Should the federal government/state eliminate drunkenness as a defence
for serious crimes?

Yes and the federal government should eliminate all those SSI benefit
checks to alcoholics and drug addicts. JMHO!!!

Agree 100% w/Barbiesbigsister!! Alcoholism is no excuse for anything,
just a major crutch and illness that needs to be treated. They should
have to do the time for the crime like everybody else.

i dont know jane but you look good, no you look better than good, if
you was running the show i would say do what ever you want, drunks need
jail time, and you an me need get to know each other time, any way xoxo
see you later sweet heart

I agree that drunkeness is no excuse. Look for example the person who
commits murdser and is found insane. They are required to be admitted
to a hospital for therapy/treatment until the doctor says they are no
longer insane, and then they go to prison for the sentence that they
would have gotten if not insane. I think the same thign should be done
with alchoholics.
Alchoholism IS a disease. it is hereditary, and it is self imposed.
But once you have it you have it for life. I agree with ssi for an
alchoholic as long s it is because they are in rehab or someplace
similar, where they are seeking treatment for the disease until they
have control over it. Temporary ssi. Not lifetime.

It was a poll our local newspaper was taking here this morning. I
thought it was a damn good question. Far too often drunk driver's not
only cause havoc on our road's, they take innocent live's, sometime's an
entire family.

One lady had been charged and convicted of drunk driving 5 time's and
yet the court's keep giving her her driver's license back. One of the 5
time's she was drunk, she killed the other driver. She didn't do any
jail time because she was a single mother and gainfully employed. While
that is most commendable, the driver she killed was two block's from his
house and was late for his son's birthday party. Drunk's need to be
taken off our road's and need to pay for the damage they inflict on the
innocent's.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Jane. 100%. first offense shouldbe an
automatic 1 yr suspension with aa, and detox required and $2500 fine.
2nd offense 5 yr suspension, aa, detox, $10,000 fine.
3rd offense permenant loss of license, prison time $25,000 fine.


These are just based on being pulled over, not if htere was an accident
or anything. In cases of damage being done, restitution must be paid.
if a death occurred you automatically lose license forever and go to
prison for vehicle manslaughter, along with everything else.

*when I say loss or suspension of license I mean country wide, not only
in the state you are at when it happens. A lot of people move to
another state and get a license there.

yes... drunk should never be a defense... drinking alcohol is a consious
(sp?) decision that you make... so if you cant handle it, dont do it.

I think first offence should be prison time, there's no room for soft
heartedness in this area, driving drunk is about like taking a gun and
randomly firing at houses, with each pull of the trigger there's a
chance of hurting or killing someone, every second your car is in motion
on our highways and streets while your drunk behind the wheel, there's a
chance you will hurt or kill someone. Yep, I say jail time 1st offence
and anything thereafter 20 yr sentence.

To my knowledge, which is admittedly limited in this area,
incapacitation due to drugs and/or alcohol cannot be a legal defense. It
can however be a mitigating circumstance at sentencing phases, along
with other factors such as childhood abuse, trauma, etc.

I also think people should be held responsible for crimes they commit
under the influence of drugs. I know of a woman who stabbed her little
girl to death while high on drugs, got off, put in a state hospital, but
will get out when they decide she is well enough. I think she should
have gone to prison, she made a conscious choice to take the drugs, knew
they were addictive, and committed the crime under the influence, why
let her off because of the drugs??

The girl's brothers and sisters came forward later and said they knew
mom was abusing but didn't think she would hurt their little sister,
what the he-- is wrong with them to leave that little girl with the
messed up mom???

I agree with your thoughts fedman and daniel. I think their license
should be suspended or pulled longer, in addition to the fines and/or
jail time. Driving under the influence of alcolhol and drugs should be
viewed as the same, more so if accident's and/or death's are a result.

Just yesterday morning, a woman got 4 years for stabbing a man to death.
Her defence was that she was drunk and didn't know what she was doing,
didn't remember killing a man.

To prove 1st/2nd degree murder, you have to prove the person intended to
kill. More time's than not, the defence is not challenged, there is no
proof immediately after a crime that the person was severely intoxicated
yet the judge's allow it as a defence and give lesser sentencing.

This woman is eligible for day parole in 10 months. A man is dead and
she will walk our streets, probably sipping a cold beer.

This, along with the Canadian YOA (it's a joke here)needs a serious
overall. Victim's and their families suffer yet more when there are no
consequences for the person who took their loved one, drunk or not.

I can say here in tennesse its OK for a drunk to be arrested over and
over and over. I have seen one drunk convicted 23 times before he hit
and killed a secretary to one of the forestry services and this man
mamed the entire family. This was right b4 christmas a few years ago. He
walked out on bond the next morning and was never convicted for her
death or that of her unborn child. Justice? HA! Not in
hillbillyhell!!! To say
alcoholism is inherited is one thing. To get behind the wheel of a car
KNOWING your too drunk to drive is NO EXCUSE.

If someone want's to drink, so be it. It's when they get behind the
wheel and put other's at risk that concern me. If someone want's to
live thier life in a destructive manner and not seek help to overcome
alocoholism, or at least have the brain's not to get behind the wheel
when they drink, I find difficulty in understanding how they could
expect sympathy when they get caught.

23 convictions? Do the court's not see that a person like that has not
learned a thing and has no value for the live's of other's? The court's
should not give a repeated drunk driver thier license back, ever.

exactly barbie, exactly.
Anf or MArie, I dont know about the state you are in, you will haveto
lok it up and I reccomend you do so, and press for it if it is an
option, but most places insanity (not being in right mind for whatever
reason) does not negate prison time. You do your time at the hospital
UNTIL the doc clears you as sound of mind, then you go back to court for
sentencing for the crime. Now yes, i am sure somplaces will look the
other way if allowed, but if your state allows sentencing after lcok-in,
then follow up on it and press for the person to serve her time. If
absolutely nothing else, the jail time will allow her to have a longer
time with a mandated drug abuse program, where she will not be able to
skip going, etc.

Barbie's big sister wrote: ...and the federal government should
eliminate all those SSI benefit checks to alcoholics and drug addicts.
JMHO!!

Yes!! Sorry to be off-topic but I so strongly agree with you BBS, I
recently lived in an apartment complex where half the people were on
some kind of government support and they wasted the tax-payer's money
with abandon - not to mention people i know who get like a $1,000 a
month and spend it all on drugs within a week - we should be helping
these people somehow but we should not be giving these people cash, is
just doesn't make any sense.

Back on topic: good point Lady A.

I can see we have differences in how our court's and legal systems are.
In Canada, it can and is used time after time. Much like our Young
Offender's Act, they need to revist and rehaul them.

Jane, I didn't realize that you were in Canada! I have absolutely no
thoughts on Canadian jurisprudence given that I am not a citizen there.

Thanks Massage! And I, too, concur with your opinion re: addiction and
government welfare.

I concur with Jane & Barbie!!