Shoplifting a $159 Jacket: LIFE IN PRISON

[boutons_deux]

Jackson, 53, is one of 3,281 prisoners in America serving life sentences with no chance of parole for non-violent crimes.

Some, like him, were given the most extreme punishment short of execution for shoplifting; one was condemned to die in prison for siphoning petrol from a truck; another for stealing tools from a tool shed; yet another for attempting to cash a stolen cheque.

http://www.alternet.org/man-was-sentenced-die-prison-shoplifting-159-jacket-happens-more-you-think

3281 prisoners x $30K/prisoner-year x 40 years = $3,937,200,000

iow, CRIME PAYS ... the PIC

[Th'Pusher]

Throwing away the key
A shocking number of non-violent Americans will die in prison


LANCE SALTZMAN did not like the way his stepfather, Toni Minnick, settled arguments with his mother, Christina Borg. Once Mr Minnick fired a gun into a wall beside her. A couple of weeks later, says Ms Borg, he threatened to shoot her. So Mr Saltzman went into his stepfather’s bedroom and took the gun. He sold it to a friend, who used it in a burglary. Mr Saltzman was charged with burglary, theft and being a felon in possession of a firearm—all for taking a gun from his own house—as well as with the burglary committed using the gun, in which he says he took no part. He was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. He was 22.


Mr Saltzman was mauled by a pit bull as a toddler and is “not altogether upstairs all the time”, says his mother. In his teens he got hooked on drugs and was convicted of marijuana possession, trespassing and petty theft. He was then jailed for a burglary he committed when he was 16, and this was his undoing. He stole his stepfather’s gun within three years of his release; under a Florida mandatory-sentencing law for re-offenders, the judge had to lock him up for ever. Given Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws, Ms Borg believes that her son would probably be free if he had shot his menacing stepfather instead.


Mr Saltzman is one of at least 3,278 people serving sentences of life without parole for non-violent crimes, according to a new report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Around 79% of them were convicted of drug crimes. These include: having an unweighably small amount of cocaine in a shirt pocket, selling $10-worth of crack to a police informant and mailing small amounts of LSD to fellow Grateful Dead fans. Property crimes that earned offenders a permanent home in prison include shoplifting three belts, breaking into an empty liquor store and possessing stolen wrenches.

When judges can’t judge
A hefty 83% of such sentences were mandatory. That is, a state or federal law barred the judge from exercising any discretion (or indeed, common sense). Some were triggered by “three-strikes” laws, which demand a severe penalty for a third crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant was previously convicted of two others. Sometimes, those “priors” can be from the distant past. Sylvester Mead, for instance, earned life without parole for slurring drunken threats at a policeman while handcuffed in a patrol car; he had convictions for battery and burglary six and 16 years previously. Mr Mead’s last crime, public intimidation, usually carries a sentence of no more than five years. The judge said it “does not warrant, under any conscionable or constitutional basis, a life sentence”, but explained: “I have no choice.”


Clarence Aaron had no rap sheet: he is among the one-fifth of non-violent life-without-parolers in the federal system serving time for a first offence. While a student at Southern University in Louisiana, he acted as a middleman in a drug deal. He neither bought nor sold the drugs in question, but when arrested he refused to testify against his co-conspirators. They did not return the favour. Consequently, all but one of them have been released from prison (the last is due out next year), while he is almost 20 years into a life sentence.


Like most prisoners serving life for non-violent crimes, Mr Aaron is black. Racial disparities among non-violent “whole-lifers” exceed even those of the prison system itself. Among federal prisoners, blacks are 20 times more likely to receive such sentences: they are 65% of the national total, compared with 18% for whites and 16% for Latinos. In some states the numbers are yet more skewed: blacks are 91% of non-violent life-without-parole prisoners in Louisiana, 79% in Mississippi and 68% in South Carolina.


Perpetually warehousing petty criminals is expensive. The ACLU estimates that life-without-parole sentences for non-violent offenders add $1.8 billion to the cost of incarcerating those to whom they apply. Jennifer Turner, who wrote the ACLU’s study, says that the number of life-without-parole sentences (including those for violent crimes) is growing faster than life-with-a-chance-of-parole. In the past 20 years, it has quadrupled, even as violent crime has declined.


Long sentences have not made drugs harder to buy or Americans less likely to get high. Evidence that they reduce crime is skimpy; the vast sums spent on them would surely reduce crime more if spent instead on detective work, drug treatment and rehabilitation.


The cost to prisoners and their families, meanwhile, is impossible to calculate. “I’ve lost my son. I’ll never have grandchildren with him. He’ll never see the outside world,” says Ms Borg. She adds: “I can’t sleep. I can’t function. I’m 87 pounds. I look like a walking skeleton.”


Several states have started to retreat from ultra-tough sentencing. So has the federal government. Texas and Arkansas are opting to treat some non-violent drug offenders instead of jailing them. Eric Holder, America’s attorney-general, announced in August that federal prosecutors would no longer charge low-level, non-violent drug offenders with crimes that trigger such sentences.


Ms Turner is encouraged, but notes that “the devil is in the details.” Relying on the leniency of prosecutors is no substitute for getting rid of mandatory minimums. And recent reforms do nothing for Mr Saltzman or any of the other Americans who have spilled no blood but are condemned to wither and die behind bars.


http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21589868-shocking-number-non-violent-americans-will-die-prison-throwing-away-key

[Th'Pusher]

Tangential

Criminal justice (2)
The new debtors’ prisons
If you are poor, don’t get caught speeding


IN LATE 2010 police in Childersburg, Alabama ticketed both Kristy and Timothy Fugatt for driving with expired licence tags. They were fined $148 each, plus another $198 for Mrs Fugatt, whose licence had expired. They could not afford to pay, so they were placed on probation under the supervision of Judicial Correction Services (JCS), a private company that manages probationers for roughly 200 misdemeanour courts in the south-eastern United States.


