All male tauren nude revue! Cabaret Show and Plainsrunning Demonstrations! Thunderbluff's Ultimate GIRLS NIGHT OUT! Voted No.1 @ the Horde Adult Industry Awards! Best Dance Group! Tuesdays Through Sundays Live in Thunderbluff! The art of stripping redefined! Hoof it over to ThunderBUFF tonight!
Grinds My Gears: Man vs. Celeb
Today's Grind:
Theft of Lance Armstrong’s bike means prison term vs. WR Stallworth pleads guilty, gets 30 days in jail
Ok, so a guy steals a celebrity's bike and sells it to another man who turns it over to the police. The thief gets 3 years in prison and the purchaser gets 90 days. A celebrity takes another human life as a result of several very poor decisions, all involving illegal activity, and gets 24 days in prison. How is this fair? What kind of world do we live in? I am the type that believes prison is for those who are a constant danger to society i.e. murderers, child molesters, etc. I don't like my tax money being wasted on prisons filled with minor offenders. I'd rather they be obligated to public service as a punishment. But fair is fair. Celebrity bias? I believe so. And I can't stand it. What makes these people so special? Cause they pay more taxes? B.S.! They are just ordinary people like you and me, except their jobs happen to take place out in the open for all to see. Most of the time, these are the least educated people in our society, making the most money, and catching the biggest breaks. It's sickening. And, as a Christian, raising a new daughter in this world, I’m afraid of where this country / world will be when she reaches adulthood. Hell, I fear for her right now. Worst part is, the vast majority of the population supports these "celebrities" at every turn, funding their stupidity. And don't get me started on celebrities using public forums for projecting their political agendas. I'll save that grind for another day.
»
- Lifesmiter's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I like this.
I hope this is the first in a series. I'm with you here in that Stallworth got off easy, but I can at least offer a possible explanation for lenience on him:
He had a lot of things in his favor: Remorse, family not pressing charges (probably due to a $ settlement, but I can't comment on that), lack of priors, was within 10mph of the speed limit and Reyes essentially jumped out in the street. He gave up a lot in that plea deal, too. Of course, I'm not saying that his profile and financial resources did not factor into the deal. Putting his celebrity aside, this could've happened to anyone. Instead of driving drunk, maybe your headlights are busted and you forgot to fix them. You drive at twilight and nail someone. Should you go to jail for the rest of your life? You did something illegal and killed a man... you'd want a second chance.
Stallworth killed a man by accident, while drunk, and he deserved punishment, but the purpose of the punishment is... what? To teach him a lesson? That's accomplished by the deal he made and everything he's given up, including his football career for the time being. To dissuade others from driving drunk? People who drive drunk are not ignorant of the dangers it poses to themselves and others, so deterrence isn't effective. Retribution? The family doesn't want it. What would society gain from locking him up? To keep him specifically from doing it again? He can't drive for the rest of his life. Rehabilitation? His lack of priors fails to establish him as a hardened criminal in need of rehabilitation.
At the end of the day, Stallworth being locked up does less good for society than him being free. I hope that his 1,000 hours of community service is spent well, using his profile to educate, rather than other celebrities degradation-style community service (schadenfreude is not a good reason for punishment). Telling kids how his drunk driving ruined his football career/life (suspended indefinitely) would be an effective deterrent for any kid with hopes and dreams.
The bike thief... straightforward theft, but I don't know anything about the surrounding circumstances, so I'd be hard-pressed to justify a 3 year sentence. Maybe the value of the bike played into it. It's an intent crime, too. Also, the purchaser's relationship with the thief could weigh on his sentence. Not enough facts in the article...
I disagree with this statement
I know American's with DUI's on their record who still have a few drinks and drive, "It'll be ok." because if they get stopped again it's more an annoyance than anything else to them.
In Sweden if you get pulled over and have 0.02% (which is what....like a couple beers) you could go to jail for 6 months. If you are blind stinking drunk with a 0.10% you could get 2 years in jail and you lose your license....forever. People don't drink and drive there. They're aware of the imprisonment, and just simply don't do it. They have designated drivers, they use public transport, they call cabs....they just don't drink and drive. It's not worth it. Deterrence is effective.....what we have in this country isn't deterrence.
