|
For the children's sake...
On Dec 12, 9:59*am, John H wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:27:42 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. *He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. *Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. Yes, but the same can be true for the person sticking up the local 7-11. I don't necessarily agree with the mandatory sentencing laws, but I didn't see that in the original post. Does the conviction on a felony carry a mandatory jail term? -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Depends on the felony, and the jurisdiction |
For the children's sake...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:49:52 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:47:54 -0600, wrote: To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive sanctions. Ok - the first is criminal and the second is misnamed - I believe you meant to say civil sanctions as a means to prevent disorder. The question is which application respects an individual's personal autonomy and responsibility. Neither do. 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. I don't understand the difference as you state it. Both are considered deterrants to further criminal or uncivil behavior. One is based in criminal law (in fact, it is the original codification of social behavior as presented in the Law of Moses and/or the Code of Hammurabi) and the other is simply an extention of criminal sanctions into the civil arena. 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 wouldn't say "extreme" - I would say misguided. 18th century jurisprudence stayed firmly entrenched in the arena of retributive justice - hence debtors prisons, lack of women's rights, cororeal punishment for minor infractions and such. Most issues considered as civil matters in today's society were dealt with as criminal in the 18th century with the corresponding "justice". The entire Constitution and Bill of Rights is nothing more than an experiment in socially engineering an entirely new legal and governance construct. You'd really have to explain that a little more because I don't understand your thesis. 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. Huh? That's the whole point of retributive justice if I remember my, admittedly minor, education in civil law. If you do get the time, I'll be very interested in what you have to say. As little time as I have, I'll try to articulate my perspective on this issue as best as I'm able. Firstly, I don't have a background in law, and I make no pretense to have a firm grasp of the fine points of law. When I encounter points of law that I find of interest, I consult my sister who is a lawyer and is schooled in those areas for the most part. In an attempt to clarify my political philosophy I try to broach the subject with philosophical language for the most part. If in doing so, I impinge upon the hallowed lexicon of the lawyer, it's not for any purpose other to express my point of view. In submitting the phrase "preventive sanctions," I'm speaking more in a general and philosophical sense. I'm not looking to further bifurcate the subject into penal or civil sanctions. I may have articulated poorly when I stated that retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must necessarily be constrained. It may be better stated that retributive justice seeks to find redress for a wrong. It's overarching design is not too constrain the individual by regulating the individual's every action by the enactment of a plethora of laws that anticipate the individual's potential to err. The latter is what I subsume under "preventive sanctions." Where retributive justice takes the individual to task for having failed a moral responsibility not to harm or injure, preventive sanctions, in the sense that I use the language, presume the necessity to remove from the individual the personal autonomy and mobility that may lead to injury. I find the latter to be deplorable and unnecessary. If the world were comprised of only two individuals, there is one handcuffing the other so that the first can feel safe, under a doctrine of preventive sanctions (again as I define the phrase). As simple as this analogy is, it essentially encapsulates the doctrine that drives much of the legislation that oppresses the individual in our society. I have to say that I humbly disagree with your assessment of 18th century jurisprudence, and I do so from what little I have read of Blackstone, ecclesiastical law, common law, the times of Cromwell, etc. It isn't a stretch to contend that the "social engineering of a new legal construct" by our founding fathers was a construct that was modeled, in some measure, on the best aspects of Greek and Roman government, among other things. (It was also influenced by the philosophical thought of Rosseau, Locke, and others.) But that will have to be a discussion for another day. This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
For the children's sake...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a pretty low standard. -- Nom=de=Plume Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record. |
For the children's sake...
"jps" wrote in message ... On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:27:42 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. Black woman, drives a Cadillac, lives on welfare and pops kids out every year so she can increase her welfare payments. Why do you keep repeating this? Because of your KKK membership? Has nothing to do with the thread. |
For the children's sake...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a pretty low standard. -- Nom=de=Plume Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record. Not sure what you're ranting about. You said there were unintended consequences. That's true for many things. It's pretty difficult to devine what they'll be in all situations. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:36:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a pretty low standard. -- Nom=de=Plume Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record. Damn, and here I'd thought you'd seen the light nomdeplum. Again, I'm not in favor of mandatory sentences, which are just a way to keep liberal judges from imposing 'no' sentence. I'm thinking that most DWI drivers get stopped because they *did* engage in driving activities that were dangerous or, at least, illegal. -- John H |
For the children's sake...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a pretty low standard. -- Nom=de=Plume Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record. Plume has a habit of not thinking things through before making her idiotic emissions. |
For the children's sake...