JCS also charged each of them a $45 monthly service fee. When they fell behind on their payments, they were charged more fees and threatened with jail. In February 2012 they claim that a Childersburg policeman arrested them at their home, threatened them with a Taser, told them their children would be placed in state care and took them to prison. They were released only after relatives brought $900 to the Childersburg jail. (Robert McMichael, the head of JCS, refused to comment on any of these allegations.)


Monthly charges to private-probation companies are just one of a growing array of fees levied by America’s criminal-justice system. Such fees are distinct from fines, imposed to punish or deter. Their aim is to make wrongdoers cover some of the costs of the system that punishes them.


Another law for the poor
For example, a 2010 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that fees and fines covered two-thirds of the operating budget of the Orleans Parish criminal court in Louisiana. That is the appeal of private-probation firms: small fines often go unpaid because local governments cannot afford to chase every speeding ticket. JCS claims that without officers overseeing probation, only 30% of offenders complete it; with JCS’s services that rises to 70%. Even more appealing to cash-strapped municipalities, private-probation companies offer their services at no cost to the taxpayer. Instead, boasts JCS, “Supervision is completely offender-funded.”


Defendants who cannot pay fees upfront are put on payment plans, which often come with start-up and monthly administrative fees. Many of these fees are small, but for poor Americans they impose an additional burden that can last long after a judicially-imposed sentence has ended. A 2010 study by the Brennan Centre for Justice, a law and public-policy institute, found that at least 13 of the 15 states with the largest prison populations allowed probation to be extended beyond the judicially-imposed terms for non-payment of criminal-justice debt. A judgment handed down in July 2012 against the town of Harpersville, Alabama, which hired JCS to manage its misdemeanour probation, found that fees could turn a $200 fine into a 41-month-long, $2,100 ordeal.


That same judgment accused Harpersville of operating a “debtors’ prison”, though the judge noted that “a more accurate description of the Harpersville Municipal Court practices might be that of a judicially sanctioned extortion racket.” Harpersville, like many other places, jailed people who failed to pay probation fines and fees—although the cost of imprisonment often exceeds the costs for which they are liable. In 2010 North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County spent over $40,000 jailing people for non-payment of criminal-justice debt, and collected just $33,476 from them. Courts in Orleans Parish routinely offered defendants the choice of 30 days in prison or $100 in fines, even though the city had to pay the parish sheriff $22 per day for each inmate it sentenced, and the federal appellate court for the circuit that includes Louisiana found such “fine or time” sentences illegal.


That Brennan Centre study found that nine of the 15 American states with the largest prison populations permit “collection fees” on criminal-justice debt, which are often payable to private firms. Only one of the 15 (Texas) exempts penniless defendants from additional collection fees.


All this occurs routinely, though the Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that before a court jails someone for failing to pay a fine or fee, it must first ensure that his failure to pay was wilful—that he could have paid but chose not to. Jailing someone because he cannot pay violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Similarly, 13 of the 15 states studied by the Brennan Centre charge defendants public-defender fees ($50 for a misdemeanour and $100 for a felony defence in Florida; in Virginia, as much as $1,235 for some felonies), even though the Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that the Sixth Amendment required courts to provide lawyers at no charge for indigent defendants.


In some states people with outstanding criminal-justice debt cannot vote. In others they lose public benefits such as food stamps and housing assistance. Some states suspend driving licences, making it harder for people to get to the jobs they need to do to pay off their debt. And beyond that, as Eric Balaban of the ACLU notes, such fees create “a two-tiered system of justice, in which the wealthy can satisfy the system quickly, while a poor person charged with the same offence can face years of penalties.”

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21589903-if-you-are-poor-dont-get-caught-speeding-new-debtors-prisons/print

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I'll bet there is more to the story than that. In a search, I found Timothy Jackson in an article talking about multiple offenses. There is also the possibility he committed crimes in jail, adding to his sentence.

Either way...

As I stated before, I'm OK with the death sentence for first degree crimes against others. If you can't be a civilized person in society, the I say good riddens.

[ErnestLynch]

A friend of my brothers got his 3rd DWI and is being sentenced on a felony next month. He's 57, owns a business, 2 school age kids. He got his first one in 1976, the second one in 1980, both in another state. He never thought anything of it and it was just something that happened a long time ago, over 30 years. Well, in Texas, they used to not go back past 12 years. He found out that is no longer the case, they can go back for life. So now he's got this mandatory 4 year thing, how much will be suspended he doesn't know. And he's a convicted felon. He blew .09 after leaving a bar after happy hour. So, be aware, they can now go back for LIFE. So if you've had 2, no matter how long ago, you get another and it's an automatic felony that by law, can't be plead down to a misdemeanor. I don't know. I get the whole 'drunk driving' thing but I'm not too keen on this. Oh well. Sucks to be him.

[ElNono]

These third-strike laws for non-violent offenders are ridiculous. It's like zero-tolerance policies, there's no room for a bit of common sense.

[boutons_deux]

"there's no room for a bit of common sense."

there' no room the a to judge.

I'd really like to now how much police unions, prison guard unions, commercial prison corps gave politicians to get 3rd strike and Rockefeller drugs laws passed.

[boutons_deux]

A friend of my brothers got his 3rd DWI and is being sentenced on a felony next month. He's 57, owns a business, 2 school age kids. He got his first one in 1976, the second one in 1980, both in another state. He never thought anything of it and it was just something that happened a long time ago, over 30 years. Well, in Texas, they used to not go back past 12 years. He found out that is no longer the case, they can go back for life. So now he's got this mandatory 4 year thing, how much will be suspended he doesn't know. And he's a convicted felon. He blew .09 after leaving a bar after happy hour. So, be aware, they can now go back for LIFE. So if you've had 2, no matter how long ago, you get another and it's an automatic felony that by law, can't be plead down to a misdemeanor. I don't know. I get the whole 'drunk driving' thing but I'm not too keen on this. Oh well. Sucks to be him.

Those are only the 3 times got caught, so there were probably 10s of times in 40+ years he was DWI and didn't get caught. The long reach back does make sense in that way

.09 is very damn high. He should thank BigAlcohol for blocking reduction of the limit to 0.05 or 0.04 as in the those countries serious about drunk driving and their politicians not owned by BigAlcohol.

