Subject:
|
Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:16:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1095 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
If this guy was genuinely remorseful, I expect this would work. However, if
he were a recidivist, it would just embitter him further. “Cruel and unusual”
punishment is normally a bad idea.
|
Are you sure it would embitter him further? I would think initially he’d
almost absolutely be more bitter, but the shame of the punishment may eventually
break him (were it for a period of time like 6mos). Again, I could be wrong,
just wondering.
I’d venture a guess to say those street racing while drunk are probably more
likely to be recidivists than not, just given the types of people I observe
driving recklessly. Chris’s argument here would be to treat them for their
mental illness.
| |
I expect habitual drink drivers will not let this story impact in their
behaviour… the best way to do that is to increase the probability of them
being caught… random breath testing anyone?
|
I guess I have mixed feelings about that one. Making testing both truly random
and substantial would require a lot of resources (even testing 1/100 of drivers
after 10pm randomly would likely require 2 officers always testing in a town
like mine, pop 90,000), and you wouldn’t want to drain those patrolling the
streets too much as they can spot people who are drunk easier.
I’d prefer a semi-targeted approach if there were to be any. Officers hanging
out in parking lots? Officers stationed near a cluster of bars?
The problem with a ‘breathalyzer in every car’ would be -- a third party can
always blow into the breathalyzer for the test, its not foolproof. A live body
(officer) is much more effective, but more expensive. Well, maybe less expensive
in the short run than installing a breathalyzer in *ever* car...but long term?
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| (...) For me, what random testing means is that the fuzz can stop drivers without reason. This is important, as drunk-drivers often drive quite well in normal traffic if they are aware of their situation and are on familiar roads… they never pass (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| If this guy was genuinely remorseful, I expect this would work. However, if he were a recidivist, it would just embitter him further. “Cruel and unusual” punishment is normally a bad idea. I expect habitual drink drivers will not let this story (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
