Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.  (Read 4713 times)

aerynn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Wait, what?
    • View Profile
    • http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn
    • Email
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2006, 09:29:56 AM »
I've just spent a LOT more time studying civil tort law than criminal.  In the civil system, the damanged caused by the tort is of paramount importance.  It seems like this would be a good concept to move into criminal law as well.

Drunk driving is taken very seriously in the US.  I completely disagree with you on that point.
Here's how it went for me for Fall 2006 admission:
168/3.67
In: Emory($$), UGA ($), W&M ($$), GW($)
Waitlisted:American(W), UVA (W)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn

SCgrad

  • Guest
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2006, 09:49:49 AM »
I've just spent a LOT more time studying civil tort law than criminal.  In the civil system, the damanged caused by the tort is of paramount importance.  It seems like this would be a good concept to move into criminal law as well.

Drunk driving is taken very seriously in the US.  I completely disagree with you on that point.

But that goes against your concept of rehabilitation.  You are looking at what they did rather than how to make them a productive member of society.  Again, I have to ask where your argument is coming from?  What is the fundamental difference between a raging drunk who gets pulled over by the police or drives his car into a ditch and one that kills a vanload of children?  They both got drunk.  Neither one meant to hurt anyone.  Both were careless.  One benefits from circumstance and probably gets a night in jail while the other rots for 1o years if he's lucky.  Why did this happen?  One got lucky.  Why are the seperate punishments applied?  "Pound of flesh."

And drunk driving is NOT taken seriously in America.  I'll leave it at that.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2006, 10:05:54 AM »
I've just spent a LOT more time studying civil tort law than criminal.  In the civil system, the damanged caused by the tort is of paramount importance.  It seems like this would be a good concept to move into criminal law as well.

Drunk driving is taken very seriously in the US.  I completely disagree with you on that point.

But that goes against your concept of rehabilitation.  You are looking at what they did rather than how to make them a productive member of society.  Again, I have to ask where your argument is coming from?  What is the fundamental difference between a raging drunk who gets pulled over by the police or drives his car into a ditch and one that kills a vanload of children?  They both got drunk.  Neither one meant to hurt anyone.  Both were careless.  One benefits from circumstance and probably gets a night in jail while the other rots for 1o years if he's lucky.  Why did this happen?  One got lucky.  Why are the seperate punishments applied?  "Pound of flesh."

And drunk driving is NOT taken seriously in America.  I'll leave it at that.


Again, just dipping my toes in this discussion:

I think one could argue that acknowledgement and remediation of the harm one has caused is an element both of rehabilitation and of justice.  It's not always possible.  It might be interesting to look at some stuff about restorative justice.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

aerynn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Wait, what?
    • View Profile
    • http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn
    • Email
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2006, 02:53:24 PM »
I've just spent a LOT more time studying civil tort law than criminal.  In the civil system, the damanged caused by the tort is of paramount importance.  It seems like this would be a good concept to move into criminal law as well.

Drunk driving is taken very seriously in the US.  I completely disagree with you on that point.

But that goes against your concept of rehabilitation.  You are looking at what they did rather than how to make them a productive member of society.  Again, I have to ask where your argument is coming from?  What is the fundamental difference between a raging drunk who gets pulled over by the police or drives his car into a ditch and one that kills a vanload of children?  They both got drunk.  Neither one meant to hurt anyone.  Both were careless.  One benefits from circumstance and probably gets a night in jail while the other rots for 1o years if he's lucky.  Why did this happen?  One got lucky.  Why are the seperate punishments applied?  "Pound of flesh."

And drunk driving is NOT taken seriously in America.  I'll leave it at that.


Because drunk driving isn't inherently immoral.  What makes drunk driving wrong and something that should be punished is because of the danger it poses to others on the road and it is particularly avoidable.

However, the way drunk driving is enforced is particular poor and the laws are flawed as well, in my opinion.  A set blood alcohol level isn't enough to determine anything about anyone's impairment.  Habitual drinkers, for example, are far less impaired at a particular BAC than someone who never drinks.  The standard should be degree of impairment, not BAC.