He's got a substance abuse problem. The judge should have ordered him into treatment, not prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol-related_traffic_crashes_in_the_United_States

".08 BAC Law: Well-publicized laws lowering driver BAC limits to .08 have reduced alcohol-related fatalities by an average of 7% in 32 States, the District of Colombia and Puerto Rico. On average, .08 laws save an estimated $40 per licensed driver nationwide. The value of mobility losses and alcohol sales reductions resulting from the law are the large majority of the estimated $3 cost per licensed driver."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/impaired_driving_pg2/us.htm

[TDMVPDPOY]

its actually much cheaper to provide for them on the outside then inside prison

down here it costs 50k if they live inside prison, outside if they live on welfare its about 12-15k manageable

taxpayer doesnt benefit shit besides the corporations using inmates as slave labor...

[Wild Cobra]

These third-strike laws for non-violent offenders are ridiculous. It's like zero-tolerance policies, there's no room for a bit of common sense.
I'm kind of mixed when it comes to DWI. Though it is a nonviolent crime, so many drunks kill people with cars as a weapon.

I'll bet more people die from a drunk using a car as an unintended weapon than are killed by legal owners of firearms.

[Wild Cobra]

its actually much cheaper to provide for them on the outside then inside prison

down here it costs 50k if they live inside prison, outside if they live on welfare its about 12-15k manageable

taxpayer doesnt benefit shit besides the corporations using inmates as slave labor...
Well, he can't run anyone over from jail.

[cantthinkofanything]

its actually much cheaper to provide for them on the outside then inside prison

down here it costs 50k if they live inside prison, outside if they live on welfare its about 12-15k manageable

taxpayer doesnt benefit shit besides the corporations using inmates as slave labor...

It's not cheaper for me when they steal my shit or drunk drive over my family.

[boutons_deux]

I'm kind of mixed when it comes to DWI. Though it is a nonviolent crime, so many drunks kill people with cars as a weapon.

I'll bet more people die from a drunk using a car as an unintended weapon than are killed by legal owners of firearms.

I bet there are more innocent people and kids killed in gun accidents than gun fellators killing home invaders or gun fellators killing perceived SYG threats. but of course, the NRA/gun-mfrs have bought regulations to stop govt from collecting gun stats. Wonder why?

[Wild Cobra]

I bet there are more innocent people and kids killed in gun accidents than gun fellators killing home invaders or gun fellators killing perceived threats. but of course, the NRA/gun-mfrs have bought regulations to stop govt from collecting gun stats. Wonder why?
Traffic deaths trump gun deaths by a wide margin. Care to rethink your words? I simply separated it to DWI cause vs. legal owner caused.

[cantthinkofanything]

I'm kind of mixed when it comes to DWI. Though it is a nonviolent crime, so many drunks kill people with cars as a weapon.

I'll bet more people die from a drunk using a car as an unintended weapon than are killed by legal owners of firearms.

IDK...I bet a good portion of those drunk drivers are legal firearm owners.

[boutons_deux]

Traffic deaths trump gun deaths by a wide margin. Care to rethink your words? I simply separated it to DWI cause vs. legal owner caused.

I said nothing about traffic vs gun deaths. care to re-read what I wrote?

[cantthinkofanything]

I said nothing about traffic vs gun deaths. care to re-read what I wrote?

LOL. No one cares to do that. Ever. Most regret reading your posts the first time.

[boutons_deux]

LOL. No one cares to do that. Ever. Most regret reading your posts the first time.


... pearls before swine

[Wild Cobra]

I said nothing about traffic vs gun deaths. care to re-read what I wrote?
Your ignoring an important point.

Even if you take all gun death vs. all traffic death, cars still kill more people than guns. No matter how you slice it.

[boutons_deux]

Your ignoring an important point.

Even if you take all gun death vs. all traffic death, cars still kill more people than guns. No matter how you slice it.

no, I'm not ignoring YOUR important point. if you want to play that game, avoidable medical errors kill 100K US people/year.

[Wild Cobra]

no, I'm not ignoring YOUR important point. if you want to play that game, avoidable medical errors kill 100K US people/year.
That's not cut and dry. that's opinion.

There are solid statistics of how many people violating gun laws and get caught who kill vs. how many people caught violating DWI laws kill.

Now if someone gets caught a 3rd time for DWI, just how many times do you think that person has driven and not been caught? A 3rd time is not something to ignore. The second time should be very harsh as well.

[ElNono]

I'm kind of mixed when it comes to DWI. Though it is a nonviolent crime, so many drunks kill people with cars as a weapon.

I'll bet more people die from a drunk using a car as an unintended weapon than are killed by legal owners of firearms.

You could make an argument about DWI. But shoplifting?

Heck, even in the DWI case, just give the judge the option to sentence to life, but don't tie his hands if he thinks otherwise.

[ErnestLynch]

Most people that are killed in car wrecks alcohol isn't a factor. Speed is the biggest factor and driving too fast for conditions as well as 'other' distractions. And most people that are killed in DWI deaths are the driver and only the driver. Followed by the driver and his passenger. Personally, and I don't drink myself but I used to and never had a wreck or got a DWI but, I believe with DWI how they were driving should be a factor to the punishment. Doing the Mexican Indy aka 'driving on the wrong side of the road' or speeding while drunk, running a stop sign drunk or red light....should be punished harshly. But most are pulled over the DWI task force that either pulls 'em over leaving the bar or because of the time of night it is and say there were 'driving erratically' or 'didni't come to a complete stop' or failed to use their turn signal. etc etc....I don't know, seem like it's just as crazy to ruin someones life who in reality, harmed no one. A lot of DWI punishment is 'collective punishment' ...a concept I do not agree with in general as it is anti-american, as is 'mandatory sentencing' along with 'private prisons'. A Bad combination for society.


You could make an argument about DWI. But shoplifting?

Heck, even in the DWI case, just give the judge the option to sentence to life, but don't tie his hands if he thinks otherwise.

