother hit by a car. He was never right and lived his adult life in a nice, but still, institution. How sad for them all. The driver too. At least I would hope there is remorse there.

[munnki]

I think drunk drivers should be made do NASCAR drunk with the brakes disengaged from the vehicles... it could be pay-per-view and the earnings could be spent on a medical fund for the victims...

:D

[miss djax]

Pretty sure you aren't run of the mill, Faerie.

I'm not bothered that the guy is locked down forever. I'm bothered by our flaky system. 18 convictions but let him go? What if he ran into and killed a handicapped person on his first offense?

Prisons are schools on how to be a criminal. Rehabilitation isn't attempted in a serious way. But over 9 out of 10 people think bad luck should determine our fate.

by 'our system' do you mean that of westernized societies? because it was in canada, not the us.

[Worldtraveller]

I think drunk drivers should be made do NASCAR drunk with the brakes disengaged from the vehicles... it could be pay-per-view and the earnings could be spent on a medical fund for the victims...

:D
Funny as that may be.....no.

The problem is that our approach to this (and many other) problems is that we approach them all bass ackwads when we think about the behavoir we want to change, and how to affect that change.

Drunk driving is a classic case of this. What do we do when someone gets caught drunk driving? Among other things, take away their driver's license. In most civlized countries, this is no big deal, as they have these things called public transportation systems. :p

In the US, there are very few cities with decent, even passable, public transportation, and driving really is the only effective way of getting to one's job.

A relatively simple solution would be to restrict their drinking, but not driving. You get busted for a DUI, you get a special hot pink drivers license. You can still drive, but you can't buy alcohol.

Now, you have an excuse for restaurants, bars, and stores to card everyone and hypothetically reduce underage drinking as well. :)

[miss djax]

except for the fact that it wouldn't restrict access to any booze that they had at home, or prevent anyone from buying booze for them, or forcing them to be consistently carded. i look young for my age *cough cough*, and even i get carded less than half of the time i buy booze.

[Anne]

he did stipulate card everyone, and booze at home would run out (and presumably, not involve driving to get to). I'd assume anyone caught buying for the person would be punished. That's pretty much the only loophole, adn still, unlikely to get him on the road drunk.

I actually like that idea.

Of course, I also like the idea of cheap and convenient public transportation. Preferably electric.

[Gaojie]

From the article it appears that Canada is WAAAAYY to lenient on drunk drivers unless something incredibly horrible happens.

If I remember correctly in Arizona the 3rd conviction carries prison time and after release a restricted license (you drive only to work and back) but I'm not sure exactly what the details are. It would seem though that by the fifth or sixth convictions a person would be spending more time in jail than out of it.

[miss djax]

he did stipulate card everyone, and booze at home would run out (and presumably, not involve driving to get to). I'd assume anyone caught buying for the person would be punished. That's pretty much the only loophole, adn still, unlikely to get him on the road drunk.

I actually like that idea.

Of course, I also like the idea of cheap and convenient public transportation. Preferably electric.

of course it's already a law to card folks, and store policies require everyone under 35 to be carded (hence my excellent joke about rarely being carded tee hee)

and well, its illegal to give booze to underage kids and to have a fake id and we see how well thats worked out

there's no law against being an addict. i'm thinking that someone who's a habitual drunk driver probably has a drinking problem. restricting access to a legal substance is kind of a wicked slippery slope if you ask me

i'm all for diversion programs to rehab for drunk drivers and throwing the effing book at repeat offenders. people die when people drive drunk. do the crime, do the time.

sorry i probably can't be ojective here. my aunt was killed coming home from the hospital with her newborn twin babies. my uncle was the only one in the car who survived. he lost his firstborn twins and his wife in one fell swoop. the repeat offender drunk driver that hit them was unscathed. he should have gotten help for his drinking problem, had stiffer penalties and had his license double plus taken away.

maybe shitty public transit should be a deterrent.

[miss djax]

From the article it appears that Canada is WAAAAYY to lenient on drunk drivers unless something incredibly horrible happens.

If I remember correctly in Arizona the 3rd conviction carries prison time and after release a restricted license (you drive only to work and back) but I'm not sure exactly what the details are. It would seem though that by the fifth or sixth convictions a person would be spending more time in jail than out of it.

new drunk driving laws stipulate FIRST conviction is a 30 day stretch in tent city (yup a tent jail in the desert) and the breathe in a tube lock thingie on your car

[Jobar]

There's problems with attempting to restrict the right to buy alcohol, rather than restrict driving privileges. For one, alcohol is fairly easy to make. For another, keeping someone with a pink card from getting his friends to buy for him would be a major enforcement problem; it already is, for underage teenagers. And it isn't the alcohol that's the real public danger- it's that ton or more of metal, glass, and flammable liquid, carrying way, way more kinetic energy than most military weapons.

Maybe that method could be tried for a first or second offense, if no laws but those against DUI were broken. But when someone reaches more than three, their own employment has to take second place to the safety of the rest of society.

I have a... sort-of friend... who has a rap sheet longer than he is tall. Mostly, alcohol related. He lost his license back in the late seventies; and then sometime in the early nineties, someone hacked into the Georgia DMV computer, and erased tens of thousands of driving records, including his. So he managed to get a new license- and within five years, once again had been caught DUI enough so he lost that one, too! He's spent several years in jail because of his alcoholism. (And then went back to the bottle when they let him out.) It's a minor miracle he hasn't killed himself, or someone else.

[Octavia]

There's also, I think, a difference between an alcoholic and a fucking moron who gets himself plastered and just doesn't stop to think about anyone else. One needs help and the other needs a bloody good boot up the arse - say in the form of many, many hours of community service.

[Yahzi]

I think most systems make a distinction in handing out punishments between some particular driving infraction and the same thing when it results in someone's death. And I think that is wrong, because
It may be wrong, but it is necessary.

The view that an act should be punished irrespective of its consequences contains a hidden presumption: namely, that we can state what right behavior is, and that behavior will always have the consequences we desire. But in our post-quantum world we know that's just not true. Much of life survives by luck and happenstance.

To put it another way, if we eliminated everyone who committed at least one stupid act, there would be no one left.

Some people can probably drink a six-pack and actually be less dangerous than other people who are merely talking on a phone. Not a lot of people, true; but some people. How are we to judge between those people are in fact being (semi-)responsible and those who aren't? Absent divine revelation on what is exactly the correct thing to do, the only thing we can go by is the results.

If you drive drunk and you don't kill anybody, you have not committed as bad of a crime as someone who did. We don't know why you got away with your bad decision: could be luck, could be skill, could be you knew you were drunk and were more careful. All we know is this time you didn't kill anybody. We are justified in doing whatever it takes to make sure you don't kill somebody next time; but we can't complain that your crime was as bad as murder.

To punish an act regardless of its consequences is to practice deontological morality; and once you start down that road, you soon end up in theology land, where Adam's sin is unforgivable because it violated some absolute standard of law, and the consequences of his act simply don't matter.

But then again: 18 convictions? WTH? He was proven incorrigible after the 3rd one.

[DMB]

I disagree profoundly with you Yahzi. The law isn't about morality. It simply says that certain things are illegal. If you choose to commit an illegal act then you are liable for the consequences.

Your argument that some people are not as drunk or dangerous as others after consuming a particular amount of alcohol is beside the point. If it's illegal to do so and then drive, they have broken the law.

Your sort of argument could lead to a slippery slope over a crime like murder: A deserves the heaviest possible punishment for killing X, because X was a thoroughly good person. OTOH B should get away lightly for killing Y, because Y was a total arsehole who deserved to die.

[Ray Moscow]

I suppose the reason for drunk driving offenses being (nowadays) punished severely is precisely that society came to realise its consequences to innocent people.

It's only natural that when people get maimed or killed by drunk driving, the perp is punished more severely -- even though potentially the consequences could have been the same or even worse (more people hurt or killed) with any incidence of drunk driving. In a way, it's like firing a gun carelessly -- it usually carries a small penalty if no one is hurt but a big one if someone is killed.

[willynilly]

I think a scarlet A would do the trick. Let society help shame them into making the right choice. And I am totally serious.

[Worldtraveller]

There's problems with attempting to restrict the right to buy alcohol, rather than restrict driving privileges. For one, alcohol is fairly easy to make. For another, keeping someone with a pink card from getting his friends to buy for him would be a major enforcement problem; it already is, for underage teenagers. And it isn't the alcohol that's the real public danger- it's that ton or more of metal, glass, and flammable liquid, carrying way, way more kinetic energy than most military weapons.
Well, sorta. The problem isn't one or the other, it's both in combination. For a first conviction (also assuming only minor traffic infractions otherwise), I think going after the alcohol is the better option. Mandatory rehab, a built in breathalyzer on the car, and a special driver's license. Yes, there are ways of getting alcohol, but it's not like taking people's license away stops them from driving, which is even easier than it would be to get alcohol.

I agree that for multiple offenses, there should be stonger penalties. I also think that stores should be required to card everyone to buy alcohol. In addition, car dealerships should have to submit a copy of a DL with any car purchase, used or new, and implement a short (2 day?) waiting period for the DMV to verify that the license is valid.

There's no perfect solution. As for the priest, I would hope he gets a long prison sentance. I remember a case in Phoenix about 6 years ago now, where a priest was drunk, struck a woman (pedestrian) and killed her, and basically drove with her body on the front of his car all the way home. Never called an ambulance or reported it. Of course, it also turned out he was one of the pedo priests that had been shunted off to Az because he had gotten in trouble diddling little boys in his home parish.

[Gaojie]

There's problems with attempting to restrict the right to buy alcohol, rather than restrict driving privileges. For one, alcohol is fairly easy to make. For another, keeping someone with a pink card from getting his friends to buy for him would be a major enforcement problem; it already is, for underage teenagers. And it isn't the alcohol that's the real public danger- it's that ton or more of metal, glass, and flammable liquid, carrying way, way more kinetic energy than most military weapons.
Well, sorta. The problem isn't one or the other, it's both in combination. For a first conviction (also assuming only minor traffic infractions otherwise), I think going after the alcohol is the better option. Mandatory rehab, a built in breathalyzer on the car, and a special driver's license. Yes, there are ways of getting alcohol, but it's not like taking people's license away stops them from driving, which is even easier than it would be to get alcohol.

I agree that for multiple offenses, there should be stonger penalties. I also think that stores should be required to card everyone to buy alcohol. In addition, car dealerships should have to submit a copy of a DL with any car purchase, used or new, and implement a short (2 day?) waiting period for the DMV to verify that the license is valid.

There's no perfect solution. As for the priest, I would hope he gets a long prison sentance. I remember a case in Phoenix about 6 years ago now, where a priest was drunk, struck a woman (pedestrian) and killed her, and basically drove with her body on the front of his car all the way home. Never called an ambulance or reported it. Of course, it also turned out he was one of the pedo priests that had been shunted off to Az because he had gotten in trouble diddling little boys in his home parish.

Are you sure you've got the story straight about the priest driving all the way home with the body? I think there may have been another grisley episode in Phoenix where someone jacked a pedestrian into the windshield and they were stuck there for a day or so pleading for help while the bitch woman who killed the guy ignored the request for mercy.

I might not have the stories straight either, but I'm too tired to google for it right now. Must sleep soon!

[willynilly]

Are you sure you've got the story straight about the priest driving all the way home with the body? I think there may have been another grisley episode in Phoenix where someone jacked a pedestrian into the windshield and they were stuck there for a day or so pleading for help while the bitch woman who killed the guy ignored the request for mercy.

I might not have the stories straight either, but I'm too tired to google for it right now. Must sleep soon!

I never heard the priest story but I remember this one. I kept thinking what kind of person could sit in there house while someone dies on their car just to stay out of jail? And her friends came and took care of the body. She couldn't even do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chante_Jawan_Mallard

[DMB]

That is an appalling story. I hope they never let that ghastly woman out of prison.

[Worldtraveller]

Are you sure you've got the story straight about the priest driving all the way home with the body? I think there may have been another grisley episode in Phoenix where someone jacked a pedestrian into the windshield and they were stuck there for a day or so pleading for help while the bitch woman who killed the guy ignored the request for mercy.

I might not have the stories straight either, but I'm too tired to google for it right now. Must sleep soon!
You may be right. All I really remember was the editorial cartoon drawn by...aww crap, I'll have to look his name up. He's an athiest with a wicked sense of humor though. The cartoon showed a preist and someone else standing next to a car with a smashed in front windshield,and the priest is saying, "I think I see the Virgin Mary." :D

ETA: The paper didn't actually let him print that one, I saw it elsewhere.