"John H" wrote in message
... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:36:51 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. So, by your philosophy we should not try to do the right thing. That's a pretty low standard. -- Nom=de=Plume Huh? Where is a mandatory felony for a 0.08 BAC the right thing? Other studies have shown no difference in .08 and .1 BAC safety results. How about if the guy is endangering the child, he gets arrested for that. Not because he was driving safely and got pulled over for a bad brake light, and the cop does a BAC on him. So you have 2 drinks and get pulled over with your neice in the car. You go to jail for at least a year. Definition of a felony, is the jail sentence is longer than a year. You going to get your life together when you get out? No home, no business, and a record. Damn, and here I'd thought you'd seen the light nomdeplum. Again, I'm not in favor of mandatory sentences, which are just a way to keep liberal judges from imposing 'no' sentence. I'm thinking that most DWI drivers get stopped because they *did* engage in driving activities that were dangerous or, at least, illegal. -- John H Yeah, there are lots of liberal judges who don't follow sentencing guidelines. Same thing with governers.... like Huckabee??? -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 10, 11:05*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
As little time as I have, I'll try to articulate my perspective on this issue as best as I'm able. *Firstly, I don't have a background in law, and I make no pretense to have a firm grasp of the fine points of law. *When I encounter points of law that I find of interest, I consult my sister who is a lawyer and is schooled in those areas for the most part. *In an attempt to clarify my political philosophy I try to broach the subject with philosophical language for the most part. If in doing so, I impinge upon the hallowed lexicon of the lawyer, it's not for any purpose other to express my point of view. *In submitting the phrase "preventive sanctions," I'm speaking more in a general and philosophical sense. *I'm not looking to further bifurcate the subject into penal or civil sanctions. * I may have articulated poorly when I stated that retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must necessarily be constrained. *It may be better stated that retributive justice seeks to find redress for a wrong. It's overarching design is not too constrain the individual by regulating the individual's every action by the enactment of a plethora of laws that anticipate the individual's potential to err. The latter is what I subsume under "preventive sanctions." *Where retributive justice takes the individual to task for having failed a moral responsibility not to harm or injure, preventive sanctions, in the sense that I use the language, presume the necessity to remove from the individual the personal autonomy and mobility that may lead to injury. *I find the latter to be deplorable and unnecessary. *If the world were comprised of only two individuals, there is one handcuffing the other so that the first can feel safe, under a doctrine of preventive sanctions (again as I define the phrase). *As simple as this analogy is, it essentially encapsulates the doctrine that drives much of the legislation that oppresses the individual in our society. *I have to say that I humbly disagree with your assessment of 18th century jurisprudence, and I do so from what little I have read of Blackstone, ecclesiastical law, common law, the times of Cromwell, etc. *It isn't a stretch to contend that the "social engineering of a new legal construct" by our founding fathers was a construct that was modeled, in some measure, on the best aspects of Greek and Roman government, among other things. *(It was also influenced by the philosophical thought of Rosseau, Locke, and others.) *But that will have to be a discussion for another day. *This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. -- Good thoughts JPJ. |
For the children's sake...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:10:19 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: On Dec 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: As little time as I have, I'll try to articulate my perspective on this issue as best as I'm able. *Firstly, I don't have a background in law, and I make no pretense to have a firm grasp of the fine points of law. *When I encounter points of law that I find of interest, I consult my sister who is a lawyer and is schooled in those areas for the most part. *In an attempt to clarify my political philosophy I try to broach the subject with philosophical language for the most part. If in doing so, I impinge upon the hallowed lexicon of the lawyer, it's not for any purpose other to express my point of view. *In submitting the phrase "preventive sanctions," I'm speaking more in a general and philosophical sense. *I'm not looking to further bifurcate the subject into penal or civil sanctions. * I may have articulated poorly when I stated that retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must necessarily be constrained. *It may be better stated