Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on January 18, 2008, 10:59:11 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323737,00.html
can they do that?
What do you think about that? I don't know if it is a good thing or bad, but this is the first I have heard about it. the article says that it is a normal punishment used to show drunk drivers the dangers...
Personally I'd have a big problem with it, I am really really uncomfortable around dead things. I don't know why but it is really a big deal to me.
-
Originally posted by JB73
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323737,00.html
can they do that?
What do you think about that? IPersonally I'd have a big problem with it, I am really really uncomfortable around dead things.
It's punishment.... isn't it supposed to be... uncomfortable?
-
Drunk drivers put a lot of people into the morgue who did absolutely nothing to deserve it except be on the road with the drink driver. The drunks ought to see what they do to people and more. I don't have a problem with it at all. The only gripe I have is that is should be at least 2 full days, not just 2 four hour visits. They should also serve at least a full 24 hours in jail as well.
After spending more than a little time having to deal with drunks, I have no sympathy for them at all.
-
Yep, such unusual punishment is at most 1/10th of what cruel and unusual punishment drunk drivers give normal drivers.
-
Originally posted by JB73
Personally I'd have a big problem with it, I am really really uncomfortable around dead things. I don't know why but it is really a big deal to me.
I think it's a sound punishment. Maybe after that she'll be able to think about the possible deadly consequences next time she considers DUI.
-
She has already been poped with 2 DUI's and cocaine charges and with 2 charges plus the coke charge she has only spent 84 minutes in jail as part of the plea deal. I think cali is way to dam soft even is they do have money "rich" they still need to serve what every one else serve's. Money must be the key to everything now days.
:mad: :mad: :furious :rolleyes:
-
sober drivers kill more people then drunk drivers. Look it up.
-
Originally posted by john9001
sober drivers kill more people then drunk drivers. Look it up.
And I would guess that, in 2007, High School quarterbacks in the in United States threw more touchdown passes than all of the NFL quarterbacks did.
So what's your point?
:huh
-
Originally posted by john9001
sober drivers kill more people then drunk drivers. Look it up.
There are lies, damn lies, and then you have statistics. (Don't know who said it)
-
Originally posted by john9001
sober drivers kill more people then drunk drivers. Look it up.
When being stupid becomes against the law, they'll probably have those folks serving time in the morgue as well. Until then, DUI folks can have at it.
-
my point is people that kill or injure with their car should be punished, i do not believe in preemptive punishment. i do not think people should be punished for something that may or may not happen.
-
Originally posted by john9001
my point is people that kill or injure with their car should be punished, i do not believe in preemptive punishment. i do not think people should be punished for something that may or may not happen.
Yeah, I can see that point. But the driving while under the influence is the part of that which is against the law. And the death part comes in when you're talking about possible consequences. I still think it's a sound punishment for the DUI.
*edit* I did something similar with one of my own kids (disgusting scare tactic). One of mine was getting the fire-bug. Found burned bits of paper on the back porch several times a week (two weeks in a row).
I printed news articles giving gruesome details (children screaming until death, etc) and the most horrifying pictures I could find of charred bodies and survivors who were burned severely.
Once I had enough to fill the entire front of the fridge, I put all of them up.
It wasn't at all meant as punishment. But it truely was intended to serve as a warning for the horrific consequences of irresponsible behavior. I want them to learn that before we're all dead in a house fire ~ not after.
Paper burning on the back porch stopped.
-
John, a drunk driver is more likely to cause accidents than a sober driver. It's my guess that sober drivers cause more accidents and consequent victims because of their sheer outproportion vs. drunk drivers.
So drunk drivers, given their higher victims/driver ratio, are a prime target for accident prevention.
-
but they are not just after the "drunk" driver, they are after the drinking driver, hence the DUI, Driving Under the Influence, which is vague and arbitrary.
the result of 20 years of MADD propaganda.
-
WHO CARES!
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
WHO CARES!
if you are refering to the celebrity angle to this I agree...
