Friday, 20 March 2015

Rule #293: Drinking and driving

There was a tragic accident recently. A 17 month old infant was killed and her mother critically injured when their disabled car was rear ended on the hi-way by a cube van driven by an impaired driver. We have the laws in place. We just seem to be unable to get the message through. What I feel a need to challenge is the punishment for these types of situations. I don't know all the details of the situation I have referenced, so let's examine a hypothetical one. Assume the driver of the cube van is an upstanding member of society and father / husband of the year. Something went wrong for him that day and he made the ultimate of bad decisions and the result is many ruined lives. Including that of himself and his family. Of course he will do time for this. And although a lot of people probably feel that's not severe enough, what good would it serve? Locking him up won't bring the child back, help the mother recover or ease the pain for anyone. All it will do, is tear his own family apart, cost him his job and cost the taxpayers $150,000.00 /year.
As a matter of fact, this guy is probably the safest person out there right now. I'm sure he'll never drink and drive again. He'll probably never get behind the wheel again. I don't think I'd be able to (I'd probably be suicidal). There has to be something better than locking people like this up. What if he continues to work and all his money is given to the victims to help them through this. I think that makes more sense than prison for a guy like that.
On the other hand, if this guy has a previous impaired on his record, then he needs to be locked up for a long time. Obviously he's not the type to learn.


Come to think of it, the laws ARE subjective. The problem is, the variable is money.
Kills friend in 86 driving drunk, does 30 days!




 


Pushed Pamela Anderson, does 6 months!

 
In the new world, people won't drink and drive, but punishment for crime will be subjective based on the situation.







AND SO IT SHALL BE WRITTEN!

3 comments:

  1. If someone were to steal a loaf of bread to feed their hungry family as opposed to someone who would steal a bottle of wine to support their alcoholism should they be punished in different ways? Theft is theft and ultimatly, it is the merchant that suffers regardless of the reason the theft was committed. There are reasons there are punishments for crimes. If i have 1 too many drinks after work one night and have never been charged with drinking and driving, knowing that i am a respected citizen and most likly will be fined "subjectivly" should i take a chance to drive home? Impaired driving is premeditated murder -people are aware of the possible e consequences prior to making the decision and should not be punished subjectivly regardless of the cost to the tax payers

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said. But wouldn't it be better if the punishment for crimes like these somehow served a benefit to the victims? That's where I think the jail time should be challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Really sad for what happened to the mother and her child. Now this cube van driver need to have an honest discussion with their DUI attorney. Also make sure that the lawyer has never been reprimanded, suspended, or dis-barred. My brother is system admin at a DUI lawyer office and he often tells me how DUI cases if not fought properly can destroy your life.

    ReplyDelete

Agree? Disagree? Lay it on me!