[boutons_deux]

"Most people that are killed in car wrecks alcohol isn't a factor. Speed is the biggest factor and driving too fast for conditions as well as 'other' distractions. And most people that are killed in DWI deaths are the driver and only the driver."

link?

[ErnestLynch]

www.google.com

[ErnestLynch]

I'll give you one because you're a lazy ignorant fuck. The CDC. 31% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

[ErnestLynch]

Here's another one doing some simple math. Of all the people arrested for DWI in 2010, just arrested, since there are multiple more not arrested, as you stated. .007% of the those arrested caused a fatality. Actually it would be slightly less since you can't arrest a dead person. But that amount would be infinitesimal.

.007

So, if it's like you say that a drunk driver has driven, lets say 10 times previously drunk that year. That means.... drunk drivers kill when they get behind the wheel ...

7.428714285714 to the -4exp. In other words.... it's point so many fucking zeros that a calculator can't display it decimally.

In other words, if you, or your family get killed by a drunk driver, most consider an act that unlikely to happen, like being struck by lighting and killed, ...7 times...to be an act of god. If you could die 7 times.

Not to mention, that if a completely sober person ran into and killed a drunk driver, statistically that is an alcohol related automobile death. OR, that something else could have been the primary factor....

When you start to melt away the layers, drunk drivers are about as dangerous to the public as ...anything else that causes 10,400 deaths per year. 5% of road fatalities are caused by a drunk driver killing someone other than themselves, which is the vast majority of drunk driving fatalities.

That leaves 520 people a year are killed by a drunk driver that again, is not themselves. 520. And of that 520, some of those are passengers of said drunk driver who often, drunk themselves, willingly got in the car with them.

So, using that 'math thing' again, drunk drivers kill .000001625% of the population each year if you exclude the drunk driver themselves as a death.

.000001625%

The odds are 7 times higher that you will be killed by lightening than by a drunk driver unless that drunk driver is YOU. Then you have a 3.4313 times greater chance of dying than being struck by lightening.

I did another calculation from the CDC website. 48% of those killed were passengers of the drunk driver. Which leaves... lets see 270 people per year are killed in the other car, or as a pedestrian, by a drunk driver.

270 people per year that you could truly call 'innocent victims'. All of this, over 270 people per year.

So, you're odds are about double the 7 times I stated of being killed by lightening as being killed by a drunk driver. 14 times.

AND even with that I was unable to find how many of those were part of that group that the sober person killed the drunk driver in the accident. Remember, it doesn't necessarily have to be the 'drunk drivers' fault to make the statistic of drunk driver 'related' deaths. So it's probably lower than THAT.

Them's the facts using a calculator and the stats from the Centers for Disease Control. Sorry man.

DUI laws are based on myth by tea toting bible thumpers that would bring back prohibition if they could.

The politicians go along with it because it's an income racket for the states and communities. Get a clue.

Hey, watch out...next thing I'll show you how the big 'sex offender' scare is a huge myth as well and how they've used laws against these people to take away YOUR rights without you even being aware of it. You think you have protection from ex post facto, article 1 section 9...well THINK AGAIN...our illustrious Chief Justice Roberts, in his final arguments before the SC before being appointed to the court, made sure that no longer exists.

Like people aren't aware that their 4th amendment rights to illegal search and seizure, have been suspended in the Patriot Act if you live within 100 miles of an international border or the coast, which is most of the population of the US.

God all mighty...wake up people. They're using scare tactics, and lies, with nothing behind it, to make you give up your rights. I've never seen anything like it.

zero tolerance
mandatory sentencing
prisons for profit
'registering' people
dwi 'roadblocks/checkpoints'

Good god...I'm an old fart I guess but I was naive enough to think I'd never see this day...and I was wrong. But I never thought the 'public' would be so...ilinformed and uneducated.

And it's worse than this...there's more. A lot more. Being a free people, in a republic, requires an educated aware public and I just don't think we have that any more. You have to read between the lines, people. Work a calculator, figure the %'s and you see just what a scam much of this stuff is.

[ErnestLynch]

DP

[ErnestLynch]

And a lot of those stats, some 'regions' and cities have a bigger problem than others. Like ours....

I have a theory that all politicians should use when passing laws. The lightning theory. Don't pass a law to protect people from something that they have a higher chance of being killed by lightning. Simple as that.

'The Lightning Law'.

Pass it around.

[TSA]

The lightning law. Will share with family and friends.


Will boutons return after this spanking by lynch?

[ErnestLynch]

He will. I got one thing wrong. The 5% is part of the total not the 31% but it doesn't change things drastically after that since most of the statistical reduction occurs before that. I'll recalculate it when I feel like going through that again. Bottom line is, DWI deaths in the US, barring it not being the driver or passengers of the drunk driver...are insignificant as to the total population. Unless, of course ...it's you or your family. Which is the part they prey on. the emotional part. It statistically is really, when it comes right down to it, an act of god type thing. The odds are outrageous.

It's no excuse to wreck lives legislatively just to collect a buck and soothe the minds of the berieved. It's 'collective punishment'. You get a DWI you're being punished, collectively, for all those drunk drivers who have done all sorts of things. But I ask you this. Since DWI deaths are 31% of the total, where is the 'collective punishment' of everyone else ? Haha...it's coming. It already has. Texting. Which makes more sense than DWI's although a drunk texting is about as bad of a combination as there is. But the texting is the worst part in the studies. It's actually worse, while you're doing it, than being ripped ass drunk at @ .3 something.

My opinion is, from my own experience when I drank...that a person can drive responsibly fairly shcnockered. You're either a responsible person or not. Having a few beers or even a lot..barring too much, shouldn't prohibit you from safely driving under most conditions. As I said, DWI arrests/sentencing the conditions should play a huge role. Driving on the wrong side of the road drunk -vs- 'didn't use a turn signal' are two very different things. Neither here nor there....moving on.