My point is about the average citizen who according to the article:
Her two four-hour days at the morgue are part of a court-ordered program to show drivers the real-life consequences of drinking and driving. She must also spend two days working in a hospital emergency room.
which makes it sound like anyone arrested for driving under the influence is subject to.
I agree with harsh punishment to drunken drivers, laughably WI has just changed the punishment for the 7th, 8th, and 9th offense to be more harsh...
7 8 and 9??? :O
after 3 lose license for 10 years minimum IMHO.
-
Originally posted by JB73
if you are refering to the celebrity angle to this I agree...
Yes I was.
Why do celebs drive anyway? They can afford drivers!
-
Originally posted by moot
Yep, such unusual punishment is at most 1/10th of what cruel and unusual punishment drunk drivers give normal drivers.
and their families:(
-
doesn't it seem that Judges feel "celebs" are role models..and get "special" assignments that Joe Smoe wouldn't have to preform?
perhaps if the Judges names were prohibited from being published in the press(like they prohibit publication of evidence on occasion)..you have to wonder if the justice system is fair at all.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
After spending more than a little time having to deal with drunks, I have no sympathy for them at all.
Absolutely no sympathy from me. (http://www.odmp.org/officer/17904-police-officer-matthew-john-redding)
The driver, Eric Dungan, got 15 years to life. Ms. Lohan should take heed. If she kills someone, her penalty could likely be as severe. Money or not.
-
Originally posted by john9001
my point is people that kill or injure with their car should be punished, i do not believe in preemptive punishment. i do not think people should be punished for something that may or may not happen.
Following this train of thought then no one who is speeding should get a ticket unless there is a collision then. Same for failure to stop for a red light, stop sign and failure to yield as long as no one is hurt or killed. I presume you would be happy with any number of drunks or otherwise impaired drivers on the road as long as everyone else is able to get out of their way.
-
Over the years I've read a lot of information about highway fatalities in the U.S. On average, there have been 45,000 deaths each year on the nation's roads. Of that number, almost half are caused by people who are driving under the influence or are dead drunk.
One study stated that the drivers of approximately one car out of every ten is DUI...even if they've had only a single drink and the influence is not all that significant. However, one driver in a hundred is estimated to be significantly impaired.....and that IS scarey.
Considering that drivers who are DUI or sloppy drunk make up such a small proportion of those tooling down our roads, I think it is significant that such a large percentage of the nation's highway fatalities are caused by them.
Sorry folks, but I have no patience with drunks or their defenders. If a member of my family is every killed by some idiot drunk I would be sorely tempted to send THEM to the morgue.
-
Originally posted by john9001
but they are not just after the "drunk" driver, they are after the drinking driver, hence the DUI, Driving Under the Influence, which is vague and arbitrary.
the result of 20 years of MADD propaganda.
I believe if your over the limit your considered drunk. If I'm right...then the law is not vague.
-
Lohan's work in a morgue is just research for a remake of Night Shift.
(http://www.michaelkeatoncentral.com/nightshift01.jpg)
-
Originally posted by john9001
sober drivers kill more people then drunk drivers. Look it up.
And I bet if you looked it up you would find that drunk drivers kill more sober drivers then sober drivers kill drunk ones
-
Originally posted by john9001
but they are not just after the "drunk" driver, they are after the drinking driver, hence the DUI, Driving Under the Influence, which is vague and arbitrary.
the result of 20 years of MADD propaganda.
There's absolutely no reason why you should drive under the influence so your post is pretty much pointless.
-
Originally posted by JB73
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323737,00.html
can they do that?
What do you think about that? I don't know if it is a good thing or bad, but this is the first I have heard about it. the article says that it is a normal punishment used to show drunk drivers the dangers...
Personally I'd have a big problem with it, I am really really uncomfortable around dead things. I don't know why but it is really a big deal to me.
Its only "uncomfortable" when theyv been dead for 6 days in 95% August weather and when you lift them they break open and splatter you with maggot juice all over your clothes.