and Pataki/NY proposes our first american gulag...

Status
Not open for further replies.
You handle it the same way that a posse of angry fathers would handle it. They quietly had a late night hanging out in the woods, and no one says anything about it. The law would deal with it in a controlled way, trying to verify real guilt, but should get the same result and without undue delay.
 
Krenn and Somekid

Drive drunk, hang.
or
manslaughter, drunken driving, fraud, embezzlement:

exile and forfeiture of all assets.

All other examples had a "criminal" and "victim" and actual damages done. Drunken driving: as in blowing .08 (or whatever the State determines the limit should be) even though the person is driving better than 50% of the sober drivers OR falling-down, puking, and wasted OR only if Steve Sixpack caused personal or property damage? Are 90-year-olds on legal meds (or missing their meds) exempt when they mistake the gas pedal for the brake and run over a group of pedestrians?

I've got a problem crucifying someone over a "what if;" what if Joe the CCW holder wants to shoot up the schoolyard or workplace? Not that he likely will, going through the trouble of acquiring a license, training, keeping his nose clean, etc. but he could.
 
Welcome to Bizarro world where "Done your time" means "Lifetime imprisonment at the King's pleasure".
Welcome to bizarro world where those that prey on innocent children are actually allowed to see the light of day.

The attempt to keep on punishing them after they have done their time is a reaction to the judicial and legislative failures to properly punish these offenders in the first place.

We have "zero tolerance" on kids bringing toy guns to school and a judge on the east coast sentencing a repeat child rapist to 60 days.

That is bizarro world.
 
Last edited:
Cellar, I hate drunk drivers. They are not in any way compariable to HCP holders. HCP are law abiding citizens, who do our best to be good citizens. Drunk drivers kill people.
 
What's a HCP?

Drunken drivers.... hang em. Sounds like the al-Qaeda way. I personally think the DUI laws are too rigid, the limit of 0.1 or 0.08 is too low, and I don't drink except for an ocasional beer. The MAD group has a bit too much power. They turn a sex offender loose after 60 days. They sentance a murderer to less than a year, and they throw a drunken driver in the clinker for a year.... doesn't sound equitable to me. Oh, lets not forget drugs, meth manufacture and possession to sell... maybe as much as 10 years prison. The DUI felon can no longer vote or own a firearm? Sound equitable? They should prosecute people for what they do and not what they could do.

Own a gun... hang em. Oh, they might hurt someone. Thank goodness this law does not exist, but similar punishments were given to Jews for being Jews in Germany. Oh, it can't happen here?
 
22-rimfire said:
What's a HCP?



Own a gun... hang em. Oh, they might hurt someone. Thank goodness this law does not exist, but similar punishments were given to Jews for being Jews in Germany. Oh, it can't happen here?


HCP = Handgun Carry Permit. It is what TN issues.

I knew the idiocy would come up. Let me make some simple facts obvious to you.

Guns are inanimate objects. They don't move.

Drunk drivers however, are drunk, and driving a vehicle around. Said drunk drivers don't exactly have very good record of being safe drivers. Driving drunk is equivilent to waving a loaded gun around a crowded room, blindfolded, and occaisionly half jerking the trigger while running around on a floor covered with marbles. They weren't born drunk drivers, they made themselvesa drunk drivers. The Jew reference was a sorry use of the Nazi card.
 
Somekid said..."Drunk drivers however, are drunk, and driving a vehicle around. Said drunk drivers don't exactly have very good record of being safe drivers. Driving drunk is equivilent to waving a loaded gun around a crowded room, blindfolded, and occaisionly half jerking the trigger while running around on a floor covered with marbles. They weren't born drunk drivers, they made themselvesa drunk drivers." The simple facts are not obvious to me at all..... sorry.

