Would you like this law? - Manatory life in prison for DUIs who kill kids?

How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
penalty.

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> penalty.

DUIs should be a $10 fine until society takes of the actual problem and
starts taking the responsibility of driving a lot more seriously. Until
then, DUI laws will be laughed at, and continue to be laughed at,
largely ignored, and all-around ineffective.

Jason

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> penalty.

Why just kids? Do you not value every life? AFAIC, all life is
equal. I would have no problem increasing the penalty for drunk
driving - particularly for repeat offenders. But it has to be applied
equally and fairly - which is impossible in the US today.

-L.

On 31 Jul 2006 22:34:05 -0700, "-L." > wrote:

>
>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
>> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
>> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
>> penalty.
>
>Why just kids? Do you not value every life? AFAIC, all life is
>equal. I would have no problem increasing the penalty for drunk
>driving - particularly for repeat offenders. But it has to be applied
>equally and fairly - which is impossible in the US today.
>
>-L.

That makes sense but that is not the mind-set in america right now.
Nowadays we're told there is nothing worse than harming a kid. Unless
you do it with a car and then nobody gives two ****s!!! I'm sick of
that hypocrisy.

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2006 22:34:05 -0700, "-L." > wrote:
>
> >
> >laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> >> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> >> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> >> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> >> penalty.
> >
> >Why just kids? Do you not value every life? AFAIC, all life is
> >equal. I would have no problem increasing the penalty for drunk
> >driving - particularly for repeat offenders. But it has to be applied
> >equally and fairly - which is impossible in the US today.
> >
> >-L.
>
> That makes sense but that is not the mind-set in america right now.
> Nowadays we're told there is nothing worse than harming a kid. Unless
> you do it with a car and then nobody gives two ****s!!! I'm sick of
> that hypocrisy.

The only exception I know of regarding backlash against harming a kid
is if it happens prior to the kid's birth - then it's promoted.

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> penalty.

Where have you been? Child predators who sexually assault kids
routinely get a slap on the wrist.

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> Hell -
> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> harming a kid!!.


Little by little, the details of how ****ed up you are, and in what
ways, come to light.

Any other little confessions you want to let slip?

D

In article >,
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:

> How can anyone but a criminal coddler argue with that.? Hell -
> people get 20 years for just looking at child porn without ever
> harming a kid!!. Surely then a child-KILLER should pay the ultimate
> penalty.

In Philadelphia, the jails are already overcrowded. I prefer to put
people in jail who intentionally commit violent crimes against others.
In most cases, those who cause a fatality out on the road have committed
an accident. True, these are horrific accidents, but they're still
accidents. Severe sanctions are certainly needed in such cases, but jail
time does no one any good: it dies not bring the victim back, costs lots
of taypayers' dollars, and it does not leave room in prisons for violent
offenders such as rapists and armed robbers.

"Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
...

> In most cases, those who cause a fatality out on the road have committed
> an accident. True, these are horrific accidents, but they're still
> accidents.

I disagree. If you are out driving with over the legal limit of alcohol in
your system then it is NOT an accident.

Aus Wendy

Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> In Philadelphia, the jails are already overcrowded. I prefer to put
> people in jail who intentionally commit violent crimes against others.
> In most cases, those who cause a fatality out on the road have committed
> an accident. True, these are horrific accidents, but they're still
> accidents. Severe sanctions are certainly needed in such cases, but jail
> time does no one any good: it dies not bring the victim back, costs lots
> of taypayers' dollars, and it does not leave room in prisons for violent
> offenders such as rapists and armed robbers.

Well then you're an idiot. Your chance of being killed or maimed by a
drunk driver are a hundred times greater than by an armed robber. You
want to coddle DUIs cause you're one of them!!!!