that retributive justice seeks to find redress for a wrong. It's overarching design is not too constrain the individual by regulating the individual's every action by the enactment of a plethora of laws that anticipate the individual's potential to err. The latter is what I subsume under "preventive sanctions." *Where retributive justice takes the individual to task for having failed a moral responsibility not to harm or injure, preventive sanctions, in the sense that I use the language, presume the necessity to remove from the individual the personal autonomy and mobility that may lead to injury. *I find the latter to be deplorable and unnecessary. *If the world were comprised of only two individuals, there is one handcuffing the other so that the first can feel safe, under a doctrine of preventive sanctions (again as I define the phrase). *As simple as this analogy is, it essentially encapsulates the doctrine that drives much of the legislation that oppresses the individual in our society. *I have to say that I humbly disagree with your assessment of 18th century jurisprudence, and I do so from what little I have read of Blackstone, ecclesiastical law, common law, the times of Cromwell, etc. *It isn't a stretch to contend that the "social engineering of a new legal construct" by our founding fathers was a construct that was modeled, in some measure, on the best aspects of Greek and Roman government, among other things. *(It was also influenced by the philosophical thought of Rosseau, Locke, and others.) *But that will have to be a discussion for another day. *This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. -- Good thoughts JPJ. Thanks, Tim. I tried to express this perspective without being too bombastic. :) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
For the children's sake...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H |
For the children's sake...
|
For the children's sake...
"Tim" wrote in message
... On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... I was responding to his typo... :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"John H" wrote in message
... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 13, 12:52*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:10:19 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: As little time as I have, I'll try to articulate my perspective on this issue as best as I'm able. *Firstly, I don't have a background in law, and I make no pretense to have a firm grasp of the fine points of law. *When I encounter points of law that I find of interest, I consult my sister who is a lawyer and is schooled in those areas for the most part. *In an attempt to clarify my political philosophy I try to broach the subject with philosophical language for the most part. If in doing so, I impinge upon the hallowed lexicon of the lawyer, it's not for any purpose other to express my point of view. *In submitting the phrase "preventive sanctions," I'm speaking more in a general and philosophical sense. *I'm not looking to further bifurcate the subject into penal or civil sanctions. * I may have articulated poorly when I stated that retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must necessarily be constrained. *It may be better stated that retributive justice seeks to find redress for a wrong. It's overarching design is not too constrain the individual by regulating the individual's every action by the enactment of a plethora of laws that anticipate the individual's potential to err. The latter is what I subsume under "preventive sanctions." *Where retributive justice takes the individual to task for having failed a moral responsibility not to harm or injure, preventive sanctions, in the sense that I use the language, presume the necessity to remove from the individual the personal autonomy and mobility that may lead to injury. *I find the latter to be deplorable and unnecessary. *If the world were comprised of only two individuals, there is one handcuffing the other so that the first can feel safe, under a doctrine of preventive sanctions (again as I define the phrase). *As simple as this analogy is, it essentially encapsulates the doctrine that drives much of the legislation that oppresses the individual in our society. *I have to say that I humbly disagree with your assessment of 18th century jurisprudence, and I do so from what little I have read of Blackstone, ecclesiastical law, common law, the times of Cromwell, etc. *It isn't a stretch to contend that the "social engineering of a new legal construct" by our founding fathers was a construct that was modeled, in some measure, on the best aspects of Greek and Roman government, among other things. *(It was also influenced by the philosophical thought of Rosseau, Locke, and others.) *But that will have to be a discussion for another day. *This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. -- Good thoughts JPJ. Thanks, Tim. *I tried to express this perspective without being too bombastic. *:) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service * * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access I understood it well. |
For the children's sake...
