|
For the children's sake...
wrote in message
... On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober?? Yes. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access In that case, how would "irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system" work? -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Steve B" wrote in message
... "Tim" wrote in message ... http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition. Steve I'm not sure what you mean by "lessening their criminal acts." If you mean that laws don't reduce criminal activity, then that's true for some laws, e.g., death penalty laws don't reduce homicides. But, I suspect it's not true for others, and laws do prevent bad outcomes, e.g., seat belt laws. I don't have access to the full article, but here's the abstract. "This article reexamines the effectiveness of blood alcohol content (BAC) laws in reducing traffic fatalities. Differences-in-differences estimators of U.S. state-level data with standard errors corrected for autocorrelation show no evidence that lowering the BAC limits to 0.08 g/dL reduced fatality rates, either in total or in crashes likely to be alcohol related, or in states that passed BAC 08 in laws either in advance of or in response to federal pressure. Other legislations, including administrative license revocation and primary seat belt laws, are found effective in reducing fatalities in all specifications. Endogeneity tests using event analyses confirm the differences-in-differences estimates." -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Tim" wrote in message ... http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition. Steve |
For the children's sake...
Tim wrote:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! Can't enforce the laws they have, what good is another? More lawyers? I like it the way some countries do it. First offence and 2 years in jail. No prarole, no good behavior, no nothing. Two years in cement walls. |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 9, 6:43*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment. a snide comment. Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers. And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this already, as we have increased the laws. There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their criminal acts. *Look at Prohibition. Steve And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too. |
For the children's sake...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober?? Yes. -- Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here. Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta. |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 9, 3:58*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article b9c6b372-c019-4fe4-910a-445f57676f74 @y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com, says... http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Just sayin'... Or a felony to DUI/DWI without passengers, period? |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 9, 8:53*pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou.... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober?? Yes. -- Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here. Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta. Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not Waylon. I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no biggie. |
For the children's sake...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a passenger should be prosecuted as a felon. I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her personal autonomy. Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control? To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically, morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of society. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com