Would you like this law? - Manatory life in prison for DUIs who kill kids?

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 02:44:44 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:


>
>1. Playing on the emotionalism of "think of the children" is no way to
>make law.

Nevertheless that's how things are done in america. Until that is,
the kid is harmed by a bad driver. Then americans say - "hey, i'm a
bad driver myself so forget about the kids"

Please remember that there is a difference between jail and prison.
Yes, both are overcrowded and that needs to be dealt with, but that
does not mean that those who drink, drive and kill should be let off
without at least incarceration. Deaths due to DUIs are just as violent
as any other murder.


Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
> > How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> > people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> > harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> > penalty.
>
> In Philadelphia, the jails are already overcrowded. I prefer to put
> people in jail who intentionally commit violent crimes against others.
> In most cases, those who cause a fatality out on the road have committed
> an accident. True, these are horrific accidents, but they're still
> accidents. Severe sanctions are certainly needed in such cases, but jail
> time does no one any good: it dies not bring the victim back, costs lots
> of taypayers' dollars, and it does not leave room in prisons for violent
> offenders such as rapists and armed robbers.

By the way, about the child porn thing, you surely do not believe that
there is no harm to the child do you? Every person who looks at child
porn is hurting that child. It is exploitation, no matter what



laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> penalty.

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Larry Bud wrote:
>> AusWendy wrote:
>> > "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>
>> > I disagree. If you are out driving with over the legal limit of
>> > alcohol in
>> > your system then it is NOT an accident.
>>
>> Ridiculous. Of COURSE it was an accident, because it wasn't
>> intentional. You and LBMHBF need to look up the definition of
>> "intent".
>>
>> The DUI was intentional, but the crash was not.
>
> In common terminology, you're correct. However, in legal terms, it is
> now law or precedent almost everywhere in the US that virtually any
> reasonably foreseeable outcome of drunkenness (such as an 'accident')
> will be deemed to be just as intentional as the drunkenness. IOW, if
> you got drunk voluntarily and 'accidentally' crashed, you are deemed to
> have intended to crash.
> --
I agree.

Aus Wendy

"I am a MO" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> "AusWendy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> In most cases, those who cause a fatality out on the road have committed
>>> an accident. True, these are horrific accidents, but they're still
>>> accidents.
>>
>> I disagree. If you are out driving with over the legal limit of alcohol
>> in your system then it is NOT an accident.
>>
>> Aus Wendy
>>
>
> You are an ignorant ****!
>

OOhhh looks like you are using a keyboard whilst impaired.................
impaired by having too few brain cells.

Aus Wendy

"AusWendy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "I am a MO" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>>
>> "AusWendy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> In most cases, those who cause a fatality out on the road have
>>>> committed
>>>> an accident. True, these are horrific accidents, but they're still
>>>> accidents.
>>>
>>> I disagree. If you are out driving with over the legal limit of alcohol
>>> in your system then it is NOT an accident.
>>>
>>> Aus Wendy
>>>
>>
>> You are an ignorant ****!
>>
>
> OOhhh looks like you are using a keyboard whilst impaired.................
> impaired by having too few brain cells.
>
> Aus Wendy
>

**** you ****. Go wash that gash out.

"AusWendy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Larry Bud wrote:
>>> AusWendy wrote:
>>> > "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>
>>> > I disagree. If you are out driving with over the legal limit of
>>> > alcohol in
>>> > your system then it is NOT an accident.
>>>
>>> Ridiculous. Of COURSE it was an accident, because it wasn't
>>> intentional. You and LBMHBF need to look up the definition of
>>> "intent".
>>>
>>> The DUI was intentional, but the crash was not.
>>
>> In common terminology, you're correct. However, in legal terms, it is
>> now law or precedent almost everywhere in the US that virtually any
>> reasonably foreseeable outcome of drunkenness (such as an 'accident')
>> will be deemed to be just as intentional as the drunkenness. IOW, if
>> you got drunk voluntarily and 'accidentally' crashed, you are deemed to
>> have intended to crash.
>> --
> I agree.
>
> Aus Wendy
>
>

**** you ****!

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> By the way, about the child porn thing, you surely do not believe that
> there is no harm to the child do you? Every person who looks at child
> porn is hurting that child. It is exploitation, no matter what
>
They hurt a kid more than killing them does. KFlynn is a child molester.
>
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
>> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
>> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
>> penalty.
>

"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 02:44:44 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>1. Playing on the emotionalism of "think of the children" is no way to
>>make law.
>
> Nevertheless that's how things are done in america. Until that is,
> the kid is harmed by a bad driver. Then americans say - "hey, i'm a
> bad driver myself so forget about the kids"

**** the little *******s.

"barking pumpkin" > wrote in message
. ..
>I am a MO wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Do SUV's scare you?
>
>
> No. Idiot drivers who don't look where they're going scare me.
>
>
>

So people scare you.