Archive through July 23, 2002
The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archive Two:
Chiara is currently out on bail on drunk driving charge:
Archive through July 23, 2002
Goddessatlaw | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:13 pm     Santo, are you a barrister? |
Santo | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:18 pm     No, but I have studied law for two years as an A-Level (the UK education system differs a lot from yours, but basically we study 4 subjects at A-Level, the results of which determine University Entrance)... why the question? |
Goddessatlaw | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:28 pm     You just seem more literate on matters of legalese and criminal procedure than most. This is a compliment to you, but not intended as derrogatory to other posters. If I weren't a lawyer, I'd have no interest in or idea of how to decipher a charging information - particularly if I were in the UK, and we were talking about the American system. Do you aspire to be a lawyer? You seem interested in the subject matter. |
Lurknomore | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:31 pm     Santo, I see from your profile you are very young. I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, as I don't think age equates with intelligence or value. However I do think age provides life experiences and a very different perspective. Ideally everyone should have the chance to change and grow. As I've posted I believe in Spiritualist philosophies. One of the principles is "We affirm the doorway to reformation is never closed to any human soul here or hereafter." (If you or anyone has any interest in the principles which I think are great to live by I'd suggest checking out a website I make for my church at www.greaterbostonchurchofspiritualism.com and click on principles). But that said I think chances are EARNED and should not just be given. Folks with problems should not automatically have the right to drive if they have abused it IMHO. Given the amount of repeat offenders with DUI's I personally feel this is not being done. So the point of my post is to say beyond idealism I feel the reality of this situation is that when your life is touched/impacted/destroyed by something I think the perspective changes away from idealism to reality. And the reality is there are still too many senseless deaths this way. See Eura's heartbreaking story and web site. I guess I am more concerned with the rights those who have been impacted and have yet to be but will be and less with the person who caused it. |
Ryn | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:36 pm     So is this thread about Chiara anymore? just curious and I see it constantly and can't figgure out what is left to talk about on it - lol |
Katrina | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:38 pm     Santo, is drunk driving as big of a problem in the UK as it is here? It is a BIG problem here. And driving is such a huge part of the American experience that most of us are on the roads (and thus exposed to this danger) a lot. |
Goddessatlaw | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:46 pm     Don't know, Ryn, but CLEARLY (Lord, I'm channelling Josh - someone shoot me) DUI is a subject on which people are passionate. Is it OK to devolve these lines into personal subject matter and opinions (new to the board so bear with me)? I hope so, since the discussion are enlightening. |
Ryn | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:49 pm     yes, its ok, I just look at the 200+ messages in here and wonder if the topic would be better discussed in the regular TVCH general discussions is all. Not trying to hinder the conversation at all |
Katrina | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:49 pm     I think it is about the cultural contexts in which we are making evaluations of Chiara's behavior, and exploring as a group what frame of reference we are applying to how we judge Chiara. To the extent that we discuss any of these HG's, we are making personal judgements of them, and context is everything. |
Lurknomore | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 02:05 pm     Ryn if you want us to move maybe you could link us some place. I must say personally I love when threads go off on tangents because there is only so much we can discuss about HG's (especially this group BLECH). What a wonderful thing when we have the opportunity to exchange philosphies, get to know each other, talk about our lives and so on. That's so much more interesting than hearing about Roddy's diarrhea or Eric's farts. JMHO. |
Santo | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 02:06 pm     Was away for a few minutes catching up on the clips posted on the newsgroups, so I'll do a mass reply: Goddessatlaw: No, not really.. I just like to take an interest in news events, and law and economics are subjects I read up on quite a lot (I studied economics for 4 years, law 2), and a fair bit of the reading I do is on the US system. I am on web mailing lists for both law and economics, and it is through the law one I have learnt about interpreting these kind of police reports. Often with the big stories (Bush's daughters and this to some extent), people come out with a lot of speculation based on a TSG report, I like to deal with fact... Also, as you may know, the UK and US laws have a fair amount in common, UK law just keeps getting ruined by EU legislations... I wish we'd opt out of that. For instance, since the days of Thatcher, the UK has had an open invitation to join the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA). Economic reports since the time have said we'd be better off economically in that than the European Union, but no government or opposition has yet proposed it, and they don't require us to change laws and sign away our fiscal policy rights.. but I digress Lurknomore: I agree with much of what you write (I also checked your site), but as you mention realism, I certainly don't feel it's realistic to keep people locked up for prolonged periods of time. If you did, you'd have the problem we have in the UK at the moment, where we're having to use police cells because the jails are overflowing... Also, let me put this to you... if you keep somebody under lock and key, how are they supposed to earn the chance? The way I read it, if you keep them locked up, you're preventing them from earning the chance. I mentioned earlier, if people are assessed and it is believed they are no longer a threat / learnt their lesson, I feel it's only fair to give them that chance... the system is open to abuse, sure, but I think it's still an improvement on keeping them locked up permenantly.. Katrina: With the UK being a smaller country and the 'local pub(lic house)' on the corner, people don't tend to drink and drive as much. The largest proportion of deaths come at Christmas when people drink whilst visiting relatives.. And I agree, it's an elightening discussion |