John H wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... 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), 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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. She better be smart. She doesn't have much else going for her unless she's into men 20 years older than her with failing eyesight. Rob |
For the children's sake...
nom=de=plume wrote:
I was responding to his typo... :) Yipee! |
For the children's sake...
nom=de=plume wrote:
She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) And, evidently, insanely narcissistic. She fits right in with her leader, WAFA. Get a room. |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 13, 3:11*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message .... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. |
For the children's sake...
"Rob" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) And, evidently, insanely narcissistic. She fits right in with her leader, WAFA. Get a room. Ah, self-esteem, especially for a woman is "insanely narcissistic." I see now. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
... On Dec 13, 3:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) -- Nom=de=Plume Yes. You've found it! And I'm proud of you. Found it? That's the first step, D'Plume. However, no Légion d'Honneur for you today. Please try again tomorrow. First step? You need to calm down. You're not making much sense. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Rob" wrote in message
... John H wrote: On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... 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), 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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. She better be smart. She doesn't have much else going for her unless she's into men 20 years older than her with failing eyesight. Rob You wish! -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Rob" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: I was responding to his typo... :) Yipee! Wow... you sure are excitable. I think you can take a pill for this. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote: This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue. Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober? A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of society as a whole. As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271 times under the influence prior to being arrested. That is behavior that cannot be tolerated. I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first arrest. Hate to tell you, but you don't need to be 0.08 or above to get convicted. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 14, 12:02*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Dec 13, 3:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) -- Nom=de=Plume Yes. You've found it! *And I'm proud of you. Found it? That's the first step, D'Plume. However, no Légion d'Honneur for you today. Please try again tomorrow. First step? You need to calm down. You're not making much sense. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually D'Plume, I'm very calm. It's not a measuring of the amount of sense being made. It's your perception level that is a bit low on the scale. Please, try again sometime later today. |
For the children's sake...
nom=de=plume wrote:
Who sent you, and why? -- Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using someone else's ID |
For the children's sake...
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote: This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue. Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober? A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of society as a whole. As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271 times under the influence prior to being arrested. That is behavior that cannot be tolerated. I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first arrest. Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats present. With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same amount of time. With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems to work. |
For the children's sake...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... 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), 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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. She better be smart. She doesn't have much else going for her unless she's into men 20 years older than her with failing eyesight. Rob You wish! -- Nom=de=Plume There's a lot more than eyesight failing with Ditzy Dan. Business must be way down at 'Elite'....I remember when he'd disappear for a few days, return to spew his bile and disappear again. This went on quite a while until lately. I wonder if Margaret finally fired his lazy ass. |
For the children's sake...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: I was responding to his typo... :) Yipee! Wow... you sure are excitable. I think you can take a pill for this. -- Nom=de=Plume Seems to be all he's got going for him these days! I'd better insert a few typos into each message just to make him feel usefull. ~~ Snerk ~~ |
For the children's sake...
On Dec 14, 9:39*am, "Don White" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message m... nom=de=plume wrote: I was responding to his typo... :) Yipee! Wow... you sure are excitable. I think you can take a pill for this. -- Nom=de=Plume Seems to be all he's got going for him these days! I'd better insert a few typos into each message just to make him feel usefull. *~~ Snerk ~~ Hilarious! Don, I guess you're not bright enough to notice this, but he's correcting you to make fun of YOU, then king of typo correction...... |
For the children's sake...