I have a friend who got stopped slobbery drunk got a DUI and was driving again within a week. He still drives drunk on occasion "It'll be fine, I just have to go a few blocks". I think he's a fucking moron but the system isn't deterring him. If we lived with the German laws I doubt he'd do it again.
In Germany if you get caught on a DUI (assuming no property damage or peopel injured) you lose your license for about 6 months (Depending on when your case gets into court. you might wait that long for it to go in front of a judge so no driving that whole time) and then you have to pass what they call 'idiot tests' to prove you are worthy of driving. Hand eye coordination tests, blood tests to prove you haven't drank anything in months (ie to prove you're not an alchoholic in their minds), and meet with a psychologist regularly. Then if you pass all that you get to drive again (if you fail you have to wait 4 months to take the tests again). IF you get stopped again you repeat the process but you lose your license for 2 years.
Deternce doesn't work in this country, becuase our legal system doesn't provide an adequate one. If the punishement for doing it were sufficiently harsh people wouldn't do it. Well, some people would do it, but alot less. What you see in Sweden is similar levels of first time DUI offenders (and they don't normally get jail time), but they know that if they do it again they're going to jail and losing their license forever so there aren't that many 2nd offenders.
I think that if we had harsher laws in this country for DUI offenses, and actually enforced them, you'd see fewer people slugging back tin cans in their trucks. IMHO.
Good Points
Many states are moving in the direction that you are advocating. PA is one of a handful of states that doesn't suspend licenses. My brother got a DUI in Maryland, and he lost his license for 6 months, plus a fine, a court date and community service. He doesn't drive on Friday or Saturday nights at all anymore. If you don't like the current laws, they can be changed. This is happening across this country, but since the Constitution only allows the Federal Government to exercise it's enumerated powers, the states are largely free to do what they want, provided it does not conflict with federal law.
Deterrence for second-time offenders (individual deterrence) is different than deterrence for otherwise law-abiding citizens (societal deterrence). I don't want to sound like a M.A.D.D. spokesperson, but it only takes one time drunk behind the wheel to kill someone or or yourself. How do you deter someone who either 1) thinks they're invincible, 2) is too impaired to make a proper cost/benefit analysis or 3) isn't deterred by the idea that they could die from their actions (what's a little jail time to them)? You can't. Those people will still get behind the wheel. Harsher laws will only deter the segment of the population that the current laws already deter, with regards to a first offense.
I agree that harsh laws will deter second-time offenders, but the place where deterrence is most important is for first-timers. I still stand by my statement that punishment is not effective deterrence. The very fact that these people need to justify their driving (I'll be fine... It's just a few blocks) is evidence that 1) they know that they are impaired and 2) they are aware of the potential dangers of getting behind the wheel. Harsh punishments for first-time offenders place an enormous burden on the state if imprisonment is the sought-after solution. Would you advocate mandatory minimum sentences for drunk drivers, but not drug dealers? High fines and suspended licenses would probably be the best way to go, but again, these only serve to prevent repeat offenses.
Would you...
In general, yes. If the drug dealer is selling Pot to an adult, and isn't armed, he still goes away for months if not years, and a DUI walks away from it practically.
I'd reverse those. The drug dealer isn't hurting anyone, at least no more so, imho, than any legal bartender. Whereas a DUI is someone who is willfully endangering the lives of other people. I think it should be a mandatory 6 month sentance and a felony charge on your record to drive under the influence. I guarnatee less people would do it if that were the case, and those that do deserve to be locked up.
Some dude selling pot should get far less. A fine maybe. Really i think it should be legal, but it shouldn't lead to time. he's not risking the lives of my children. The guy driving drunk IS risking their lives (or other peoples).
ok...
I'm not going to argue with you on the legalization of marijuana, which I support. I agree with most of the thing you're saying about pot, actually. I'd like to draw a distinction between your friendly neighborhood pot dealer and the corner kid selling rocks with a gun in his shorts, though. The competitive drug trade is much different than the harmless pot dealer you're talking about. Your drug dealer isn't hurting anyone, but that's a biased sample at best. Some pot dealers carry, too.
