A recent reports of accidents involving texting while driving got me to thinking. What should we do? My solution is to have a mandatory 20-year prison sentence for anyone causing a serious accident while distracted......by anything. That would be separate and not revocable and, any manslaughter charges or civil lawsuits etc. would be added on to the sentence.
Mandatory sentences are great if your goal is strictly punishment, but if your goal is to deter people from texting and driving, then really all you're going to accomplish is the sending of a lot of non-violent people to jail in a nation that already has the highest per capita incarceration rate, not to mention the cost of putting someone in jail for 20 years. First, there is the cost for the jail, guards, food ect. But then there is the cost of incarcerating a (potentially) productive member of society who will get out and most of whom, after 20+ years will be a burden to that same society. Then there are situations where mothers and fathers sent to jail will tear families apart so you can feel good about irresponsible people being punished for texting while driving and causing an accident (regardless of the result, intention etc). To put that into perspective, there is a Mayoral Candidate running for mayor in Detroit, whose name slips my mind, who, while arguing with someone (many years ago) shot at them and missed by 2 feet and got 1 year of probation, but you want 20 year minimums for people who text and drive and get in an accident? So yeah, texting and driving is dangerous and I'm in favor of punishment and more importantly rehabilitation of people who do it, but 20 years? Yeah, that's just stupid and will do more harm to society than good.
Not 3 hours ago, while returning from Milwaukee, I was driving down the interstate, when this AssHat in a BMW goes flying by me like I'm parked, just happily texting away. Count me in man.
I never said 20 years for texting and driving I said for anyone who causes an accident while texting.
Yes, I mention that in my response, "so you can feel good about irresponsible people being punished for texting while driving and causing an accident (regardless of the result, intention etc)." Everything I said stands. There are lots of other things that distract drivers, food, make-up, talking to others, playing with the stereo, but you want to punish one aspect more than all others and punish to a much greater degree than other crimes with greater impact on peoples lives. My neighbor was helping a frightened woman who was looking for help from an abusive husband. The Husband smashed my neighbors face in with a brick and now lives -60 IQ points for the rest of his life. The man that hit him with that brick served 3 years. Now you may agree that man should have served more, but in context you want people to serve a minimum 20 years, not for harming someone (though that may or may not be the case), you want them to serve 20 years for "who causes an accident while texting." Even drunk drivers who KILL people rarely serve 20 years, but you want people who get into a fender bender while texting gets 20 years minimum? That's just dumb. I'm all for punishment, but the punishment should fit the crime. Clearly, 20 years for texting does not fit the bill.
No that wasn't my intention....I don't agree with that at all. Sentencing would depend on the seriousness of the accident (death, maiming, etc.) which have their own current punishments....but I would add to sentencing for texting while getting in an accident. My bad, I wasn't clear.
Ok, well, that's good to know. But don't we already have laws about negligence? I mean, judging from your posts you are somewhere on the right. I don't like to generalize people on the political spectrum, but isn't the right always complaining that there are too many laws already? What do you say to those who want more gun laws? Here is my point, one you never addressed. What is it that a mandatory 20-year sentence is supposed to accomplish? Are the 20 years a deterrent? Is it supposed to make people think twice? Or is it strictly punishment?
I think it would be more effective to fine them for years instead of putting them in jail. Fine them huge amounts of money and garnish their wages, but as always, I caution that anyone accused of doing it should receive an appropriate level of due process. We wouldn't want it used as a fund raising program.
Except it's proven that huge mandatory sentences aren't effective deterrents, thus a law like that wouldn't accomplish the stated goal.
Again, harsh sentences don't accomplish the stated goal. Not to mention the fact that if the offender is a parent, you've now punished an entire family. Then there is the fact that huge fines hurt the poor more than they do the wealthy, and let's be honest, it will be abused somewhere.... Is texting and driving worse than drinking and driving? Why harsher penalties for texters?
I'm for very stiff sentences for drinking and driving as well. Let's raise them both. Clearly when the mean average across all states is 30% for repeat offenders, and only about 1% of drunk drivers get caught, clearly something harsher is needed. Time for personal responsibility with no excuses. In the case of a teen drinking and driving or texting and driving, clearly the parents aren't doing their jobs and should be held responsible. I say this as the parent of two kids, one whom is a young adult. Fine. Let's make it fair. Take 50% of their net worth in each instance. Second offense take 75% and garnish their paycheck. If they don't have jobs, take away their welfare and/or jail them for long sentences. Why should society have to suffer dangerous fools that breed more dangerous fools.
What question...The last thing you said to me was a statement.... "It is a deterrent. Next time you pick up your phone while driving think about it."
I investigated automobile accidents for 27 years. Unfortunately you wouldn't be able to build the prisons fast enough to keep up with the occupants.
Funny anecdote: I had a friend who was pulled over for using cell phone while driving. He steadfastly insisted he was not talking on the phone. He was driving, with his head resting on the palm of his hand. Told the officer he was free to look at his cell phone to verify. Officer refused. Went to court, and was not allowed to use his cell phone or phone records.
While I want to make it clear that I'm all for harsh punishments for crime, especially crimes that hurt other people, I have been trying to point a few things. First, that the punishments you're suggesting are much harsher than crimes I hope you would agree are much worse (rape, attempted murder, and battery, an even battery that leaves a victim with a permanent injury). Today I am a technical engineer, but I spent my early 20 somethings going to school to be a police officer and perhaps moving on into another area of law. After 9 months in the field (I did ride-a-longs with the city police) I had to admit wasn't something I wanted to do with the rest of my life, however, I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. I know the the kinds of challenges the police face out in the first and I also have seen first hand real, good, cops, but I've also seen some bad ones too....But I digress, I'm giving you my resume....My apologies. Intent is a big part when handing down a sentence. Text'ers and even drunk drivers don't intend to harm people. Hell, even a husband that catches her lover and beats him half to death doesn't have the same intention that a lover who conspires with a wife to kill the husband so they can be together. Irresponsibility in court is usually called "negligence" and negligence in itself isn't a crime, though, the result can be when it results in harm that could have been avoided. Now in fairness, drinking and texting have different causes are hard to compare except in their results. In conclusion, the punishment has to fit the crime and the goal should always be, first and foremost, imo, to rehabilitate people who make mistakes. Punishment is a small part, but the more punishment becomes the goal, the less effective it becomes in the aggregate. Bankrupting a family might prevent a person from getting a cell phone and may give you great satisfaction but it will just cause a greater burden on society (jail is extremely expensive and will increase your tax burden) in the long run as it affects not just the person who did it, but spouses children and other people who count on them. Now I've been disagreeing and not offering much in the way of solutions. Why not just take phone privileges away from anyone who, in the act of using a phone causes an accident on top of the other punishments that normally go with causing an accident? It's hard to enfoce drinking because there is little record, but it's impossible to use a phone without creating a record that is easy to identify. You could be blacklisted by the major providors. Sure people could buy "burners", but that doesn't eleminate the records to the people they talk with. Personally I'd make acceptions for work related phones...but the devil is always in the details.
Exactly my point. And at $100,000k per year per person, prisons would be overburdened and taxes would go up.
There aren't enough prison places for all who are dumb enough to do it; the best thing is to confiscate their car where applicable, and there at the roadside when they're observed doing it, then use the prison spaces for truck drivers and the like, ie who are not the owners of the vehicle.
Oddly enough, the law includes exempt categories from the rules, I can run a complete F.C.C. approved communications system in a vehicle, without violating the law.
When Police Officers / F.D. / Public Safety, use communications systems including data terminals to receive information, this is exempt from the rules regarding texting. This includes F.C.C. licensed communications systems.