[Goldie]

I don't think hitting someone while driving drunk is bad luck. I think it is a choice...just as choosing to shoot a gun into the air in a crowd is a choice, just as armed robbery is a choice. You don't mean to hurt anyone but chances are, you will end up doing so.
Yea... a system that lets someone go 18 times is pretty messed up, but you cannot blame the system for the criminal's ills either.

[miss djax]

Are you sure you've got the story straight about the priest driving all the way home with the body? I think there may have been another grisley episode in Phoenix where someone jacked a pedestrian into the windshield and they were stuck there for a day or so pleading for help while the bitch woman who killed the guy ignored the request for mercy.

I might not have the stories straight either, but I'm too tired to google for it right now. Must sleep soon!
You may be right. All I really remember was the editorial cartoon drawn by...aww crap, I'll have to look his name up. He's an athiest with a wicked sense of humor though. The cartoon showed a preist and someone else standing next to a car with a smashed in front windshield,and the priest is saying, "I think I see the Virgin Mary." :D

ETA: The paper didn't actually let him print that one, I saw it elsewhere.

wt is right about an accident involving a drunk priest in az. he hit someone in the crosswalk, killed them, kept driving, then took his car to be fixed immediately and tried to hide what happened. he never said a peep until the cops showed up. .if memory serves he either got off almost-scott free or the catholic church did nothing to him. it was a big deal here and totally revolting.

[Gaojie]

It was Bishop of Phoenix Thomas J. O'Brian (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/us/bishop-spared-prison-for-leaving-crash-scene.html) Yes, he got off lightly and he also had just plead a deal because he had a 50 year long history of covering for pedophiles. Although to be fair, he wasn't charged with being drunk during the hit and run.

There are plenty of examples though of drunk drivers hitting and killing innocent people, and seemingly getting light sentences because of connections or having tons of cash to pay a high priced lawyer.

[miss djax]

It was Bishop of Phoenix Thomas J. O'Brian (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/us/bishop-spared-prison-for-leaving-crash-scene.html) Yes, he got off lightly and he also had just plead a deal because he had a 50 year long history of covering for pedophiles. Although to be fair, he wasn't charged with being drunk during the hit and run.



that's him...

i'd say i hope he rots in hell but the lack of hell kind of makes that rough ;)

[Gaojie]

I don't think hitting someone while driving drunk is bad luck. I think it is a choice...just as choosing to shoot a gun into the air in a crowd is a choice, just as armed robbery is a choice. You don't mean to hurt anyone but chances are, you will end up doing so.
Yea... a system that lets someone go 18 times is pretty messed up, but you cannot blame the system for the criminal's ills either.

I completely agree.

[Yahzi]

I disagree profoundly with you Yahzi. The law isn't about morality. It simply says that certain things are illegal.
The law also states that if you are a drive drunk, and you don't kill anybody, then you haven't committed the same crime as if you do kill someone.

If it's illegal to do so and then drive, they have broken the law.
That's why we have jury trials. Because no case is so simple we can let a computer or a law book decide it. All criminal cases have extenuating circumstances that must be considered, and only human judgment can do that.

Your sort of argument could lead to a slippery slope over a crime like murder: A deserves the heaviest possible punishment for killing X, because X was a thoroughly good person. OTOH B should get away lightly for killing Y, because Y was a total arsehole who deserved to die.
But our law already does that. Go look up the average sentence meted out to a) people who kill drug addicts and b) people who kill cops. Merely threatening to kill the President could net you more time than running over a homeless person.

The law should be about morality. My point is that the law that punishes actual consequences more harshly than possible consequences is morally correct.

[Garrett]

I disagree profoundly with you Yahzi. The law isn't about morality. It simply says that certain things are illegal.
The law also states that if you are a drive drunk, and you don't kill anybody, then you haven't committed the same crime as if you do kill someone.
That bothers me. Whew, no one got hurt, so let me off easy. Aw shit I hit someone, so hit me with your max.

Why should bad luck be considered? If what was done was wrong, then it was just as wrong even when no one got hurt. The penalty shouldn't change.