What is a good measure of the degree of impairment?  The hard and fast data about what happened behind the wheel.  Did the person run into a tree?  Did they kill someone?  Or were they pulled over by a police officer for going the speed limit and then given a breathalyzer that showed alcohol in their system? 

I've been pulled over twice just for driving after 10 pm and obeying the speed limit.  Each time the office cited my observance of the law as justification for the stop . . .I looked like someone trying to not get pulled over.  Fortunately, I am just a careful driver and not a drinker.  My ability to pass the Bar in 3 years could have been impeded by having one drink with dinner then driving carefully and safely home, regardless of my degree of impairment.  This is pretty unjust, in my opinion.

Cell phone usage has been shown to severely impaire drivers as well.  Yet talking on a cell phone while driving is not even against the law in many states.  Why the standard against alcohol?  MADD and our Puritanical views on booze.

Do more research on the topic, deliberately looking for arguments against the way drunk driving is treated in this country.

Also, I think you are looking really narrowly at crime.  You want to handle child molestation to the strongest degree possible, but something in the system has to give.  If you make child molestation your focus, then rapists go free.  If you make drunk driving your focus, heroine dealers go free.  If you make drugs your focus, wife beaters go free.  The justice system, sadly, has a limit.  I have decided for myself that I would rather we try to get the unrehabilitatable violent criminals in jail for the longest time possible and find other solutions for as many of the other crimes as possible.  You may have a different set of priorities, but I find it frustrating to try and discuss it with someone who doesn't acknowledge that our system has limits.
Here's how it went for me for Fall 2006 admission:
168/3.67
In: Emory($$), UGA ($), W&M ($$), GW($)
Waitlisted:American(W), UVA (W)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn

aerynn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Wait, what?
    • View Profile
    • http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn
    • Email
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2006, 02:55:58 PM »
I've just spent a LOT more time studying civil tort law than criminal.  In the civil system, the damanged caused by the tort is of paramount importance.  It seems like this would be a good concept to move into criminal law as well.

Drunk driving is taken very seriously in the US.  I completely disagree with you on that point.

But that goes against your concept of rehabilitation.  You are looking at what they did rather than how to make them a productive member of society.  Again, I have to ask where your argument is coming from?  What is the fundamental difference between a raging drunk who gets pulled over by the police or drives his car into a ditch and one that kills a vanload of children?  They both got drunk.  Neither one meant to hurt anyone.  Both were careless.  One benefits from circumstance and probably gets a night in jail while the other rots for 1o years if he's lucky.  Why did this happen?  One got lucky.  Why are the seperate punishments applied?  "Pound of flesh."

And drunk driving is NOT taken seriously in America.  I'll leave it at that.


Again, just dipping my toes in this discussion:

I think one could argue that acknowledgement and remediation of the harm one has caused is an element both of rehabilitation and of justice.  It's not always possible.  It might be interesting to look at some stuff about restorative justice.

This is spot on, I think.  I would love to see more about restorative justice as well. 
Here's how it went for me for Fall 2006 admission:
168/3.67
In: Emory($$), UGA ($), W&M ($$), GW($)
Waitlisted:American(W), UVA (W)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn

aerynn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Wait, what?
    • View Profile
    • http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn
    • Email
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2006, 03:01:13 PM »
http://www.restorativejustice.org/intro/tutorial/outcomes/restitution

Fewer prisonors, more effort to restore victims, more effort to rehabilitate offenders, less recidivisim . . . but it is difficult and not as easy as locking them up and letting them serve time.
Here's how it went for me for Fall 2006 admission:
168/3.67
In: Emory($$), UGA ($), W&M ($$), GW($)
Waitlisted:American(W), UVA (W)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2006, 05:35:37 PM »
http://www.restorativejustice.org/intro/tutorial/outcomes/restitution

Fewer prisonors, more effort to restore victims, more effort to rehabilitate offenders, less recidivisim . . . but it is difficult and not as easy as locking them up and letting them serve time.

