Jedi Council Forums - The social acceptability of dangerous driving

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 11:45am Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 11:52am (1 edits total) Edited By: Branthoris
	I am well aware that Ewing's criminal record was the crucial element in the golf clubs case. I am also very much aware that, were it not for the three strikes law, he would not be in prison for anywhere near as long as 25 years. Nevertheless, 25 years for stealing three golf clubs is an extreme penalty, regardless of the offender's criminal record. And it highlights the Supreme Court's reluctance to accept challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences. As do Harmelin v. Michigan and Hutto v. Davis, neither of which involved recidivism. The fourth case I mentioned, Rummel v. Estelle, did involve recidivism to a degree. The offender was convicted of obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses, having previously been convicted of "fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, and passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36". However, the two prior offences involved tiny amounts of cash. Rummel's crime remained one of the most minor that a person could commit, and the Court still upheld a life sentence for it. Contrary to your assertion, a state could classify speeding as a felony if it wanted to. The Constitution "does not mandate adoption of any one penological theory", as Justice Kennedy stated for the plurality in Harmelin. In Ewing, Justice O'Connor (joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist) wrote that "Selecting the sentencing rationales is generally a policy choice to be made by state legislatures, not federal courts." There is absolutely no constitutional bar to what has been proposed in this thread. It's unfortunate that we have become bogged down in an in-depth legal discussion here. As for what we have "across the big pond", we do now have the European Convention on Human Rights restricting what Parliament can do, but in upholding the mandatory life sentence for murder, Lord Bingham of Cornhill made clear that "a degree of deference is due to the judgment of a democratic assembly on how a particular social problem is best tackled" and that always "a balance [must] be struck between the interest of the individual and the interest of society". If society decides that dangerous driving is a menace, it has the right to legislate accordingly.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 12:15pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 12:17pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	Contrary to your assertion, a state could classify speeding as a felony if it wanted to Yes, of course. The State can do pretty much whatever it wants to do. However, I would like to see the challenge to this one. We know that a crime is not a felony unless it is defined as such by statute. What criteria would be used to classify a moving violation as a felony, especially with regard to a higher court challenge? For example, shooting a rifle into the air has the potential to kill someone, but simple illegal discharge of a firearm is only a misdemeanor.. If the stay bullet actually strikes and kills someone, the offense becomes manslaughter, which is a felony. The original penalty for simply shooting the weapon would not be increased, because the additional result is covered by a seperate offense. Reckless driving, speeding, etc.. are in the same category. We'll get away from being "bogged down in constitutional issues," but explain how this would be enforced? Since speeding is a moving violation, where would the proper point be to increse the penalty? Travelling at 99MPH is still only a fine, but going 100MPH is 5 years in prison, even if neither resulted in any injury? How would other "dangerous acts" then be enforced? Driving without windshield wipers can be dangerous if it is raining heavy enough. Should this be 5 years in prison as well, because someone may be hurt because a driver failed to turn on their wipers when it rains? -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 12:40pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 12:50pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Branthoris
	What I am advocating is that the normal penalty for dangerous driving should be a jail sentence of around five years, to properly reflect the seriousness of the crime, and the danger in which it puts other road users. If you want to gamble with your own life, that is your prerogative; but if you play dice with the lives of everyone around you, you should be incarcerated for an appropriate length of time. Even an indeterminate period, in the case of repeat offenders. I'm not saying a line should be drawn at the 100mph mark. Each case must be judged individually as to whether the driving involved is actually dangerous. Nevertheless, if you caught someone speeding at 100mph (or 99mph, for that matter), it would be pretty strong evidence of dangerous driving, and it definitely wouldn't be the sort of technical traffic law violation that can be committed by perfectly safe drivers. If someone were speeding at 90mph, the case that they were driving dangerously would be less strong. Safe drivers can sometimes hit 90mph on straight, deserted roads and be no danger to anybody. It is not helpful to focus on the misdemeanor/felony dividing line (in Britain, we no longer bother with it, and in states such as California, there are a category of offences known as 'wobblers' which can be classified either as misdemeanors or felonies). It's a technical legal matter that does not concern me. If, to impose adequate penalties for driving offences, you have to make them felonies, go ahead and do it.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 1:02pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	How do you know that the CHP officer didn't call on his radio to pick those kids up down the road while he was busy with you? I watched him, and heard everything he was saying on the radio. He didn't call them in. Rather than address the rest of your argument piecemeal, I'll just say this: I have known several L.A. cops over the years. They've told me flat out that some officers just look for easy violations, and they hate the CHP for this very reason. Your opinion - from wherever it is you are a cop - does not hold as much weight with me. I will go by the assessments made by LAPD officers that I know to be good cops.