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.