Kaili | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 02:15 pm     Ryn, I think this topic could easily be moved into the Gen. Discussion area. In that area, the one or two people not into Big Brother may see it. I didn't look at this thread for a long time- until I noticed how many posts were being added. It is a topic that can and obviously has generated a lot of discussion. I could add a DUI story myself, as well as a discussion of the federal push to lower the minimum BAC to .08 in all states (Wisc. is at .10 still and there is a lot of debate from the tavern league to keep it as is). |
Snee | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 03:18 pm     santo, you make interesting points. i must admit that this is a topic i feel passionately about and that may inhibit my reason. to me it's not a matter of current law. i don't think killers SHOULD get another chance, and i don't mind paying taxes to keep them locked up. if they can find peace within then that's great, but they stay inside. i do think that any drinking with the intent of driving involves sheer luck (of not maiming or killing someone) because after one drink normal reasoning starts to be impaired, i.e. oh, i feel fine so i can have another drink. um, nope. ooh, that snee can be harsh! sometimes her bleeding heart liberal tendencies can reflect and make her neck look awfully red... |
Santo | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 03:43 pm     Snee, I must say that I don't know what .08 equates to... with the limit in the UK I've never had cause to research it. I think it's a matter of self control, if a person knows they can have x amount of alcohol whilst remaining under the limit and not having more, I don't have any problem with them doing it. Lots of people here suggest that people shouldn't drink anything, and whilst that may be idealistic, it's not realistic. Like I say, I don't know what .08 is equal to, perhaps you can enlighten me, but I'm sure some people have the metabolism to handle it. That's not to say they should drink .09 if the law says .08, but just to say I don't believe it's luck that they didn't kill somebody. Even science has proven that people can drink a certain amount without posing a significant risk. Some people became 'unsafe' as determined by the simulator after half a pint, others could drink 2 pints (around the limit here) whilst not having significant negative effect. I think everyone has to know their own bodies and take responsibility for their actions... it's for that reason that I felt a lot of the criticism of Chiara in this thread was unwarranted, she didn't kill anyone, and perhaps that was because she was within her 'personal' limit.. Opinions will always differ |
Crossfire | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 03:51 pm     I don't see any good reason why .00 is not realistic. I've been following that system for 34 years, and so far, its served me well. |
Snee | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 03:59 pm     santo, the legal limit here in b.c. (canada) is .08 as well and it seems to allow for quite a bit of blood alcohol content. as far as i understand, .08 refers to an individual's blood alcohol level. a smaller person would have less to drink and blow the limit while a larger person would drink considerably more and blow the similarly. what i was trying to get to is that i really think self control becomes a non-issue when drinking. once people start drinking, their reasoning starts to be impaired. they think they can have one more or two more or three more and still be fine to drive. they may believe they can go beyond their personal limit. it's not a matter of self control and using it--it's losing it. oh, and there will always be differing opinions on this one! *would do a smiley face but too lazy to look it up* |
Jeneane | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:01 pm     I just read this thread with all the past posts as well. About 20 years ago I founded a SADD (Students Against Drunk Driving) in the town I lived in following a very dear friend who was hit and permanently mamed by a drunk driver. It is amazing to me that the conversation here all this time later is the same as then. We still are plagued by a court system that views DUIs as a fairly insignificant offense. This saddly sets up the attitude that it is not so bad to do. Our punishments for breaking laws are not to, as Santo and others seem to think, lock away people so we don't risk them doing somithing again but to hopefully pose a deterent against breaking the law at all. If someone is made to serve a sentence or pay a large fine or do without thier drivers licence perhaps they will think twice before getting behind the wheel or hopefully plan ahead to have transportation available before setting out to have those couple of drinks. The options are limitless as to how not to drink and drive and so easily implimented there is no excuse for haveing even one drink and driving. As for Chiara she has yet to prove herself a reliable, responsable person who has learned any lesson from any of this and shame on a system that allowes her to continue her quest for fame and fortune before facing her responsabilities. |
