This idiot Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr posted a blog on this website:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1714645/posts
Now I know that lots of idiots are out there posting idiodic things but I think this one takes the cake. He says that it is unconstitutional to make drunk driving illegal. That the person hasnt commited a crime yet so they are being covicted because of the probability of getting into an accident.
My question is what do you think of this?
I personally feel that punishment should be much more extreme. When you get into a car drunk you are taking everyone on the roads life into hands. A person doesn't have the right to risk mine or my childs life. I think drunk drivers should be jailed on the first offense for at least 6 months and lose their license for 1 year after that. Then if they get a second offense they should be brought up on attemted murder charges for each person they passed on the road (if that number can be determined)
2007-06-01 14:59:36 · 11 answers · asked by It Does Exist 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
and lose their license for life. If they get out of prison and are brought up on a third offense. They should get life in prison or the death penalty.
2007-06-01 15:00:34 · update #1
For people that think the Death penalty is too harsh for a "traffic violation". If someone consistenly tried to kill hundreds of people over many years and continued to do so after being incarcerated would you think they deserved the death penalty? I have heard lots of different figures at the cost of jailing someone for a year anywhere from 20 to 40 thousand a year. I would rather save that taxpayer money a get rid of someone who seems to not care who he hurts. There have been death penalty cases that I have heard of that were over simple crimes because they hit their third strike. This would be a third strike situation.
2007-06-01 15:18:55 · update #2
This moon bat's logic is off the chart - if we apply his logic to different situations, it becomes obvious. Discharging a firearm where prohibited, for instance, should not be against the law because it is based "on the probability" that someone might get shot - and until they do, no crime has been committed? Yeah, right.
When the probability for inevitable injury or death is present due to someones negligence or stupidity - the law should definitely be proactive - not reactive.
The guy is way off base with this one - and, you're correct, there are a lot of idiots out there posting idiotic things.
A drunk driver is a danger to everyone else on the road - or sidewalk, in some cases - and should be dealt with accordingly.
2007-06-01 15:15:55 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The laws are nowhere near as strict as they need to be for this!!! They do need to be jailed for the first offense and loose their license for the year!!!
I think you are on to something there with the murder charges!!! But maybe...how many miles the car has traveled....some mathematical formula!! lol
Here in TN those who are charge with a DUI have to wear a bright vest that says something along the lines of "I am a Druken Driver" while doing community service...and everyone honks at them...humiliation...but jail time may be a better waste of my money for sure!!
2007-06-01 15:05:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We must have laws about DWI, and the laws have gotten stricter in the last several years but too many times the person who has been arrested for DWI are able to fight it in court and when there is not a Breathalyzer test taken what real proof is there? I feel that a Breathalyzer should be required if good evidence is there too support it.
2007-06-01 15:07:29 · answer #3 · answered by Paula N 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you 100%. Drunk driving should of course be illegal. The saddest part is that there is a parking lot in front of every bar...so it is unfortunatly enevitable that there will be drunk drivers...This is why we have these laws. So losers who get drunk and forget that they are now responsible not only for their own lives, but the lives of others too.
2007-06-01 15:04:53 · answer #4 · answered by jezzybell724 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your suggestion of executing people for committing a traffic infraction is just as ridiculous as his suggestion that we legalize drunk driving. Are there other misdemeanors or malum prohibidum crimes for which you would like to see the death penalty imposed?
2007-06-01 15:13:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Our prisons are so full right now that we have to relase KILLERS to put non-violent drug offenders in prison because its the "popular" thing to do.
I agree that it should be illegal, but lets worry about the big problems in society first...murderers should be locked up for life...period.
2007-06-01 15:07:09 · answer #6 · answered by larryrickman2000 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think he is confusing liberty with responsibility. You have freedom of speech, but yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater passes the bounds. He is more than welcome to drink himself dumber than he already is...but if he gets behind the wheel, then he puts my life at danger. Maybe we should change the charge from drunken driving to attempted manslaughter.
2007-06-01 15:03:52 · answer #7 · answered by Glenn G 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hell I can drive straighter drunk than sober.
As a matter of fact I'm thinking of starting a club Y'all welcome to join. Y'all heard of mothers against drunk drivers
Well mine is gonna be Drunk Drivers against Mad Mothers
2007-06-01 15:06:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Do you have any question that we might answer or you just want us to read your opinion?
2007-06-01 18:25:58 · answer #9 · answered by CARL76 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You, what's your face should know that NO ONE would actually answer a question with SO many details.
2007-06-01 15:02:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