It is a question of what defines drunk. I don't think your analogy with the marbles and half jerking the trigger of a loaded gun is any better than mine with the Nazi's (even though the Nazi analogy was a low blow). It is also a question of over simplification of the drunk driving problem. Truly drunk drivers have a very poor driving history. A 21 year old driving with 0.1 blood alcohol level is probably about the same as a 50 year old man driving without any alcohol use in terms of reaction time (just guessing). Should the 50 year old be thrown in jail for being 50? or 60? or 70? My feeling is if the driver is weaving on the highway as in crossing the center line erratically, they should be checked for alcohol or drug use. It is reckless driving. Again, where do you define the drunk vs not drunk limit?

So many accidents are caused these days by cell phone users, basically lack of attention and slow to react to a traffic problem. Ban them? Heck, I had a young woman ram me a couple months ago at a stop sign because she was using her cell phone and for whatever reason thought I had pulled out (there was oncoming traffic). What about driving while eating a burger from McDonalds? Messing with the Ipod? Driving with screaming kids in the car? Putting make-up on while driving?

My point is that prosecution for drunk driving should be based on actual driving and not on some test that assumes significant impairment at 0.08 or 0.1 levels. The penalty is for reckless driving not a blood alcohol content that might be caused by one ounce of liquor.

The gun control people use the same argument about guns and safety. They feel that guns should be banned because the the gun is present. The person holds the gun, so he must be evil and likely to commit murder or another serious crime.

I don't know the answer to where you draw the line on drunk vs non-drunk. I just think it is too low and the laws are too rigid in terms of enforcement and penalty imposed. The penalty does not often fit the "crime".

Oh, thanks for reminding me what HCP means.

The penalties for sex offenders is another emotional issue like drunk driving. My feelings are that most sex offenders can not be rehabed. Does that give us a right to put them in jail or a camp for the rest of their lives? The 60-day penalty mentioned above is sad. But, life in prison may be just as sad. Again, we can't broad brush a crime with rigid penalties. I don't know the answer to this issue either, but sex offenses by adults against children is a terrible crime against humanity and the death penalty may be appropriate in severe cases.
 
Last edited:
22, fair enough. I think this is a good compromise to your concerns.

If you drive drunk (have alcohol in your system, any at all) and are caught, but nobody is injured, you:

1) Walk home.
2) Loose your car, and everything you had in it.
3) No driving privileges for a year
4) 5k fine first offense, it doubles each subsequent offense. (10k 2nd, 20k 3rd, 40k 4th, and so on)
5) If you drive drunk within the next year (no license, which is revoked for 1 year) you are executed.

If you drive drunk, and are caught because you had a wreck, whether or not injuries are involved, you get executed. There, that should protect the innocent, what say you?
 
which group shall we decide next its ok to do that to

Probably drug users or alcohol drinkers. What's harder to figure out is who will be last as more and more classes of people become incriminated. Tobacco users are notoriously hard to rehabilitate, as are fat people. Both are currently legitimate targets for discrimination and prime candidates for future incrimination.

Kind of makes me wonder what it takes to make people determine their own rights instead of letting others do it for them.
 
Somekid said as a "compromise" to my earlier statement that.... "If you drive drunk (have alcohol in your system, any at all) and are caught, but nobody is injured, you:

1) Walk home.
2) Loose your car, and everything you had in it.
3) No driving privileges for a year
4) 5k fine first offense, it doubles each subsequent offense. (10k 2nd, 20k 3rd, 40k 4th, and so on)
5) If you drive drunk within the next year (no license, which is revoked for 1 year) you are executed.

If you drive drunk, and are caught because you had a wreck, whether or not injuries are involved, you get executed. There, that should protect the innocent, what say you?"

HOW ABOUT IF YOU ARE IDENTIFIED AS DRIVING RECKLESSLY AND HAVE ALCOHOL IN YOUR SYSTEM AND THERE IS NO ACCIDENT OR INJURY, THE OFFICER TAKES YOU HOME AND A WRECKER PICKS UP YOUR CAR?

Your use of the word compromise makes me chuckle.....the penalties you mentioned are just about what they are now or worse whether or not you know it. Especially if you take legal costs into account. The whole system forces people to break the law once they are caught in order to generate an income to live. Do you want to make their house payment and feed them if they can't drive to work?