The trend of punishing people for the actions of others collectively as a group rather than on the merits of their actions alone, as our constituition 'guarantees'...before things like mandatory sentencing...is gone. That's what mandatory sentencing is.And those private prison companies, lobby your senator or representative for stiffer penalties. That's just a fact no matter how they deny it.

We have, in this country, more people in prison, than China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba...you know..those terrible places...combined. But that's all right. Just go on about your way.


It ain't over....

[DMC]

A friend of my brothers got his 3rd DWI and is being sentenced on a felony next month. He's 57, owns a business, 2 school age kids. He got his first one in 1976, the second one in 1980, both in another state. He never thought anything of it and it was just something that happened a long time ago, over 30 years. Well, in Texas, they used to not go back past 12 years. He found out that is no longer the case, they can go back for life. So now he's got this mandatory 4 year thing, how much will be suspended he doesn't know. And he's a convicted felon. He blew .09 after leaving a bar after happy hour. So, be aware, they can now go back for LIFE. So if you've had 2, no matter how long ago, you get another and it's an automatic felony that by law, can't be plead down to a misdemeanor. I don't know. I get the whole 'drunk driving' thing but I'm not too keen on this. Oh well. Sucks to be him.

Dude never learns. It's not like DWI became legal suddenly. If he hit and killed a pedestrian, a child, your child... you'd say he had 2 priors and they did nothing. What's the magic number then? 5?

[DMC]

He will. I got one thing wrong. The 5% is part of the total not the 31% but it doesn't change things drastically after that since most of the statistical reduction occurs before that. I'll recalculate it when I feel like going through that again. Bottom line is, DWI deaths in the US, barring it not being the driver or passengers of the drunk driver...are insignificant as to the total population. Unless, of course ...it's you or your family. Which is the part they prey on. the emotional part. It statistically is really, when it comes right down to it, an act of god type thing. The odds are outrageous.

It's no excuse to wreck lives legislatively just to collect a buck and soothe the minds of the berieved. It's 'collective punishment'. You get a DWI you're being punished, collectively, for all those drunk drivers who have done all sorts of things. But I ask you this. Since DWI deaths are 31% of the total, where is the 'collective punishment' of everyone else ? Haha...it's coming. It already has. Texting. Which makes more sense than DWI's although a drunk texting is about as bad of a combination as there is. But the texting is the worst part in the studies. It's actually worse, while you're doing it, than being ripped as drunk at .3.

The trend of punishing people for the actions of others collectively as a group rather than on the merits of their actions alone, as our constituition 'guarantees'...before things like mandatory sentencing...is gone. That's what mandatory sentencing is.And those private prison companies, lobby your senator or representative for stiffer penalties. That's just a fact no matter how they deny it.

We have, in this country, more people in prison, than China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba...you know..those terrible places...combined. But that's all right. Just go on about your way.


It ain't over....

Jesus Fuck are you defending DWI? lol

[ErnestLynch]

I'm opposed to what they do about it and collectively punishing people when they hurt no one. And I say it's not really the problem people think it is. You can read, right ?

[ErnestLynch]

Jesus Fuck are you defending DWI? lol

Let me ask you this. You've texted while driving. That is more dangerous than a person that is well inebriated. But you did it. And don't answer. I know you have. Most everyone has.

[ErnestLynch]

Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine Car and Driver tested how long it takes to hit the brake when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sending a text. The results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting.
The results:


Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
Legally drunk: add 4 feet
Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
Sending a text: add 70 feet

SO...texting...email...or reading..a map for example..is more dangerous than being legally drunk. IN FACT, being legally drunk is CLOSER to being sober than the others.

Which is pretty much my entire fucking point, loser. .08 is nothing. But it can get you in a whole lot of trouble. Most people that kill on the highway are STONE COLD SOBER and OTHER FACTORS play a larger role in auto deaths than DWI. You sir, are just a fucking c@#t sheep that buys into everything you hear.



Now, go fuck yourself, asshole.

[DMC]

Let me ask you this. You've texted while driving. That is more dangerous than a person that is well inebriated. But you did it. And don't answer. I know you have. Most everyone has.

There's a difference between a distraction and impairment and the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because you can show that one act is dangerous, it doesn't make the other less dangerous. There are plenty of things that can distract you while driving, but being well inebriated isn't a distraction, it's an impairment. If a doctor paused his surgery to glance at his phone, that could be dangerous. If he was performing the surgery drunk off his ass, that's a completely different story. Are they equal in your eyes?

For the record, I believe using a cell phone at all, except hands free, should be illegal while driving. Texting especially should be. I see it every single day, and you can tell who's doing it because they weave and they have long pauses when the light turns green. You have to honk at them and they look up. Sometimes they just meander over into your lane and you look over and there she is, Iphone in hand staring at it instead of driving. Yeah, that should be the same as DWI imo.

I am against removing freedoms because we never get them back, however when the average person cannot use common fucking sense and they don't give a shit about anyone around them, we lose freedoms as well we should to have a livable society.

[ErnestLynch]

Well, ok then. Lets do a hypothetical here. You got a call. Your child has been hurt. You get in your car and start driving to the hospital. Your cell phone rings. You pick it up. A cop see's you and pulls you over. You try to explain. He cuffs you up. It's the law. No exceptions.

Still believe ?

[ErnestLynch]

Of course you don't. If you do you're lying. That's what our DUI laws are.

[ErnestLynch]

Wassamatter, can't think of anything ? Of course you can't. Because you're just another of the millions of morons of this nation that get the wool pulled over their eyes over and over and over. Don't worry, if it doesn't catch up to you it'll catch up to your children..or theirs. Hey it's easy to destroy a country. All of you 'responsible' types can just live in this burned down motherfucker and call it heaven all you want. Enjoy. *I* remember when people weren't whining C@NTS and lived freely and people like you...just lived on the edges of society and sucked cock in the closet.

[ErnestLynch]

While I'm at it boy, read my signature. Again, go fuck your punk ass self.

[DMC]

Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine Car and Driver tested how long it takes to hit the brake when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sending a text. The results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting.
The results:


Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
Legally drunk: add 4 feet
Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
Sending a text: add 70 feet

SO...texting...email...or reading..a map for example..is more dangerous than being legally drunk. IN FACT, being legally drunk is CLOSER to being sober than the others.

