A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:
Do you really think you should get the death penalty for accidentally killing someone while drunk driving or was that just there to make a point?
Because the death penalty should be used only if there is intent to kill, and in the case of drunk driving, you shouldn't get the death penalty for making a mistake and then having it have unintended consequences.
If the death penalty were used more often, we'd have much fewer problems in this country.
knapplc wrote:We're coming to the defense of drunk drivers now? What's next, defending child molesters?
Of course the criminals are being defended, it's the USA way!
But things... they are a' changin' and it will be fun.
"We don't want to violate people's civil rights. That's the last thing we want to do, but we're here to save lives," Unfried said.
That sure comes off as sounding like, "We don't want to violate people's civil rights, but we will."
Driving is now a "right" as well? Last I checked, one had to qualify to drive. Be of age, have a license, not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc, yadda, and so forth. So checking to make sure a driver isn't drunk is not a violation of anything since there are no "rights" even involved.
Also, think about, relative to other laws, how harsh it would be to give someone the death penalty for their decision to drive drunk, as you expected. That's a far harsher punishment than for someone who commits rape, for example. If the punishment is to fit a crime, are you suggesting that driving drunk, which accidentally results in the death of someone else deserves are more serious punishment than violently raping someone (which is premeditated and intended)?
2 problems with this.
#1 - Punishments are not meant to be a trade-off or to fit anything. The entire job of a punishment is to prevent a crime.
#2 - Comparing punishments. Frankly I'd support giving rapists the death penalty as well, but that is a whole different matter. What does matter is that way too many people drink and drive, which is very dangerous to others. So the punishment for the offense needs to be raised, and raised, and raised until it reaches the point where people don't drink and drive because the punishment makes it not worth risking. If that means going all the way to the death penalty in order to get people's attention and solve this problem, so be it. Punishments for other crimes don't factor into solving this crime at all.
The point I was trying to make with the rape example is that you are getting into tough territory by suggesting a crime like drunk driving could result in the death penalty, because then I think you need to make any equal or harsher crime have the death penalty as well, which results in us killing off way too many people. I in no way support drunk driving, and I think the punishments should certainly be harsher than they are, but when you start making huge punishments for drunk driving, you start setting a precedent of for major punishments for non-violent crimes.
Again, you are straying from the topic of stopping drunk driving. Any other crime or the punishment for that crime is irrelevant. All crimes should follow the same logic though. If the punishment for breaking said law isn't tough enough to prevent it from happening (or cut it down sharply), then the punishment needs to be raised, and raised, and raised, until the punishment does exactly what punishment is designed to do - prevent the crime from happening. Doesn't make one hill of beans of difference if 20 years in jail is enough punishment to keep rape at bay and it takes the death penalty to put drunk driving at bay, they are two different things and need to be handled separately since one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Skin Blues wrote:You guys don't think enough people are given the death penalty as it is? Instead of fostering a violent and vengeful culture with a me-first attitude that deals with problems by electrocuting them, maybe another approach could be taken. You know, kind of a preventative thing that tries to actually solve the issues instead of putting a cyanide bandaid on all the ugly sores that come about from a messed-up society. Just a suggestion. Ah, that's for pussies, right? It's more fun to just kill people we don't like, cuz they deserve it! RARRR!!! U-S-A!
No, not nearly enough people are given the death penalty. Pretty sad you'd blame society for someone committing murder, as if the murderer is the victim instead of the person they decided and chose to kill.
As far as the death penalty goes, it's somewhat of a myth that it costs less than say, life imprisonment.
Blindfold and a bullet. Problem solved.
I won't get into that long debate about alcoholism being a disease, but it's just not that simple.
Cirrhosis of the liver is a disease.
Choosing to drink is not a disease.
Again, not that simple. Most folks don't want to admit they have a problem because they feel shame for having one. It's not simple as just suddenly having the willpower to get help, it really isn't.
So someone's pride is more important than other people's lives? Cool, that means I can go kill any man in America that I think is more attractive than I am. Hey, it's pride at stake, so that makes murder ok, right?
wrveres wrote:the cocktail of the gods
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I've got plenty of popcorn, this thread might get interesting again.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....