Again, what's to stop the government from singling out another group with very harsh penalties for use of an object.... lets say semi-automatic rifles that look like assault weapons after the next terrorist event in the US? Not enough people to vote against it.... too many people say things like.... I don't have one, that doesn't affect me..... DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Always works as a tactic. Bet you wouldn't be in favor of that? I'm not.
 
22-rimfire said:
HOW ABOUT IF YOU ARE IDENTIFIED AS DRIVING RECKLESSLY AND HAVE ALCOHOL IN YOUR SYSTEM AND THERE IS NO ACCIDENT OR INJURY, THE OFFICER TAKES YOU HOME AND A WRECKER PICKS UP YOUR CAR?

Your use of the word compromise makes me chuckle.....the penalties you mentioned are just about what they are now or worse whether or not you know it. Especially if you take legal costs into account. The whole system forces people to break the law once they are caught in order to generate an income to live. Do you want to make their house payment and feed them if they can't drive to work?

Again, what's to stop the government from singling out another group with very harsh penalties for use of an object.... lets say semi-automatic rifles that look like assault weapons after the next terrorist event in the US? Not enough people to vote against it.... too many people say things like.... I don't have one, that doesn't affect me..... DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Always works as a tactic. Bet you wouldn't be in favor of that? I'm not.


In response to what you wrote in red, how about we actually punish scumbags who wrecklessly put other peoples lives at risk? To compare this to guns, what penalty do you give someone who makes there backstop the neighbors house? Assuming nobody is injured, you could do something similar to the drunkards punishments, which I might add, is a punishment not on safe use of a legal object, but improper and dangerous use of said legal object. People should be punished for dangerous acts (drunk driving, shooting a neighbors house) not owning or consuming legal substances or items. That bolded part is what you, and Sarah Brady both need to figure out.

I know the penalties I propose are harsher than current, punishments SHOULD be harsh. Slaps on the wrist merely embolden the troublemakers. Real trash needs a real punishment. Drunk drivers fit into my definition of real trash. As for their house payment, and their food, that is their problem. They should have thought about it before they went and put other peoples lives at risk in such a selfish manner.
 
Somekid, it's been tested several times

Motorcyclist magazine has done several tests on drinking and riding over the years (starting around 1986 and the last time was 2004); the results were surprising. Riders were given a varying amount of alcohol (based on body weight) so their BACs were the same, tested roughly every +.02...

Two professional road racers went FASTER and hit less cones (that defined the course) even when they couldn't walk. Another non-pro was very impaired ~.04 and was puking long before .10, which was the legal limit at the time.

If you drive drunk (have alcohol in your system, any at all)and are caught, but nobody is injured, you:
Blah blah blah

What about:
1. Drivers on meds that cause judgement/reaction time impairment
2. Drivers OFF their meds, that have impaired judgement/reaction time
3. Sober drivers with voluntary distractions (radio, hot coffee in lap, cellphone etc.)
4. Sober drivers with involuntary distractions (kids, sudden external loud noises, debris in road, etc.)
4. Completely SOBER drivers driving recklessly by CHOICE
5. New drivers, elderly drivers, scared drivers that have impaired judgement/reaction time

Same penalties? Execution as well if someone is hurt or killed, even when there is no "demon rum" involved?

First you can execute all the sex offenders (and keep changing the definition of what is a sex offense), then drunk drivers (who you wish to be anyone >0.00); then you can go after smokers (popular target) and fat people (next popular target) and the sexual deviants (anything but missionary, only with your spouse, opposite sex only in a lot of juristictions) and the thoughtcriminals (for what they might or could do)...

There is no room for gun owners in a totalitarian utopia.
 
Ain't the anonymity of the Internet wonderful? Amazing how bloodthirsty a Keyboard Kommando can be. Think I'll go out and join Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

"Gotta drive, oshifer; I'm too drunk to walk!"

Last I heard, this thread was about Pataki's idea...

:), Art
 
Somekid wrote.. "Real trash needs a real punishment. Drunk drivers fit into my definition of real trash." All I can say is> :barf: Get a life and stop making my blood pressure rise. I know you believe these things. But that doesn't necessarily make the punishment fair, equitable, or just. I think I need a beer.
 