Which is pretty much my entire fucking point, loser. .08 is nothing. But it can get you in a whole lot of trouble. Most people that kill on the highway are STONE COLD SOBER and OTHER FACTORS play a larger role in auto deaths than DWI. You sir, are just a fucking c@#t sheep that buys into everything you here.



Now, go fuck yourself, asshole.

Don't equivocate "legally drunk" with "well inebriated". The two are different, even under the law. You used "well inebriated" in your above scenario then went to "legally drunk". How about when a legally intoxicated person texts, or do intoxicated people not do that because they drive so carefully when they drink?

Also, if you knew your next DWI was going to be a felony, why would you drink and drive?

When your friend got his first two DWIs, the legal level was not .08. In fact, in 1976 the legal limit had just been lowered from .15 to .10. Your friend probably got hit on that move. Lesson learned, right? In the early 1980's, the limit was reduced to .08. He gets another DUI just 4 years after his last one.

I don't know shit about that guy you're referring to, but I can tell you I've been alive for 46 years and I've never gotten a DUI, not once. I certainly haven't gotten two, and three is right out.

Regardless how shitty you think it is, how petty, it didn't sneak up on him. Getting a DUI for most is like finding a roach in your kitchen, you know damn well it's not the only one there. Dude drove intoxicated probably dozens if not hundreds of times to get 3 DUIs, and since you've not posted his BAC for the first two offenses, it's possible he was totally fucking wasted and it makes me wonder why he was stopped in the 1st place. Hell, I haven't been stopped by a cop 3 times in 30 years.

And being drunk isn't closer to being sober than being distracted. You don't read a map for your entire trip. You don't text for your entire trip. When you get into a vehicle intoxicated, you're setting out on the full trip, impaired. At that moment it's more important to you that you drive than avoid the risk of killing yourself or others, or going to jail. It's a free choice, just not free of consequences.

[DMC]

Well, ok then. Lets do a hypothetical here. You got a call. Your child has been hurt. You get in your car and start driving to the hospital. Your cell phone rings. You pick it up. A cop see's you and pulls you over. You try to explain. He cuffs you up. It's the law. No exceptions.

Still believe ?

Hands free. He'd get me for speeding as well. It happens all the time, that's why they say "is there an emergency"? There's no emergency to drive drunk though, unless we're under attack by aliens and you have the keys and you're in the drivers seat and at that time you can drive, I'll take my chances.

[ErnestLynch]

Says who. Lets say your sitting at your house, had a few, blow .08. Same thing as your 'hands free' example. And we're still beating around the bush here. HAVE YOU TEXTED WHILE DRIVING ? EVER ?

And 'I'll take my chances' ain't a fucking answer. What a nutjob. Try to focus.

[DMC]

Wassamatter, can't think of anything ? Of course you can't. Because you're just another of the millions of morons of this nation that get the wool pulled over their eyes over and over and over. Don't worry, if it doesn't catch up to you it'll catch up to your children..or theirs. Hey it's easy to destroy a country. All of you 'responsible' types can just live in this burned down motherfucker and call it heaven all you want. Enjoy. *I* remember when people weren't whining C@NTS and lived freely and people like you...just lived on the edges of society and sucked cock in the closet.
Yeah, I've gotten the wool over my eyes. I should wake up and realize driving drunk is ok, because it's Amurica and you cannot stop drinking.

[DMC]

Says who. Lets say your sitting at your house, had a few, blow .08. Same thing as your 'hands free' example. And we're still beating around the bush here. HAVE YOU TEXTED WHILE DRIVING ? EVER ?

911 is your friend. You'll have paramedics at your house before you can get to the hospital in your car, with your drunk ass.

Someone who puts a child in a car and drives drunk is endangering them even more. You do realize we have ambulances, right?

I've never texted while driving. I have voice command texting, so I can both hear and respond to text messages without picking up a phone. Regardless, whether or not I've done it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's dangerous. You're quickly running the full course on fallacies however.

DWI is ok because Texting is bad
DWI is ok because you've texted and drove
DWI is ok because your child could get hurt
DWI is ok because you drive better when drunk

Just admit you're an alcoholic and have to get behind the wheel when you drink and we can proceed.

[ElNono]

I 've never texted while driving. Heck, don't even have a texting plan on my phone.

[ErnestLynch]

I don't drink chump. At all. I believe people should be treated fairly, even if it's not me. I believe people should be treated as our constitution guarantees, on the merits of their own circumstances and should not be punished for something someone else did. Tough concept I guess. No wonder our nation is dying a slow death.

[ErnestLynch]

I 've never texted while driving. Heck, don't even have a texting plan on my phone.

STFU...I didn't ask you.

[DMC]

I don't drink chump. At all. I believe people should be treated fairly, even if it's not me. I believe people should be treated as our constitution guarantees, on the merits of their own circumstances and should not be punished for something someone else did. Tough concept I guess. No wonder our nation is dying a slow death.

Your friend was treated fairly. He got two warnings. He's an idiot, maybe you should consider that.

[Biernutz]

Life in prison? What about white collar crimes. They are rarely violent . Bernie Madoff
was sentenced to 150 years for fraud. For a 75 yr old that is a life sentence. He has only
been arrested one time, not three times. So should he get out early because he was
non-violent and only arrested once? His lawyers would get him out quick if there is no
lifetime sentences for non-violent crimes or three strikes laws..........

I personally think he should rot in prison.

[DMC]

Life in prison? What about white collar crimes. They are rarely violent . Bernie Madoff
was sentenced to 150 years for fraud. For a 75 yr old that is a life sentence. He has only
been arrested one time, not three times. So should he get out early because he was
non-violent and only arrested once? His lawyers would get him out quick if there is no
lifetime sentences for non-violent crimes or three strikes laws..........

I personally think he should rot in prison.

I think a life sentence should actually mean a bullet to the head. Otherwise it's a sentence on society to pay for this ass clown for the rest of his life. Some innocents would be killed, but some will be either way.

