woods (12/22/82)
In this article it was claimed that number of offenses does not determine
death. I strongly disagree. While it is possible for a one-time offender
to kill someone, it is far more likely for a repeat offender just by sheer
probability, especially one who repeats and repeats. I still say let's
not ruin the life of a one-time offender. Let's scare him good, though, and
not let him get off as happens all too often now. Fitting punishments include
license suspension, fine, and one thing they've been doing more and more of
lately here in Colorado: a weekend or two of hard labor on a road crew.
I don't think anyone should ever be thrown in jail for any offense unless there
is pretty good reason to believe that society really needs protection from
this person. I certainly don't think one stupid act qualifies a person for
this hopeless category. And a year in most jails is enough to turn anyone
into a hardened criminal, especially since he probably won't be able to get
a job when he gets out (would YOU hire an ex-con when there are so many appli-
cants for every job these days?) Now a repeat offender is a different thing
altogether. Here a person has clearly demonstrated that he hasn't learned
from his mistakes. Even here I'm not sure jail is the way to go. (I really
hate jails as you can tell). I think first offenders should get license
suspension plus either a fine or have to work on a road crew. Second
offenders should get a much longer suspension and/or revocation, a
heavier fine, and possibly some weekends in jail. Third offenders or
someone caught driving after having his license revoked for a second
offense you could well justify putting into the hopless category and
putting him in jail.
To forestall some flames I'd like to once again point out that I am
NOT in favor of letting first offenders get off. But I'm even less in
favor of putting them in jail where they'll learn the values of the
criminal. Let's be realistic. Considering the usual results, do we
really want to put first-time offenders in jail? Think about it when
your mind is not clouded with emotion and I think you will (possibly
reluctantly) have to agree.
GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
menlo70!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woodsgh (12/22/82)
I agree with some of GREG's views on first offenders, but he misses some
points:
(1) There is a tendency to see drunken driving as being in the same class as
ordinary traffic offenses, like traveling at 59mph; the fine is a little higher
because the offense is a little "naughtier", but that's all. It therefore has
to be made clear to the offender that this is not true; that the offense is a
very serious one. One way to do this is JAIL. For many offenders -- a
middle-aged housewife or respectable business executive, for example -- 24
hours (no more) in jail could do wonders in changing their attitude, and much
more than than heavy fines or other non-jail alternatives.
(2) A physical labor punishment is unsuitable for many offenders, especially
the older ones.
A flexible law would allow a sensible judge (we must assume most judges are) to
apply the penalty that best provides for each individual offender's reform,
taking into consideration his/her attitude to the offense, alcohol history,
previous offenses, etc.
[PS: There was a nasty case here in RI where a young jailed traffic offender
was killed by his cellmates; obviously such people should not be put together
with people convicted of violent crimes.]
Graeme Hirst, Computer Science, Brown University
...!{decvax, vax135}!brunix!ghberry (12/30/82)
#R:hao:-39000:zinfandel:3200008:000:290 zinfandel!berry Dec 22 09:25:00 1982 Instead of road work, how about making first time DWI offenders do "volunteer" work in a hospital emergency room? Anyone moderately sensible will think twice after seeing some of the things that come through there, and the staff could probably use a gofer now and then. --Berry Kercheval