This got a bit funny, y'all made an assumption that I am against alcohol. Enjoy the beer 22, just stay off the roads. hating drunk driving is like hating murder, both are the misuse of totally legal and fine items.

Cellar, I got the 'blah blah blah' part of your post and skipped on. After that, your post became 'blah blah blah' to me.

Art, I would join that group in a heartbeat. I never have been fond of MADD. (Especially since the humorless GUY called asking for donation. Thats right, a GUY called from MOTHERS Against Drunk Driving. Whats worse, was he had no sense of humor. Ugh.) Oh by the way, I am toning it down and being nice on here Art. This bloodthirstyness you cite from a KK is actually my polite version. People who selfishly put everyone around them in danger get no pity from me.
 
I think this is the original article:http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2006/01/11/phars1.html

Pataki: Replace Pharsalia

Chenango prison camp would turn into sex-offender facility

By Paul Ertelt

Capitol Bureau

ALBANY — A minimum-security prison camp in Chenango County would become the home of 500 "civilly confined" sex offenders under a plan unveiled Tuesday by Gov. George Pataki.

Under the $130 million proposal, the 258-bed Camp Pharsalia would be demolished and replaced with a secure facility with more than 1,000 employees and an $80 million annual payroll. The facility, to be operated by the state Office of Mental Health, is expected to open by 2009.

The announcement was seen as a sign that the governor is optimistic about the Legislature reaching a deal on legislation that would establish procedures for confining sexual predators who have served their prison sentences and been deemed mentally defective.

The governor has been trying to close the camp and other prison facilities for two years to reflect the decline in the state’s prison population, which has dropped from a peak of nearly 72,000 six years ago to less than 63,000.

Lawmakers from the regions affected have resisted those proposals because of their impact on local economies.

Pharsalia town Supervisor Dennis Brown said the project would bring needed jobs to his town and county, but residents will need assurances that the inmates won’t pose a threat to the community.

"We need that question answered," he said. However, he noted that the 60-bed Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment in Norwich, which houses mentally disabled sex offenders, hasn’t created a public-safety problem.

"The CIT center down there has got some violent predators, and you don’t even know they’re there," he said.

The proposal is a major victory for state Sens. Thomas Libous and James Seward, who have worked to keep Pharsalia open.

"This is big news," said Seward, R-Milford.

Now, the two lawmakers said, it is time to hear from residents and ensure that their questions are answered and their concerns addressed.

Libous, R-Binghamton, said residents need to keep an open mind.

"We don’t get an opportunity to create a thousand jobs often," he said.

The New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Association, the union that represents correction officers, praised the initiative to protect the public, but "we steadfastly oppose the closing of any correctional facility," said union President Larry Flanagan.

Mike Fraser, spokesman for the state Department of Correctional Services, said no Pharsalia employees will lose their jobs but that they will be transferred to other prisons. Camp Pharsalia houses 143 inmates and has a staff of 91, including 65 security personnel.

Advocates for the mentally ill said they were pleased the governor doesn’t plan to house sex offenders in mental hospitals.

But David Seay, executive director of the state chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said he is concerned about the governor’s plan to seek $27 million to house sex offenders in existing mental- health facilities in the coming state fiscal year.

He wants assurances that the limited resources of the state Office of Mental Health won’t be tapped if that amount proves insufficient.

"If you don’t do that, people who need psychiatric treatment ain’t going to get it," he said.

The governor, who presents his budget next week, is also seeking $35 million to renovate existing OMH facilities so they can be used to temporarily house sex offenders.

In a related matter, lawmakers from both houses expressed hope that they would soon have a deal on civil confinement.

Sen. Dale Volker, the western New York Republican who is sponsoring civil confinement legislation in his house, said it appears that the Senate and Assembly are close enough to close on the issue soon.

"I don’t think it’s that far apart," he said.

Assemblyman Jeff Aubry, D-Queens, chairman of the Assembly Correction Committee, said there are some differences in the two bills, but "I don’t think they’re insurmountable."