I will never defend mandatory minimum sentences either, for drug crimes or DUIs. Formulaic sentencing that fails to consider attendant circumstances results in injustice, and a massive and unjustifiable burden on taxpayers. In the case of drug dealers, they only affect the street-level drug trade, putting a large number of people into jail without actually affecting the trade as a whole. With DUIs, the attendant circumstances would fall by the wayside. I can imagine a dozen hypotheticals where someone has no option but to drive drunk, and they would be facing felony charges. With dealers, I cannot imagine a single instance where someone's only option is to sell drugs. That's part of how the government justified them in the first place.
As for the bartender, most states have something called Dram Shop liability, where a victim of a drunk driver can hold the bar liable if they served a noticeably intoxicated customer who then causes an accident. Legal bartenders have a responsibility to their customers, too. Some states (very few) extend this liability to social hosts as well.
The Solution: ???
Deterrence would be more affective if instead of insuring the punishment is harsher, the probability of detection was greater... people just think they won't get caught.
Maybe I wasn't quite clear
Maybe I wasn't quite clear enough. I knew all the circumstances surrounding the Stallworth case, and if the jiudge / jury says his punishment is sufficient, then I side with the judicial system. I don't wish prison for either of them. I don't believe either of them are a constant threat to society. However, I do believe that the punishment for the thief and purchaser, given the details of the article, are a little steep. I think Stallworth will suffer moderately for his crime, and I don't wish suffering upon anyone, but he will be reinstated into the NFL 2 season from now and will go on about his life with great wealth and probably little guilt for the little people along the way. All while a petty thief serves 3 years in prison, wasting our tax dollars, for stealing a bike. You're absolutely right, I would want a second chance too. But I also understand the consequences of my actions. That's why I don't drink and drive. I have too much to lose. My parents use to say, "you should of thought about that before you..." I hated that phrase growing up, but it was so true, and I live my life by it.
And, yes, I intend to continue this. No definitive schedule or length. When I feel a rant coming on, I'll blog for all to enjoy, partake, disagree, whatever. It'll be fun.
- Smiter of Life
The bike thing is out there...
If this person was a habitual thief, or was contracted by the recipient, then a larger punishment is justified. It wasn't as if he picked the lock on the bike outside Armstrong's house. He broke in and stole it (burglary = breaking & entering + intent to commit a felony). That alone justifies punishment on the several of the factors I listed for Stallworth. It was a planned crime and a crime of intent, not a petty theft. I'm not equating killing with bike theft, but only trying to look a little deeper into the situation. It's really more like art theft than bike theft because of the value of the object, too. Of course (in my personal opinion), a life is most valuable
In reality, I'm not happy with Stallworth's punishment. I was playing devil's advocate a bit. He killed a man through his actions. He likely got a sweetheart deal because of his status. He's had substance abuse issues in the past, and he clearly didn't learn his lesson from the NFL's program. On the other hand, I'm willing to take his remorse at face value. If he ever relapses (Like Leon Little), I'd hope someone drops the hammer on him.
I like to argue, so just know that I'm never coming after you personally, nor would I hold your personal belief against you (I hope for the same). For what it's worth, I think your outlook on the situation is probably the healthiest in that if you don't do bad things, you won't be punished for them.
Then we have something in common.
I like to argue as well. In fact, I think one of the greater misconceptions of me in this guild is that many see my tendancy to debate as "trouble making". I think that presenting a series of points of view, whether they're yours or not, leads to a better course of action in the end.
If I remember correctly, you are either studying law, or are already in law. In that case, you better love to argue. And be easy on me; I'm an amateur.
- Smiter of Life
Ish is the lawyer
I'm just a lowly law student. I get to play prosecutor on Tuesdays and Thursdays, though, so I'm especially riled up on those days.
I don't like my tax money being wasted
We have more people in prison in this country per capita than any other country in the world. More than China, Iran, Russia....anywhere. More than half of them are non-violent drug offenders (ie Marijuana possession for the most part). In some states, like Maryland that number is over 70%.
State prisons (not Federal) spend over 6 billion dollars annually holding non-violent drug offenders.
I think pot should be legal, but barring that I don't think people should be in prison for possession.
Or you could end up like some states
Where it's legal for medical use under state law, but is still illegal to use under federal law because the system is AWESOME.