[ErnestLynch]

Okay. Well you're one the rare ones who has never texted, taken a 'non hands free' call...or looked at a map or driven drunk. I guess you had the blue tooth smart phone as your first phone. Ok.

I commend you.

But...all of that is kind of ..moot isn't it ? And I suspect...a lie but ...hell you called me a drunk so if you can cell me a liar I suppose I can call you one as well.

So, to make this right, to go back to my original post..my brothers friend ...with a business, two kids, a wife a mortgage..has never hurt anyone...should go....to prison. Is that it ? Is that what you're saying ? Hell I don't give a fuck. He's not my friend but it just seems...kind of bizarre to me.

That doesn't strike you as ..just a little wrong ?

Really ?

[ErnestLynch]

I think a life sentence should actually mean a bullet to the head. Otherwise it's a sentence on society to pay for this ass clown for the rest of his life. Some innocents would be killed, but some will be either way.

You should watch Werner Herzogs 'Into the Abyss'. At the end he interviews a guy who did 120 executions in Texas. A big redneck cowboy that finally quit and said 'It's wrong'. You know what boy, and you are a boy. You talk out of your ass a lot about things you know fuck all about. I'm so tired of people like you. We need to EXECUTE people like you, on the street, for justice. One day, if it continues as it is, you'll get yours. If not here, enjoy hell.

[ErnestLynch]

They always run off. Ok boy, you run along now with your false beliefs and pride.

Man. I just don't know how this country is going to not turn into something we don't want with people like that in it. Unable to distinguish the nuances of right and wrong. He's a perfect jury candidate.

This is societies problem. Unable to work the gray area, the nuances and subtleties of life. It's all black and white, right/wrong..up/down...left right.

I'm glad I'm close to the end of this ride but I just feel like I let my children down. I'm scared for them.

[ErnestLynch]

Although I do feel pretty good that I talked to Jesus tonight on spurztalk. There's just so many of them it's hard to tell which one is the real thing. So perfect and all....

Of course...you're missing a few attributes. Ok, a LOT of them...but ..no matter.

[DMC]

Okay. Well you're one the rare ones who has never texted, taken a 'non hands free' call...or looked at a map or driven drunk. I guess you had the blue tooth smart phone as your first phone. Ok.

I commend you.

But...all of that is kind of ..moot isn't it ? And I suspect...a lie but ...hell you called me a drunk so if you can cell me a liar I suppose I can call you one as well.

I said it was moot. Why does it matter what I've done? I'm not condemning anyone for doing it, I'm saying being impaired isn't the same as being distracted. Somehow that seems to get lost with you. You're defending drunk drivers as if it's no one's business until they kill someone.


So, to make this right, to go back to my original post..my brothers friend ...with a business, two kids, a wife a mortgage..has never hurt anyone...should go....to prison. Is that it ? Is that what you're saying ? Hell I don't give a fuck. He's not my friend but it just seems...kind of bizarre to me.

I'm saying he decided the risk was worth it. He knew, more than you or I, what the repercussions were yet he did it anyhow. The same decision could have killed his entire family. Would that be right? No, it would be tragic, but it's still his choice and he made it. You seem to think he was unaware that these convictions don't go away once you're an adult. Whether or not there should be a law against it isn't even the point. There is a law against it and there has been since at least 1976. You and he can petition for a change, but you cannot just ignore it and then expect leniency when you're caught.


That doesn't strike you as ..just a little wrong ?

Really ?
It strikes me as wrong that I have to sit at a red stop light in the middle of the night with nary a car in sight either way, but if I run that light and get a ticket, I don't consider that I was wronged. Therein lies the difference between our stances. You preach freedom but ignore the personal responsibility that goes along with it.

[DMC]

Although I do feel pretty good that I talked to Jesus tonight on spurztalk. There's just so many of them it's hard to tell which one is the real thing. So perfect and all....

Of course...you're missing a few attributes. Ok, a LOT of them...but ..no matter.

That's it, throw a tantrum while explaining to the forum just how much of a whiner I am.

[DMC]

They always run off. Ok boy, you run along now with your false beliefs and pride.

Man. I just don't know how this country is going to not turn into something we don't want with people like that in it. Unable to distinguish the nuances of right and wrong. He's a perfect jury candidate.

This is societies problem. Unable to work the gray area, the nuances and subtleties of life. It's all black and white, right/wrong..up/down...left right.

I'm glad I'm close to the end of this ride but I just feel like I let my children down. I'm scared for them.

This country is where it's at because the boomer generation took a huge shit on everything. Don't blame the weeds for the lack of lawn care.

[ErnestLynch]

haha..no I think our 'moots' meant something else. Your 'moot' is it's moot to what you've done making you a liar. My 'moot' is you in fact ARE a liar so getting the truth out of you is a waste of time.

You, son, are a boy. I don't care how old you are, what you have or haven't done. I know by talkiing to you that you are a boy. A child, mentally. Simple ideas. Equiivocating rationalizing child, unable to see the difference between right and wrong. Like I say, that's cool. You will get yours, either here or the hereafter.

[ErnestLynch]

The boomers did it did they. Well, ok. AS they say, every generation, blames the one before. I wasn't too fond of Vietnam either WHICH brings up a good point. I never blamed Vietnam on my parents I blamed it on my grandparents generationally as they were the age that had the power. People have the most power economically and politically in office and access to political office, in their 50's and 60's. The boomers are just starting the end of their reign. Obama is a late boomer. I admit, he's an asshole. Clinton, Bush, Obama...losers all. I get it.

I'll be back..Dont run off now. I like reading your shallow justifications.

[ElNono]

STFU...I didn't ask you.

No

[ErnestLynch]

Run along. The new phone books are out.

[ElNono]

:jack

[boutons_deux]

Here's another one doing some simple math. Of all the people arrested for DWI in 2010, just arrested, since there are multiple more not arrested, as you stated. .007% of the those arrested caused a fatality. Actually it would be slightly less since you can't arrest a dead person. But that amount would be infinitesimal.