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
... On Dec 14, 12:02 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Dec 13, 3:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . 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...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... 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 Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) -- Nom=de=Plume Yes. You've found it! And I'm proud of you. Found it? That's the first step, D'Plume. However, no Légion d'Honneur for you today. Please try again tomorrow. First step? You need to calm down. You're not making much sense. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually D'Plume, I'm very calm. It's not a measuring of the amount of sense being made. It's your perception level that is a bit low on the scale. Please, try again sometime later today. Yet, you keep repeating the same phrase over and over. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote: This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue. Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober? A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of society as a whole. As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271 times under the influence prior to being arrested. That is behavior that cannot be tolerated. I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first arrest. Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats present. With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same amount of time. With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems to work. Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a problem. |
For the children's sake...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote: This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue. Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober? A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of society as a whole. As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271 times under the influence prior to being arrested. That is behavior that cannot be tolerated. I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first arrest. Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats present. With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same amount of time. With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems to work. Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a problem. What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:37:58 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:27:42 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:27:21 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any passenger in the car? Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children ' Casady I agree with Tim. The children not in the car deserve protection also. -- John H Guy blows 0.08 and a kid in the car. He goes to jail for more than a year, felony, and the kid ends up in foster care, or the mom and kid end up sleeping in a shelter. Just like a lot of other mandatory sentencing laws. unintended consequenses rule. Black woman, drives a Cadillac, lives on welfare and pops kids out every year so she can increase her welfare payments. Why do you keep repeating this? Because of your KKK membership? Has nothing to do with the thread. I'm just matching your fantasy scenario with Ronny Raygun's. Il-founded and only applicable in the furthest reaches of reality. |
For the children's sake...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote: This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue. Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober? A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of society as a whole. As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271 times under the influence prior to being arrested. That is behavior that cannot be tolerated. I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first arrest. Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats present. With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same amount of time. With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems to work. Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a problem. What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey. -- Nom=de=Plume Google the studies. |
For the children's sake...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote: This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue. Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober? A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of society as a whole. As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271 times under the influence prior to being arrested. That is behavior that cannot be tolerated. I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first arrest. Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats present. With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same amount of time. With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems to work. Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a problem. What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey. -- Nom=de=Plume Google the studies. So, basically you have no citation. -- Nom=de=Plume |
For the children's sake...
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:52:14 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote: Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a problem Well, you say that, but it's not true. You may not show the effects, but they are there. And I know - believe me, I know. You're talking to somebody who once drank a bottle of Aqua Velva to get rid of the shakes enough to drive to the convience store to get a bottle of Boone's Farm to be able to get to the package store for a case of beer and a quart of Valu-Rite bourbon. :) It was shortly after that that I understood that I had a problem - so to speak. :) And I'm sorry, but it's just not true that a drunk can drive better at ..1 than .0 - they may not show the effects as readily, but they are blitzed. Very few people metabolize alcohol efficiently enough to avoid the effects - something like 1 out of every 15 million or so I'm given to believe. |
For the children's sake...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:39:38 -0600, wrote: This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. Yeah - it was, but unfortunately, it doesn't quite address the issue. Why do you object to a legal requirement to drive sober? A formalistic treatise on the legal niceties of justice is all well and good, but you still do not explain, as a practical matter, why you take high offense at an issue that is clearly in the interests of society as a whole. As you formulate your reply, keep this in mind. For every drunk driver arrested, that same drunk driver has driven, on average, 271 times under the influence prior to being arrested. That is behavior that cannot be tolerated. I doubt that the average drunk driver has driven 271 times DUI. The real drunks do, but with the laws now with a very low BAC to make you a DUI driver, I think the average DUI person is one who does not realize he has gone past the magical number. And a mandatory felony is absurd on a first arrest. Well, what can I say. I read that recently and wasn't suprised. I'm as suspicious of statistics as the next guy, but that's what the stats present. With respect to BAC, .08 is not unreasonable. You have to have a standard. In my opinion, any alcohol present in a driver is automatic license suspension for one year and impounding the car for the same amount of time. With respect to mandatory felony on a first arrest - well, you know my situation, I'm firmly in the camp of locking them up and throwing away the key, but seriously, what are you going to do - nothing else seems to work. Studies show not much change in crashes from a 0.1 to a 0.08 level. I am for penalties, but making it a mandatory felony is as stupid as a you get. And the hardcore drunks drive better at a 0.1 than they do at a 0.0. The body, I think, suppresses a lot of chemical production that the alcohol provides. Those alcoholics that I have known need a drink to get going in the morning. When you can drink a pint and show little effect, you have a problem. What studies? I doubt this is the case. There's a huge difference between having a 1/2 beer and three shots of whiskey. -- Nom=de=Plume Google the studies. So, basically you have no citation. -- Nom=de=Plume So basically you are lazy. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com