Snee | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:04 pm     crossfire, i follow that same system. and i don't mean to sound superior or anything, but i really think .00 is the way to go. realism is that drinking and driving kills. too bad there weren't more neighbourhood pubs in the u.s. and canada. the british way of drinking and walking makes sense to me--as long as people keep to the sides of the road!!! |
Snee | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:10 pm     here is a positive story, jeneane. my school has a staff of about 35 people. past staff parties have involved drinking and driving. when this year's christmas party was announced the person giving it, said: 'if you are planning on drinking please bring a designated driver, or give me your keys at the door and stay overnight or have my husband drive you home.' i was sooo happy! |
Santo | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:16 pm     Jeneane: With my comments on lock away I was referring to the earlier posters who suggest it... The reason I say that .00 isn't realistic is politics. If you had a President or the UK had a Prime Minister campaigning for a .00 limit, I dare say they wouldn't get anywhere near power. Perhaps that's morally wrong, perhaps that's right, but I'm pretty sure it would happen. As long as that's the case, nobody is going to risk implementing such a limit. I also don't accept the 'drinking and driving kills' as a simple fact. Science has proven that different people can drink different levels with no serious impairment... you could kill somebody with a kitchen knife, but nobody's trying to ban those (and indeed, the US is still shying away from banning guns)... it's all about using them responsibly, and responsibly means different things for different people. I also do see your point Snee, that people can feel there personal limit is higher than it is. There's really no solid answer to that one, but I know people that stay within their personal limit, and I don't feel they should be prevented from drinking at all. If you tried setting the level at .00, your jails would be overflowing... And finally, yes, neighbourhood pubs are undeniably a good idea |
Crossfire | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:24 pm     American jails are already overflowing. Personally, I would have no problem with clearing out all the people rotting away for possession of pot, and filling up those spots with people guilty of driving with a suspended license. In other words, I'd not toss people in the slammer on a first offense DUI that did not involve damage or injury, but I would strip driving privileges forever. Then, if they get caught again, lock'm up. |
Santo | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:30 pm     "but I would strip driving privileges forever" - This reply is probably wearing thin by now... but I don't feel this is in proportion to the crime, the word "forever" especially.. see my earlier comments of no chance to prove they deserve a second chance.. That said, we're just going to go round in circles with this arguement.. |
Crossfire | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:42 pm     I agree. I'll just put in one more comment then we can call it a day. Driving is an adult privilege. Adults know that driving under the influence is wrong. Second chances at driving a 2000 pound loaded gun down the road is not in the publics best interest when you have already demonstrated an inability to make the right decision. I realize that this is filled to the brim with loaded rhetoric, but thats probably got a big part as to why I am not allowed to craft the rules. Thanks for your input though, it was most definitely well thought out, and a valuable contribution to the discussion. Two sides to every coin and all that. |
Goddessatlaw | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:51 pm     Santo: Stopped myself from stepping in to defend you and glad I did - have enjoyed watching you defend your argument. Please reconsider your career choice - it's a rare 18-year old that can withstand this kind of pressure and present cohesive arguments. On to the subject at hand, I spent years prosecuting drunk driving offenses. It's sort of like arguing politics - fairly pointless. Everyone has a point of view and a very good reason for it. Rarely will argument produce any change. There are some very polarized viewpoints here, but for those who have lost others to drunk drivers and for those who have a beloved family member who has committed a drunk driving offense, their positions are completely understandable. Our system promotes rehabilitation first, and then works its way through punishment, deterrence, and retribution. Handling these cases is every bit as (and many times much more) dicey as weaving your way through these opinions. The notion of "justice" also requires an homage to the notion of "mercy." It's every bit as important to extend mercy through stringent prosecution to a suffering family as it is to extend mercy to a 40-year-old man who was pulled over for speeding and, for the first time ever, tested .08 for alcohol (which, in most cases, does not meet the legal definition of operating while intoxicated - which is driving while impaired). For many otherwise law-abiding citizens, the fact of the arrest is enough to shock them into lifelong rehabilitation. Very different from someone who, on a first offense, blew a .24, let's say. An obvious future problem case requiring different prosecutorial treatment. Anyway, stick to your guns. You have a bright future. |
Lurknomore | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 05:16 pm     This must be personal pet peeve night at the TV clubhouse. You hit on another of mine Crossfire. Most people mistake the PRIVLEDGE of driving with a RIGHT. This has long bugged me. Having almost been in accidents several times with senior citizen drivers in Fl who should long have been off the roads, I think MUCH more needs to be done to make certain that EVERY DRIVER behind the wheel is capable of safely and effectively operating that vehicle. Same principle regardless of whether a person is DUI, has health problems, no longer is capable a maneuvering the car and so forth. |
|