[Garrett]

The law isn't about morality. It simply says that certain things are illegal. If you choose to commit an illegal act then you are liable for the consequences.
The law used to say it was illegal to be black and walking around without your master's permission.

Yeah, the blacks knew the consequences. That doesn't make the law right.

[DMB]

The law isn't about morality. It simply says that certain things are illegal. If you choose to commit an illegal act then you are liable for the consequences.
The law used to say it was illegal to be black and walking around without your master's permission.

Yeah, the blacks knew the consequences. That doesn't make the law right.

In that case, it is a rotten law and efforts are needed to change it. In England it took well over a hundred years of campaigning to get rid of the blasphemy law, but it finally happened in 2008. See

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/blasphemy.html

Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom

Charles Bradlaugh

[frazier]

That bothers me. Whew, no one got hurt, so let me off easy. Aw shit I hit someone, so hit me with your max.

Why should bad luck be considered? If what was done was wrong, then it was just as wrong even when no one got hurt. The penalty shouldn't change.
Maybe it's the difference between committing a single offense (DWI), and multiple offenses (DWI, reckless driving, involuntary manslaughter, etc. etc.). Do we forfeit the right to prosecute for a serious crime, simply because a less serious one also occurred?

[Garrett]

That bothers me. Whew, no one got hurt, so let me off easy. Aw shit I hit someone, so hit me with your max.

Why should bad luck be considered? If what was done was wrong, then it was just as wrong even when no one got hurt. The penalty shouldn't change.
Maybe it's the difference between committing a single offense (DWI), and multiple offenses (DWI, reckless driving, involuntary manslaughter, etc. etc.). Do we forfeit the right to prosecute for a serious crime, simply because a less serious one also occurred?
No.

If you drive drunk for the eighteenth time but no one got hurt, do you deserve less retribution than the sap who drove drunk for eighteenth time and killed some unfortunate human? Should it make even more difference since you hit a wheelchair-bound person instead of a mob boss?

[Garrett]

The law isn't about morality. It simply says that certain things are illegal. If you choose to commit an illegal act then you are liable for the consequences.
The law used to say it was illegal to be black and walking around without your master's permission.

Yeah, the blacks knew the consequences. That doesn't make the law right.

In that case, it is a rotten law and efforts are needed to change it. In England it took well over a hundred years of campaigning to get rid of the blasphemy law, but it finally happened in 2008. See

I agree. Change "it is a rotten law" to "the law is rotten" and you get even closer.

The law is an ass. Terrorists hijack planes even when the rest of us can't carry toenail clippers onto a plane. Good intentions don't equal good sense.

The law supported slavery. That should be enough said.

[frazier]

If you drive drunk for the eighteenth time but no one got hurt, do you deserve less retribution than the sap who drove drunk for eighteenth time and killed some unfortunate human?Yes, because fewer and less serious crimes are involved. By your 'No' answer above, I infer that you agree on this.

Should it make even more difference since you hit a wheelchair-bound person instead of a mob boss?No, in theory. In practice it might, because it is almost impossible to extract all emotion from any human system.

[Yahzi]

Why should bad luck be considered?
Because when you do everything right, and you still fail, we give you a pass.

If you run over someone in your car, as long as you were prudent and reasonable, we don't prosecute you for murder, because sometimes nothing you do is good enough and you just plain have bad luck.

So bad luck has to be considered.

Now, if you're on your 18th DUI, then you're clearly incorrigible. The guy should have been jailed for failure to take responsibility, which is an entirely separate crime than DUI and much more serious.

[Gaojie]

Are you sure you've got the story straight about the priest driving all the way home with the body? I think there may have been another grisley episode in Phoenix where someone jacked a pedestrian into the windshield and they were stuck there for a day or so pleading for help while the bitch woman who killed the guy ignored the request for mercy.

I might not have the stories straight either, but I'm too tired to google for it right now. Must sleep soon!
You may be right. All I really remember was the editorial cartoon drawn by...aww crap, I'll have to look his name up. He's an athiest with a wicked sense of humor though. The cartoon showed a preist and someone else standing next to a car with a smashed in front windshield,and the priest is saying, "I think I see the Virgin Mary." :D

ETA: The paper didn't actually let him print that one, I saw it elsewhere.

Can you find the cartoonist's name? Although it's dark humor, it's good!