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 1:30pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	It is not helpful to focus on the misdemeanor/felony dividing line (in Britain, we no longer bother with it, and in states such as California, there are a category of offences known as 'wobblers' which can be classified either as misdemeanors or felonies) I don't know what your legal background is relating to US law, but you are again mischaracterizing your concepts. A "wobbler" is not a crime that can go either way at the whim of the state, but rather an action that is based on the defendent's prior record. It does not change the classification of the crime that is attached to. For example, DUI is a misdemeanor.. However, a person who has 2 prior DUI's will recieve a stiffer "wobbler" penalty based on their prior record. This doesn't change the classification of DUI for everyone else convicted of it. The misdemeanor/felony divison is not simply a "petty dividing line." Each category has specific standards that are upheld. I'm not familiar with British law, but I would be quite suprised to learn that they indeed, "no longer bother with it." What you are suggesting would be to remove the standard of law because of a potential result. I can sit on my roof on throw bowling pins off of my house all day long.. It might not be the smartest thing to do, but it isn't a crime until I strike and kill my nosey neighbor. My intent will determine the severity of my charge. Same with speeding, etc.. Speeding is not a crime, in the sense that the offender is simply breaking a regulation. You are suggesting that an action result in serious legal penalties, just by engaging in it, even if there was no adverse result. Again, what would the legal standard then become? You would make simply driving fast=5 years, while overlooking driving without headlights at night? Would the person's intent no longer matter? So a get-away driver, racing from a bank robbery would recieve 5 years for speeding, along with someone who simply got fixated on making it to a late appointment? That means every speeding trial would require the state to prove intent, and meet the more serious criteria attached to felony sanctions. You are delving into pre-crime type of stuff, and abandoning any standards of law. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 2:17pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Mr44, you are continuing to focus on a technical legal point--the misdemeanor/felony classification--at the expense of the main issue. Britain does indeed no longer bother with it; we have indictable offences (jury trial only), either way offences (jury or summary trial, depending on the seriousness of the offence), and summary offences (summary trial only). Dangerous driving, by the way, is an either way offence. If Parliament wanted to make it punishable by ten years imprisonment rather than two, it would merely have to make one small change in the law. And if American states wanted to classify dangerous driving as a felony, making it subject to long prison sentences, it would be within their rights to do so. I am indeed "suggesting that an action result in serious legal penalties, just by engaging in it, even if there was no adverse result". That is hardly a new concept. Attempted murder is regularly punished by imprisonment for life, although it may be committed without harming anybody. I would not "make simply driving fast=5 years". I said I would make driving dangerously attract a starting point of five years. Driving at extreme speeds may be compelling evidence that the driving in question was dangerous, but it would not be the only way to establish that by any means.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/30/03 2:20pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 2:21pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	Exactly where do you want to incarcerate all these people who break the law? It's bad enough that people are going to jail for smoking pot or writing bad checks when there are murderers and rapists roaming the street. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Branthoris Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 3:21pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	In the United Kingdom, each year, there are around 100 murders and around 12,000 road accident fatalities. For every one person killed by a murderer, approximately 120 will die in a car crash. This is why dangerous driving is a menace to society, and this is why we are justified in punishing it with long jail terms whether or not an accident actually occurs. The fact that dangerous drivers are not actually intending to kill or severely injure somebody (merely creating a risk that that will happen) is why I am suggesting five years rather than life imprisonment as a starting point. anakin_girl, people who break the law and are sentenced to terms of imprisonment are usually incarcerated in prisons. That is, if they aren't utterly filled to the brim with the 100 murderers that go into them each year.