Dear Mitchell Nussbaum, The question of habitual behavior and rehabilitation is a difficult question. One solution might be the use of a leg device or some new law enforcement item which would assure that Mrs. Burr did not drive. Drinking is not illegal, but driving recklessly and drunk is. Maybe such devices could be used on every repeat offender of drunk driving. After all, tracking is used for criminal work release programs. Certainly Mrs. Burr had no intention that she would be killing people with her car. In that she is not like premeditated criminals against people or property.
Equally dangerous on the roads are speeders who end up killing people. I would expect that ticketed speeders usually repeat the act of speeding. Our laws let another dangerous class of people endanger others on the roads. Those are people with occasionally occurring medical problems. People subject to epilepsy can drive. Some years ago, a women with a history of epilepsy and who had not had the mental capacity for standard public school education, had a seizure on the divided roads near Milwaukee. Her car jumped the median and killed a family heading North to Oshkosh when she had a seizure. There was no action against her at all. Possibly medical doctors should be made responsible when they see unstable health, much like they are made responsible when they recognize child abuse. Electronic control of dangerous drunks would be trouble and expense, but if the alternative would be perpetual prison, this could be an effective solution for both the public and for the offender. The offender might then be followed by some type of person much like a parole officer to monitor rehabilitation when or if that should occur. Eric Westhagen Mitchell Nussbaum wrote: > I'm definitely in favor of rehabilitation. I think prisons should be > operated for the purpose of reforming prisoners, wherever possible, and > returning them to society once they are rehabilitated. I support parole > (which has been abolished in Wisconsin, and not by liberals) and humane > conditions in prison (instead of mediaeval abominations like Supermax, > which was not a liberal idea). I hope the drunk driver, Sheila Burr, has > access in prison to programs that will help her deal with addiction to > alcohol (we liberals tend to like stuff like that, even though they cost > taxpayers money). But overcoming alcoholism is very hard, and I would > prefer not to have her on the streets until she has made sufficient > progress. She already had one drunk driving conviction on her record, in > 2002, when she ran over those bicyclists. > > But this is beside the point. I support rehabilitation and shorter > sentences in general, but I object to focusing on the sentence in this > particular crime. Americans have a custom of showing severe approval for > seriously unacceptable behavior by sending the perpetrators to prison for > long terms. I went to Google News again today, and found: > > --- a sentence of 11 years for bank fraud, misapplication of bank funds, > money laundering, perjury, etc., leading to the collapse of a bank in > Blanchardville (http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/273495) > --- a sentence of 15 years for armed robbery of a convenience store in > Plover > (http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/WDH0101/802190497/1981) > > Granted, these are crimes against property, which must be protected at all > costs. But getting *exremely* drunk and killing a bicyclist is not > exactly a peccadilo. If this driver got a slap on the wrist while others, > who didn't kill anybody, went to the slammer for long terms, what would > that say about the value of bicyclists' lives in our society? > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