I know!  It sounds like such a good idea, though.  A lot of Indian (Native American) Law is restorative in approach, and I think it might be cool to work in a tribal court some day.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

SCgrad

  • Guest
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2006, 09:26:16 PM »
I've just spent a LOT more time studying civil tort law than criminal.  In the civil system, the damanged caused by the tort is of paramount importance.  It seems like this would be a good concept to move into criminal law as well.

Drunk driving is taken very seriously in the US.  I completely disagree with you on that point.

But that goes against your concept of rehabilitation.  You are looking at what they did rather than how to make them a productive member of society.  Again, I have to ask where your argument is coming from?  What is the fundamental difference between a raging drunk who gets pulled over by the police or drives his car into a ditch and one that kills a vanload of children?  They both got drunk.  Neither one meant to hurt anyone.  Both were careless.  One benefits from circumstance and probably gets a night in jail while the other rots for 1o years if he's lucky.  Why did this happen?  One got lucky.  Why are the seperate punishments applied?  "Pound of flesh."

And drunk driving is NOT taken seriously in America.  I'll leave it at that.


Because drunk driving isn't inherently immoral.  What makes drunk driving wrong and something that should be punished is because of the danger it poses to others on the road and it is particularly avoidable.

However, the way drunk driving is enforced is particular poor and the laws are flawed as well, in my opinion.  A set blood alcohol level isn't enough to determine anything about anyone's impairment.  Habitual drinkers, for example, are far less impaired at a particular BAC than someone who never drinks.  The standard should be degree of impairment, not BAC.

What is a good measure of the degree of impairment?  The hard and fast data about what happened behind the wheel.  Did the person run into a tree?  Did they kill someone?  Or were they pulled over by a police officer for going the speed limit and then given a breathalyzer that showed alcohol in their system? 

I've been pulled over twice just for driving after 10 pm and obeying the speed limit.  Each time the office cited my observance of the law as justification for the stop . . .I looked like someone trying to not get pulled over.  Fortunately, I am just a careful driver and not a drinker.  My ability to pass the Bar in 3 years could have been impeded by having one drink with dinner then driving carefully and safely home, regardless of my degree of impairment.  This is pretty unjust, in my opinion.

Cell phone usage has been shown to severely impaire drivers as well.  Yet talking on a cell phone while driving is not even against the law in many states.  Why the standard against alcohol?  MADD and our Puritanical views on booze.

Do more research on the topic, deliberately looking for arguments against the way drunk driving is treated in this country.

Also, I think you are looking really narrowly at crime.  You want to handle child molestation to the strongest degree possible, but something in the system has to give.  If you make child molestation your focus, then rapists go free.  If you make drunk driving your focus, heroine dealers go free.  If you make drugs your focus, wife beaters go free.  The justice system, sadly, has a limit.  I have decided for myself that I would rather we try to get the unrehabilitatable violent criminals in jail for the longest time possible and find other solutions for as many of the other crimes as possible.  You may have a different set of priorities, but I find it frustrating to try and discuss it with someone who doesn't acknowledge that our system has limits.

1.  Putting other peoples' lives in danger isn't immoral?  Well, I guess your morals and mine are different.

2.  So "the way drunk driving is enforces is particularly poor," but "drunk driving is taken very seriously in this country."   This would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous.

3.  That's terrible and is unjust, I agree.

4.  It should be.  It is generally just as distracting as the impairments of alcohol.

5.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  There should be a tougher standard for drinking and driving.  DD is something that is illegal in virtually every country, are they all "Puritanical"?

6.  I want to do what?  Quit making *&^% up.  I never said that.  Do I want child molesters to go free when judges would rather lock them up? No.  But I never said anything to this effect, therefore this and all the examples after it are just rhetoric. 

7.  Are system has limits.  I find it frustrating to argue with someone who continually puts words in my mouth.


As for drunk driving, I don't understand the bulk of your arguments.  I was the one who said it was effed up in America, and now you are telling me to do more research on it?  Are you drunk?  If you think it is taken so seriously, perhaps you need to do more research.