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 3:39pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Well, I can't debate the British system you are discribing, because I am not well enough informed on the procedure. On the surface, it seems like you are oversimplifying things though. However, your system would simply not work. AG hit upon one of the issues. Where would all of these traffic scofflaws go? Build special "traffic prisons?" Secondly, in the US, any criminal conviction has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." In traffic court, people are allowed to plead either way for a simple ticket. Standards of law still exist, but they are not as strict as those for serious crimes. If you start threatening to lock people up for speeding, every single speeding ticket would then become a criminal trial. Who is going to absorb this cost, let alone provide enough judges, etc? Next, to result in a conviction, the suspect has to meet the standards of the crime. These are established beforehand. You simply can't say "we'll look at each one differently." Where then, are the elements of the offense and the standard of law? You would just arbitrarily charge each person according to the percieved crime? Using your example, attempted murder, still has to meet the requirements for murder. it just wasn't successful. Without premeditation, for instance, murder becomes homicide. If your speeding doesn't harm anyone, there is no concept of "attempted reckless driving." You can't simply charge someone for a higher offense if it "looked more dangerous." -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TreeCave Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 12/30/03 3:40pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Jeez, we have many thousands of murderers per year. And all those people who've sold a bag of pot. I think the prisons are already full. In fact, in Oregon last year, they started keeping the prisoners outside because they ran out of room for them in the buildings. I'm not kidding. We do NOT have an efficient legal or prison system, as the UK does by your account. So maybe that's a good solution for the UK, but not necessarily the US.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 4:06pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 4:36pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	TC, I don't know if the British prison system is any more "effcient" that the US. According to the latest Home Office Prison Brief (May, 2003), the English and Wales prison population currently holds 10% more than its cerified normal capacity. It is within 3,000 prisoners of reaching its maximum capacity. The entire prison population increased 2% over last year. HERE Even though they might not call differing crime "felonies and misdemeanors," they still have a differeing classification based on severity and intent. Felony would be a public offense misdemeanor would be a magistrate offense. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/30/03 4:29pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	Branthoris: This isn't the United Kingdom. There were 67 murders just in my city alone last year, let alone all over the US. It would be nice if we only had 100 murders and enough space in jail to put everyone who breathed wrong, but that isn't the case. As others have pointed out, exactly where are you going to put these prisons? Do you plan to take away my property, yours, or the local grocery store or theater's property, just so you can build ten times as many jails as we have now in order to incarcerate every minor traffic violator in prison? Also, who is going to pay for all the judges, and who else is going to participate in the trials? I don't find the idea of spending my every waking hour on jury duty just because some average Joe went 60 in a 55 to be my idea of fun, nor do I find it necessary. As I said, it's bad enough that we incarcerate writers of bad checks, and pot smokers. The prisons are crowded enough already. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MyKe1138 Registered: Aug '03	Date Posted: 12/30/03 4:37pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 4:39pm (1 edits total) Edited By: MyKe1138
	"there are around 100 murders and around 12,000 road accident fatalities. For every one person killed by a murderer, approximately 120 will die in a car crash" Friends don't let friends drink and drive. -----signature----- "You're wrong. Soon, I'll be banned... and you with me." ... Sir "phrase deemed inappropriate by the Mods a year after the fact" of the Knights of The Sarcasm Table
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anidanami124 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 12/30/03 4:51pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving - Date Edited: 12/30/03 4:53pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anidanami124
	It's bad enough that people are going to jail for smoking pot or writing bad checks when there are murderers and rapists roaming the street. People who write bad checks hurt stores that take those checks. Which means that it also hurts those that work for the place means cut backs and so on. There are people that smoke pot then go onto a job site work with stuff they should not be working with then do something wrong and kill someone. All in the name of smoking pot. Some guy get's into a car is late for work speeds can't stop in time for the bus pick up the little kids hits one of the kids and the little kid dies. These are laws that are really easy to go by but people don't seem to care. Don't write bad checks. Don't chet(sp) the places who shop at out of money. Don't smoke stuff you should not and then go work at a work site where you could kill someone because can't think right. Don't get into a car and forget about ever one else that is on the road. Edit: These are smiple things to keep not only you safe but other around you safe. What you do does effact other. -----signature----- Dark Lords of the JCC My Heros of Music Epica 1. Simone Simons 2. Mark Jansen 3. Yves Huts 4. Coen Janssen 5. Ad Sluijter 6. Jeroen Simons 1)ROTS 2)TESB 3)TPM 4)AOTC 5)ANH 6)ROTJ
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MyKe1138 Registered: Aug '03	Date Posted: 12/30/03 4:57pm Subject: RE: The social acceptability of dangerous driving
	"we hurt each other, then we do it again..." U2's ONE It is human nature to step on anything we choose to believe is 'beneath us' whether we are justified in that thinking or not... We could keep this going until we post every level of affront to our fellow man (or woman... no discrimination) and all that we will have accomplished is coming to the conclusion that is the thesis of the original post: We should all treat each other better, and be nice (whatever THAT means)... Truth? We never will.... -----signature----- "You're wrong. Soon, I'll be banned... and you with me." ... Sir "phrase deemed inappropriate by the Mods a year after the fact" of the Knights of The Sarcasm Table
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Previous | Next | Reload