The Assembly and Senate also agreed to meet in conference committee to come up with a plan to keep hundreds of lower-level sex offenders from dropping off of a state registry later this month.

If it is a "secure mental health facility" then it isn't a gulag, nor are rights violated...unless/until the definitions of "sex offender" and "mentally deficient" keep changing.
 
Krenn said:
hmmm... maybe a LITTLE extreme, but a variation might work:

"predatory" rape, where no possible misunderstanding between parties could exist: Death penalty.

"Date" rape: death penalty on second offense.

"Statuatory" Rape: On third offense. must be three distinct victims.

murder, torture, etc: on first offense

other Violent crimes: on third offense, unless defensive gun use gets you first.

manslaughter, drunken driving, fraud, embezzlement:

exile and forfeiture of all assets.

i'll second that.
 
So this facility is where they will house those who have undergone civil committment, by which sex offenders who have served their time but are deemed still a danger to society are locked up until the danger ceases?
 
EVIL5LITER said:
I'm more in favor of castration (be it chemical or physical) for heinous violators or repeat offenders than concentration camps.


right on, like anything else in life: if you don't know how to use it, you're gonna loose it.
 
22-rimfire said:
What's a HCP?
Drunken drivers.... hang em. Sounds like the al-Qaeda way. I personally think the DUI laws are too rigid, the limit of 0.1 or 0.08 is too low, and I don't drink except for an ocasional beer. The MAD group has a bit too much power. They turn a sex offender loose after 60 days. They sentance a murderer to less than a year, and they throw a drunken driver in the clinker for a year.... doesn't sound equitable to me. Oh, lets not forget drugs, meth manufacture and possession to sell... maybe as much as 10 years prison. The DUI felon can no longer vote or own a firearm? Sound equitable? They should prosecute people for what they do and not what they could do.

I agree, I was given a DUI after passing ALL field sobriety tests without question, dont believe me? They let me drive home, after I blew over the legal limit, I was clearly sober, so I got a DUI and got sent on my way.

It would have been way easier to just be a pot smoker.
 
Hmm... DUI. I will admit that it one of the more stupid dangerous things you can do with a car.

Please, be 100% honest. Is there anybody here that can HONESTLY say you haven't done something stupid and dangerous with a car? Hmm?

Off with your heads!! The lot of you!
 
carlrodd said:
i'll second that.

You're aware that "statutory rape" also means high school senior making it with high school junior, right?

:banghead:

Sinsaba said:
Hmm... DUI. I will admit that it one of the more stupid dangerous things you can do with a car.

Please, be 100% honest. Is there anybody here that can HONESTLY say you haven't done something stupid and dangerous with a car? Hmm?

Off with your heads!! The lot of you!

Yes.

I lead a *really* boring life.
 
Sinsaba said:
Hmm... DUI. I will admit that it one of the more stupid dangerous things you can do with a car.

Please, be 100% honest. Is there anybody here that can HONESTLY say you haven't done something stupid and dangerous with a car? Hmm?

Off with your heads!! The lot of you!

Sin, have you ever had a ND? Or maybe you realized after the fact that you broke a rule. Guess maybe we should remove your rights, eh? Stop being general and be specific, drunk drivers are akin to people who hold guns to other peoples head, and play russian roulette with them. A society should not tolerate such actions.

A genuine car accident is not the same as being a drunk driver. Some of you are willing to be obscenely absurd, Bradyesque, in your attempts to defend drunk driving.
 
Somekid said (in relation to Sinsaba's comments)...."Stop being general and be specific, drunk drivers are akin to people who hold guns to other peoples head, and play russian roulette with them. A society should not tolerate such actions.

A genuine car accident is not the same as being a drunk driver. Some of you are willing to be obscenely absurd, Bradyesque, in your attempts to defend drunk driving."

MAN I NEED ANOTHER BEER, MAYBE TWO. What is it that makes you the authority on what is correct behavior and able to dole out absurd punishments? Again, I just think the penalties too harsh. Punish after you commit an act of violence not for the potential to commit an act of violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top