I actually like the system in place in Japan.  Drinking and driving at all is a crime.  Sure, this is inconvenient, but it is a known fact that any amount of alcohol in your system is an impairment.  This crime is punished similarly to how we punish those who are "drunk".  Now if you are actually "drunk", they throw your ass in jail for a long time.  I don't see why something that is so dangerous and actually kills so many people is not treated more seriously.  You may say that our prisons would be filled with DUIers, but I would guess a huge number of people would think twice if 60 days in jail was the consequence. 

As for the BAC test vs. a road sobriety test, I think you are reverting back to the land of Oz.  There are so many reasons to use this I can't believe you couldn't think of one.  What works better in court?  BAC.  What eliminates (or more so) the prejudices of police? BAC.  And if are in touch with the real world, surely you know that well over 90% of DDers are habitual drinkers.  Alcoholism has a direct effect on one's likelihood of doing this. 

I suggest you take your own advice and do a little research on this subject yourself. 

aerynn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1188
  • Wait, what?
    • View Profile
    • http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn
    • Email
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #58 on: June 10, 2006, 12:38:23 AM »

1.  Putting other peoples' lives in danger isn't immoral?  Well, I guess your morals and mine are different.

See where I said that it is the damage being done by DD that makes it immoral?  If no one was ever hurt by DD, it wouldn't be immoral.  DD is only immoral because is can cause property damage and injury/death.  Criminalizing driving while having alcohol in your system has a lot of benefits, since people who are impared are in no position to evaluate their performance.  BUT from a legal standpoint, only those DD who cause damage, death and/or injury are a problem.  Why not only punish those people?  DD is one of the few areas of the law where you can charge someone with criminal behavior and put them in jail because something bad COULD have happened. I'd like to learn more about how the law handles negligence before going further with this idea, but does anyone have any idea of how the law would deal with a negligent condition that did not cause damage/injury?

Quote
2.  So "the way drunk driving is enforces is particularly poor," but "drunk driving is taken very seriously in this country."   This would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous.

I think the method of DD enforcement is poor NOT because it isn't taken seriously enough.  I think it is poor because the police can and do pull people over and charge them with DD based on a breathalyzer test, even if there is no observed impairment to driving ability.

Quote
3.  That's terrible and is unjust, I agree.

4.  It should be.  It is generally just as distracting as the impairments of alcohol.

What punishments should be implimented for those driving while talking on the cell phone without using a hands-free system?  Should they be as strict as it is for those who drive drunk?  Do you sentence based on the damaged caused by the negligent behavior, regardless if the negligence is caused by alcohol or a cell phone?  Criminalize them both and throw them all in jail?  What is your solution to this inequity?

Quote
5.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  There should be a tougher standard for drinking and driving.  DD is something that is illegal in virtually every country, are they all "Puritanical"?

Tougher than what?  Than it is now?  What is the standard where you are, so we have a frame of reference for which laws you are suggesting need to be made tougher?

Quote
6.  I want to do what?  Quit making sh*t up.  I never said that.  Do I want child molesters to go free when judges would rather lock them up? No.  But I never said anything to this effect, therefore this and all the examples after it are just rhetoric.

7.  Are system has limits.  I find it frustrating to argue with someone who continually puts words in my mouth.

Whenever I try to point out that there are limits, you come back with personal attacks suggesting that I don't care about stopping crime, or that if only I were more willing to pay taxes we could fix the system (such as by having special prisons or sections of prisons for specific crimes such as child molesting).

Quote
As for drunk driving, I don't understand the bulk of your arguments.  I was the one who said it was effed up in America, and now you are telling me to do more research on it?  Are you drunk?  If you think it is taken so seriously, perhaps you need to do more research.

You said it was "effed up" because it is not taken seriously enough.  I am suggesting that while it is "effed up" it is not "effed up" because it is not taken seriously enough.  You haven't supplied any data for your position that it isn't taken very seriously or even articulated why you believe that to be true. 

Quote
As for the BAC test vs. a road sobriety test, I think you are reverting back to the land of Oz.  There are so many reasons to use this I can't believe you couldn't think of one.  What works better in court?  BAC.  What eliminates (or more so) the prejudices of police? BAC.  And if are in touch with the real world, surely you know that well over 90% of DDers are habitual drinkers.  Alcoholism has a direct effect on one's likelihood of doing this. 

BAC does work great for getting convictions.  If the goal is to increase the rate of conviction for DD, then yes, BAC is super.  But for a fair and just application of the law, I am not so sure.  The way the BAC is applied, the flaws in the methodology, the fact that it appears to be an objective, scientific measure yet doesn't reflect AT ALL the degree to which the offender was posing a risk to the community are all major flaws. 

I'm not sure where you are going with the alcoholism thing.  If anything, the fact that habitual drinkers are not deterred by strong enforcement of DD laws should suggest that finding options like public service campaigns informing people of the dangers of DD, reducing alcoholicsm, shifting the focus on DD convictions from prison time and crippling criminal punishments that can only exaserbate the problems leading to the drinking and the drunk driving to treatments and rehab.

Look, I am not a drinker myself.  I hate drunk driving because of the damage it causes.  I also hate people who drive recklessly because they are trying to impress their girlfriend, because they are drag racing for sport, because they are talking on the cell phone, because they are too ignorant to buckle their child into a safety seat in the back, etc. etc.  I think focusing on pulling over people who drive slowly and carefully so you can get a DD conviction is not as productive as punishing people who are actually causing traffic accidents, regardless of the root cause.  I think the criminal justice system as it exists today is particularly poor in the way it deals with the problems stemming from drug and alcohol abuse and untreated mental illness.  I think crimes stemming from those 3 causes can be very effectively dealt with via rehabilitative programs, creative approaches to treatment, causing the offender to have a direct connection to the damage they caused and participation in a process to make it right in some way . . .even if it is through community service projects.  After those efforts fail, then traditional "lock 'em up and throw away the key" approaches may be more appropriate.  (Which is why I don't have such a problem with the guy in the article being put in prison for violating probation.  He had a chance to rehab and treatment.  If that fails, then a traditional approach is appropriate, because he has wasted his second chance.)

When somone says that a paricular drug, alcohol or mental illness related crime isn't being taken seriously enough, it send up red flags.  Should there be stricter criminal punishments?  Or can "taking it seriously" be addressed by ending the crimal enforcement and starting constructive, rather than destructive, programs to address these problems?
Here's how it went for me for Fall 2006 admission:
168/3.67
In: Emory($$), UGA ($), W&M ($$), GW($)
Waitlisted:American(W), UVA (W)
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=aerynn

Little D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3849
  • WOOOOOO PIG SOOIE
    • View Profile
    • My Blog (I'm strictly liable)
Re: You have got to be f-ing kidding me.
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2006, 12:49:01 AM »

1.  Putting other peoples' lives in danger isn't immoral?  Well, I guess your morals and mine are different.

See where I said that it is the damage being done by DD that makes it immoral?  If no one was ever hurt by DD, it wouldn't be immoral.  DD is only immoral because is can cause property damage and injury/death.  Criminalizing driving while having alcohol in your system has a lot of benefits, since people who are impared are in no position to evaluate their performance.  BUT from a legal standpoint, only those DD who cause damage, death and/or injury are a problem.  Why not only punish those people?  DD is one of the few areas of the law where you can charge someone with criminal behavior and put them in jail because something bad COULD have happened. I'd like to learn more about how the law handles negligence before going further with this idea, but does anyone have any idea of how the law would deal with a negligent condition that did not cause damage/injury?

Quote
2.  So "the way drunk driving is enforces is particularly poor," but "drunk driving is taken very seriously in this country."   This would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous.

I think the method of DD enforcement is poor NOT because it isn't taken seriously enough.  I think it is poor because the police can and do pull people over and charge them with DD based on a breathalyzer test, even if there is no observed impairment to driving ability.

Quote
3.  That's terrible and is unjust, I agree.

4.  It should be.  It is generally just as distracting as the impairments of alcohol.

What punishments should be implimented for those driving while talking on the cell phone without using a hands-free system?  Should they be as strict as it is for those who drive drunk?  Do you sentence based on the damaged caused by the negligent behavior, regardless if the negligence is caused by alcohol or a cell phone?  Criminalize them both and throw them all in jail?  What is your solution to this inequity?

Quote
5.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  There should be a tougher standard for drinking and driving.  DD is something that is illegal in virtually every country, are they all "Puritanical"?

Tougher than what?  Than it is now?  What is the standard where you are, so we have a frame of reference for which laws you are suggesting need to be made tougher?

Quote
6.  I want to do what?  Quit making sh*t up.  I never said that.  Do I want child molesters to go free when judges would rather lock them up? No.  But I never said anything to this effect, therefore this and all the examples after it are just rhetoric.

7.  Are system has limits.  I find it frustrating to argue with someone who continually puts words in my mouth.

Whenever I try to point out that there are limits, you come back with personal attacks suggesting that I don't care about stopping crime, or that if only I were more willing to pay taxes we could fix the system (such as by having special prisons or sections of prisons for specific crimes such as child molesting).

Quote
As for drunk driving, I don't understand the bulk of your arguments.  I was the one who said it was effed up in America, and now you are telling me to do more research on it?  Are you drunk?  If you think it is taken so seriously, perhaps you need to do more research.

You said it was "effed up" because it is not taken seriously enough.  I am suggesting that while it is "effed up" it is not "effed up" because it is not taken seriously enough.  You haven't supplied any data for your position that it isn't taken very seriously or even articulated why you believe that to be true. 

Quote
As for the BAC test vs. a road sobriety test, I think you are reverting back to the land of Oz.  There are so many reasons to use this I can't believe you couldn't think of one.  What works better in court?  BAC.  What eliminates (or more so) the prejudices of police? BAC.  And if are in touch with the real world, surely you know that well over 90% of DDers are habitual drinkers.  Alcoholism has a direct effect on one's likelihood of doing this. 

BAC does work great for getting convictions.  If the goal is to increase the rate of conviction for DD, then yes, BAC is super.  But for a fair and just application of the law, I am not so sure.  The way the BAC is applied, the flaws in the methodology, the fact that it appears to be an objective, scientific measure yet doesn't reflect AT ALL the degree to which the offender was posing a risk to the community are all major flaws. 

I'm not sure where you are going with the alcoholism thing.  If anything, the fact that habitual drinkers are not deterred by strong enforcement of DD laws should suggest that finding options like public service campaigns informing people of the dangers of DD, reducing alcoholicsm, shifting the focus on DD convictions from prison time and crippling criminal punishments that can only exaserbate the problems leading to the drinking and the drunk driving to treatments and rehab.

Look, I am not a drinker myself.  I hate drunk driving because of the damage it causes.  I also hate people who drive recklessly because they are trying to impress their girlfriend, because they are drag racing for sport, because they are talking on the cell phone, because they are too ignorant to buckle their child into a safety seat in the back, etc. etc.  I think focusing on pulling over people who drive slowly and carefully so you can get a DD conviction is not as productive as punishing people who are actually causing traffic accidents, regardless of the root cause.  I think the criminal justice system as it exists today is particularly poor in the way it deals with the problems stemming from drug and alcohol abuse and untreated mental illness.  I think crimes stemming from those 3 causes can be very effectively dealt with via rehabilitative programs, creative approaches to treatment, causing the offender to have a direct connection to the damage they caused and participation in a process to make it right in some way . . .even if it is through community service projects.  After those efforts fail, then traditional "lock 'em up and throw away the key" approaches may be more appropriate.  (Which is why I don't have such a problem with the guy in the article being put in prison for violating probation.  He had a chance to rehab and treatment.  If that fails, then a traditional approach is appropriate, because he has wasted his second chance.)

When somone says that a paricular drug, alcohol or mental illness related crime isn't being taken seriously enough, it send up red flags.  Should there be stricter criminal punishments?  Or can "taking it seriously" be addressed by ending the crimal enforcement and starting constructive, rather than destructive, programs to address these problems?

wow...just wow...you're kinda wrong though...we punish people all the time for what could have happened, assault (attempted battery), attempted murder, reckless endangerment of a child (the child may or may not have been injured)
They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."

Do it now!!!!
http://www.defconamerica.org/