Sex offenders and drunk driving

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Gabriella84, Jul 22, 2005.

  1. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I can understand everyone's stance about sex offenders. I feel the same way about people who are convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence.
    Those convicted of DWI are a menace to society and should be kept of the road. Permanently, if possible. I also don't want to live around one. If I have kids, I don't want them to be killed just by walking around when some drunk comes crashing through.
    Our laws on DWI are WAY too lenient. First-time offenders should face mandatory jail sentences and should have their licenses suspended for a year when they get out. Repeat offenders should either be banned from driving, or forced to drive cars designating them as drunks.
    I believe all repeat DWI offenders should have to register. They are at least as dangerous as sex offenders, probably more. These people maim and kill with no respect for life. You hear about it all the time. Alcoholism is just as chronic as predators. They should not be allowed to live around schools, or in neighborhoods that have kids.

    Don't think I am just kidding, either. I'm not. I am VERY serious about this. Alcoholics are the true scum of the earth, because they are responsible for nothing positive.
     
  2. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    did your parents abuse drugs or alcohol...my experience in life dictates that those who yell the loudest...were those most effected...what say you...or are you just expressing a professors view?
     
  3. Markainion
    Offline

    Markainion Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +8
    I was wondering the something. But there is some wisdom in what she says. There should be no excuse for lack of control in society. If a drunk or druggie does harm to someone he or she should be monitored until we know the have gained with out question control.

    Sex offenders shouldn’t be monitored unless we know they are a true danger to society. I don’t wont a poor judge to convict a person for a sex crime like an 18 teen year old having sex with a 17 teen year old. Rare but does happen. Crime should fit the punishment, and if the crime is lack of control then monitoring them is fair. But, no excuse should be allowed for those that hurt others.
     
  4. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    she was not talking about two underage teens who lost control of their hormones....so I agree with you on that one..however she makes alot of claims...of which I am suspicious as they relate to professors opinions and not experience....just a thought!
     
  5. Markainion
    Offline

    Markainion Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +8
    I have no clue who Gabby is? But I will give her credit when she make a good point. Even if rare.
     
  6. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    My parents have never smoked or drank. Not since they have been married, anyway. I am sure they probably drank in college.

    I have counseled a couple of girls that told heartbreaking stories. One girl was so shattered, she might need permanent counseling. She was walking home from an after-school activity, on the inside of the sidewalk with two other girls. A car driven by an intoxicated driver lost control, veered up on the sidewalk and struck the other two. One was killed.
    I met with another who was in a car struck by a drunken driver. Her mother was killed, her father disabled for life. The other driver drove off and was so drunk, he didn't remember hitting the car.

    Sex offenders are horrible people who should be locked up. But at least their victims usually live.
     
  7. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    I agree completely that we are far too lenient
    on drunk drivers, and feel that the menace they
    pose may be as great as that of any other class
    of criminal except for terrorists.

    I have read that some Nordic countries (Norway,
    Sweden, and Iceland) have pretty well solved
    the drunk driving problem with draconian laws:

    1. One strike and you're out: permanent
    loss of driving privilege, fine, and jail.

    2. Repeat offenders do long, hard time, with
    ruinous fines.

    3. 0.6% (0.3?) blood alcohol level considered intoxicated.
    That 's about 1-2 beers for an average-sized male.

    I would like to see these exact laws implemented
    and enforced world-wide. It might save 20,000 lives
    a year in the US alone.
     
  8. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    My only word of caution would be that a BAC of .06 is ridiculously low. In most states, it's .08, which is low enough. Now I'm certainly not advocating drunk driving, but I don't think lowering the limits is the right answer.

    In WA, we have automatic jail time for DUI offenders, plus a one-year license suspension. Repeat offenders get those breathalyzer starters for their cars - after they get out of more jail and get their license back from another suspension. It has seemed to work pretty well.
     
  9. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Of the two, sex offenders are the worst. Hands down. The victims may live, but rarely have a normal life. Sex Offenders are the worst, hands down, because they are in full control and still predatory. I would volunteer to shoot sex offenders. Three rounds. First in the knee so they hit the ground. Second in the midsection so they feel real pain. Third in the grape about twelve hours later if they didn't bleed out.

    I aint giving drunks a pass either. I think you are responsible and more importantly accountable for anything you do. If you are drunk and kill someone, you should get the death penalty anyway. If you are drunk and slap the wife around, you should do time for assault. The sobriety condition should be a matter of aggravation (as opposed to extenuation or mitigation).

    Just my two cents.
     
  10. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    I'm afraid we have an issue of disagreement:
    I do not think .06 is at all low, and I would
    prefer 0.00 to 0.08.

    Stay off the damn road if you've been drinking, Mack.




    In NC, I am not sure about the jail time except
    for repeat offenders. I think the license suspension
    is about the same. If we got breathalizer starters
    in NC I've missed it.

    None of this ain't gonna keep Macks from driving enough
    to suit me, except for the breathalyzer starters- I say
    put those things in every motor vehicle, including police cars,
    and the President's limo.
     

Share This Page