To: BGHater
Of course we want to punish people who drive severely intoxicated to the point they are a danger to themselves and others around them. Its much harder to decide what to do in "gray area" cases where one has had a drink or two and isn't obviously impaired. Common sense would say give those drivers the benefit of the doubt. Not every offense needs to be punished with a heavy fine and the threat of imprisonment.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
5 posted on
05/27/2008 8:04:31 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
It’s about revenue. Money for the courts, for the insurance companies, for the police department, for MADD, for lawyers. Everyone gets their cut.
7 posted on
05/27/2008 8:05:53 AM PDT by
weegee
(We cant keep our homes on 72 at all times & just expect that other countries are going to say OK -BO)
To: goldstategop
Not every offense needs to be punished with a heavy fine and the threat of imprisonment. It's not about deterrence. It's about revenue for the state.
31 posted on
05/27/2008 8:22:33 AM PDT by
Centurion2000
(Party ahead of principles; eventually you'll be selling out anything to anyone for the right price.)
To: goldstategop
‘Not every offense needs to be punished with a heavy fine and the threat of imprisonment”
When the state needs revenues heavy fines suffice. Gotta pay for all that prison heath care you know.
36 posted on
05/27/2008 8:25:23 AM PDT by
dblshot
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson