Comments on: Vote! Yes on Prop 5

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Mon, 16 May 2011 03:30:57 +0000

Just wanted to say to those of you who think not being incarcerated for vehicular manslaughter means they got away with something, are so wrong. Because you do serve a life sentence of misery just living with it. The scars and the pain run deeper then you can ever imagine and it never ends. The sorrow, shame, guilt and fear keep one bogged down for the rest of their lives. I wouldn’t wish that on my worth enemy. I believe it would serve a far greater purpose if the offender goes to schools and speaks to the students. They are at that age and will be making those decisions soon. The students do listen intently, most with tear filled eyes. The more students that hear that message the better the chances our up and coming, will not make that decision to drink and drive. And there will be a brighter future.

By: Siel

Siel — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:41:15 +0000

Just wanted to clarify that I’m not saying drunk drivers who hit & kill people shouldn’t go to jail (double negative!). The gravity of taking someone’s life — even if accidentally — seems to merit grave punishment. I’m simply questioning the ability of jails to “cure” alcoholism — and am thinking out loud (or in type) about the fact that the same behavior / decisions (driving drunk) can legally result in such different consequences (some never getting into trouble, others just getting pulled over and getting their license temporarily revoked, etc., others going to jail b/c they hit someone — which either of the former groups could’ve easily done too, had they been less lucky)…. I suppose the seeming unfairness of that is life –

We should author Prop 13: The complete streets act :)

By: Gary Kavanagh

Gary Kavanagh — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:57:44 +0000

I understand where you are coming from, and it’s for this reason I’m kind of skeptical of MADD. I personally think things like running the upcoming red line extension of hours till 3AM will do a lot more to reduce drunk driving than hackable breath test interlock system for cars.

However I still feel drunk driving should be treated very seriously since it goes beyond personal choice to put them self at risk, but is making a personal choice to threaten others. Even if a person has an addiction, that doesn’t mean they can’t find a designated driver, take a bus, or call a cab. Even if this making a point doesn’t curb their drinking, it may curb their choice to add driving to the mix.

I’m also opposed to what I see as an inequality of justice. A justice system that says killing people is bad, but if you’re going to do it, use a car, that’s much better and we will go soft on you.

That being said, I think ultimately the most effective solution to road fatalities is reforms to our entire traffic system. No amount of severe punishment is going to stamp out road fatalities if we continue to design unsafe roads, drive unsafe vehicles (like SUV’s versus pedestrians) and build automobile dependence into our cities. This also means looking much further than drunk driving, since that is only one component of a failed system. If we eliminated all drunk driving tomorrow, we would still have grossly unacceptable levels of preventable deaths on our roads.

By: Siel

Siel — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:28:59 +0000

I had thought maybe judges had leeway on interpreting what constituted a “serious” crime — that possibly being the highly unlikely scenario being touted by the No on 5 people. I find it frustrating that it’s still difficult to decipher some of these nitty gritties despite a lot of reading on the issues, and am annoyed that the Yes on Prop 5 haven’t provided more details about this accusation on their website.

In any case, I think we do differ fundamentally on our view of what will actually deter drunk driving. So many studies on drug addiction have shown that this “making a point to everyone else that serious acts will receive serious consequences” doesn’t actually work to deter drug usage / drug-related crimes. Drug addicts, in general, aren’t thinking rationally about the possible consequences of their actions. I feel like this “teach a lesson” thing’s one of the reasons the “tough on crime” people use in order to get votes / political popularity via fear mongering — thus wasting our tax dollars without actually making us any more safe.

But I’m glad we’re both voting yes on 5 –

By: Gary Kavanagh

Gary Kavanagh — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:34:25 +0000

Digging into this a little further, getting some other opinions, including some actual reading from the real text, it looks like this vehicular manslaughter claim is an outright lie. It’s an effective tactic, since I’m sure anyone much like my self with a strong investment of interest in vehicle crimes was immediately alarmed to hear such a thing. Now that I’ve sorted this out I am back to the leaning toward yes corner.

Here is the text concerning the conditions for deferring judgment, and anyone who commits a serious or violent crime in addition to their drug conviction is not eligible, nor are they eligible if convicted for a serious or violent crime in the past 5 years:

1210.03 Track I. Treatment Diversion with Deferred Entry of Judgment.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, drug treatment shall be provided to eligible defendants. A defendant is eligible for the disposition options, sanctions and treatment programs of Track I diversion if:

(1) The defendant is charged with one or more nonviolent drug possession offenses.

(2) The defendant has never been convicted of an offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony.

(3) The defendant has no prior conviction for any felony, other than a single nonviolent drug possession offense, within five years prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense.

(4) The defendant is not charged with any other offense that is not a nonviolent drug possession offense.

(b) A defendant who is not eligible solely because of a concurrent charge