.007

So, if it's like you say that a drunk driver has driven, lets say 10 times previously drunk that year. That means.... drunk drivers kill when they get behind the wheel ...

7.428714285714 to the -4exp. In other words.... it's point so many fucking zeros that a calculator can't display it decimally.

In other words, if you, or your family get killed by a drunk driver, most consider an act that unlikely to happen, like being struck by lighting and killed, ...7 times...to be an act of god. If you could die 7 times.

Not to mention, that if a completely sober person ran into and killed a drunk driver, statistically that is an alcohol related automobile death. OR, that something else could have been the primary factor....

When you start to melt away the layers, drunk drivers are about as dangerous to the public as ...anything else that causes 10,400 deaths per year. 5% of road fatalities are caused by a drunk driver killing someone other than themselves, which is the vast majority of drunk driving fatalities.

That leaves 520 people a year are killed by a drunk driver that again, is not themselves. 520. And of that 520, some of those are passengers of said drunk driver who often, drunk themselves, willingly got in the car with them.

So, using that 'math thing' again, drunk drivers kill .000001625% of the population each year if you exclude the drunk driver themselves as a death.

.000001625%

The odds are 7 times higher that you will be killed by lightening than by a drunk driver unless that drunk driver is YOU. Then you have a 3.4313 times greater chance of dying than being struck by lightening.

I did another calculation from the CDC website. 48% of those killed were passengers of the drunk driver. Which leaves... lets see 270 people per year are killed in the other car, or as a pedestrian, by a drunk driver.

270 people per year that you could truly call 'innocent victims'. All of this, over 270 people per year.

So, you're odds are about double the 7 times I stated of being killed by lightening as being killed by a drunk driver. 14 times.

AND even with that I was unable to find how many of those were part of that group that the sober person killed the drunk driver in the accident. Remember, it doesn't necessarily have to be the 'drunk drivers' fault to make the statistic of drunk driver 'related' deaths. So it's probably lower than THAT.

Them's the facts using a calculator and the stats from the Centers for Disease Control. Sorry man.

DUI laws are based on myth by tea toting bible thumpers that would bring back prohibition if they could.

The politicians go along with it because it's an income racket for the states and communities. Get a clue.

Hey, watch out...next thing I'll show you how the big 'sex offender' scare is a huge myth as well and how they've used laws against these people to take away YOUR rights without you even being aware of it. You think you have protection from ex post facto, article 1 section 9...well THINK AGAIN...our illustrious Chief Justice Roberts, in his final arguments before the SC before being appointed to the court, made sure that no longer exists.

Like people aren't aware that their 4th amendment rights to illegal search and seizure, have been suspended in the Patriot Act if you live within 100 miles of an international border or the coast, which is most of the population of the US.

God all mighty...wake up people. They're using scare tactics, and lies, with nothing behind it, to make you give up your rights. I've never seen anything like it.

zero tolerance
mandatory sentencing
prisons for profit
'registering' people
dwi 'roadblocks/checkpoints'

Good god...I'm an old fart I guess but I was naive enough to think I'd never see this day...and I was wrong. But I never thought the 'public' would be so...ilinformed and uneducated.

And it's worse than this...there's more. A lot more. Being a free people, in a republic, requires an educated aware public and I just don't think we have that any more. You have to read between the lines, people. Work a calculator, figure the %'s and you see just what a scam much of this stuff is.

Were you nasty drunk when wrote that? You certainly seem to be thinking impaired.

iow, it and you are totally full of bullshit.

===============

YESTERDAY



In the mid 1970s, alcohol was a factor in over 60% of traffic fatalities. Traffic crashes were the leading cause of alcohol-related deaths and two-thirds of traffic deaths among persons aged 16 to 20 involved alcohol.
At that time, preventive measures consisted primarily of efforts to reduce harm from alcohol by identifying and treating middle-aged individuals convicted of driving under the influence with established or advanced cases of alcoholism.


TODAY



Since the early 1980s, alcohol-related traffic deaths per population have been cut in half with the greatest proportional declines among persons 16-20 years old.
Reductions in driving after drinking saved more than 150,000 lives between 1982 and 2001 — more than the combined total saved by increases in seat belt use, airbags, and motorcycle and bicycle helmets.
Today alcohol is involved in 37% of all traffic deaths among persons aged 16 to 20.



In the 1980s, several states established laws for zero alcohol tolerance for drivers under the age of 21. Research funded by NIH established the effectiveness of this approach which led to the passage of Zero Tolerance Laws in all 50 States by the late 1990s.

The number of alcohol-related traffic deaths among 16 to 20 year-olds in the U.S. decreased from 5,244 in 1982 to 1,987 in 2008 in large measure because of the legal drinking age of 21 and Zero Tolerance Laws.

Several NIH-supported studies demonstrated that comprehensive, community-based intervention programs can further reduce traffic deaths and other alcohol-related harm beyond that achieved through age 21 drinking laws.

http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=24

Feds should lower the limit to 0.05 and mandatory 6-month license/driving suspension for first offense.

btw, driving while needing sleep is much more risky than driving drunk, but beyond the reach of regulation.

[Th'Pusher]

Earnest Lynch is clearly an alcoholic who's beer convicted of multiple dwi violations.

[DMC]

I get the argument about the BAC, but I don't get the argument about drunk driving. You don't accidentally drive drunk.

[Wild Cobra]

I 've never texted while driving. Heck, don't even have a texting plan on my phone.
LOL...

Same here, almost.

I will rarely used text. I tell people to call, or it must not be important.

I look at all these people always using their phones, and I'm thinking... Is this their life? How sad.

[Wild Cobra]

STFU...I didn't ask you.
LOL...

I have my spats with who I sometimes call ElNoKnow, but really... That seems uncalled for. I hate to admit, I agree with DMC... You are trowing a tantrum!

[ErnestLynch]

Earnest Lynch is clearly an alcoholic who's beer convicted of multiple dwi violations.

I've never beer convicted of anything. Or ever beer indicted. I have beer to Germany once though.