New Punishment for Drunk Drivers? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

feelgood · 04-01-2004, 08:05 AM

Quote:

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Saying that depriving Los Angeles residents of their cars may be a worse punishment than jail, city leaders Wednesday proposed seizing and selling the vehicles of those arrested for drunk driving.

Officials in Los Angeles -- which is crisscrossed by freeways and difficult to navigate with public transportation -- think the sprawling metropolis would be the first major U.S. city to confiscate and auction off the cars of drunk drivers, although authorities elsewhere impound vehicles.

"Driving while drunk or under the influence of drugs continues to be a problem in the City of Los Angeles," police chief William Bratton said. "We can arrest and jail a driver under the influence. But unless we can take away their keys and their cars, they can and will be a deadly menace on city streets."

But legal scholars said the proposed law, which would allow the Los Angeles Police Department to keep the money and use it for drunk driving programs, raises issues over due process and property rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

"What's so troubling to me is that they are doing this as a civil proceeding so that you lose all of the protections that are present in a criminal prosecution, such as due process and reasonable doubt," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a University of Southern California constitutional law professor.

"I have no problem if they want to take away cars as a criminal penalty but they are taking them away before (the drivers) are convicted," he said. "I've lost my car when I haven't been deemed guilty of anything (in court)."

A spokesman for Greig Smith, a Los Angeles city councilman who proposed the law, said enforcement details still needed to be decided by council members. But he said officials were confident that it would pass constitutional muster.

"This is the toughest legislation that's ever been proposed in the country," spokesman Mitch Englander said. "It gives much stronger teeth to helping the LAPD crack down on drunk driving."

Englander said that under the proposed law, the vehicle's owner would have his or her car confiscated even if someone else was arrested for driving it while drunk -- a provision that he said would prompt parents to "think twice" before letting their teenagers borrow the family car.

He said the proposed legislation -- which must be voted into law by the city council and signed by Mayor James Hahn -- may call for the car to be impounded at the time of arrest but not sold unless the accused drunk driver is convicted.

Englander said there were 2,218 drinking-related collisions in the city of Los Angeles and 9,812 such arrests in 2003.

Well, this idea would be good for repeated offenders but as for others...

yournamehere · 04-01-2004, 08:22 AM

I'll be the first to admit that drunk driving is a serious problem.
Now that I've said that, I must say this proposed law is bullshit.

So I take out a loan for a $30,000 vehicle, toss back two drinks, get pulled over, blow a .08, and forfeit my car? And still owe $30K? Without a trial? I don't think so.

I <i>maybe</i> could be convinced it would be fair to force <b>convicted</b> repeat DUI offenders to sell their cars - but confiscating them and auctioning them off before trial? Is this the LAPD or the Gestapo?

onetime2 · 04-01-2004, 08:23 AM

I thought NYC was already doing that.

User Name · 04-01-2004, 08:52 AM

Maybe I'm naive, but one of the main goals of the justice system should be to treat everyone equally. While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal. Instead of just switching victims, justice system bias should be eradicated completely.

And allowing cars to be taken away before a trial is ridiculous too, a gross violation of the "due process" requirement.

Bill O'Rights · 04-01-2004, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by User Name
While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal.

Which is why this is going to be struck down in very short order.

This is really not anything new, though. The government has been confiscating, and selling, the property of drug offenders for years. They're just branching out now. At this rate, soon you will have no legal right to posses anything that you own.

Lasereth · 04-01-2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
At this rate, soon you will have no legal right to posses anything that you own.

Ahh come on, it's not that bad. You drink and drive: you fucked up. Drinking and driving is idiotic. An incredibly harsh punishment needs to be enacted for it. This isn't just taking away your car for the hell of it...this is punishment for breaking the law and putting others in danger. It's not like they're walking in and stealing people's stuff!

Quote:

Originally posted by feelgood
Well, this idea would be good for repeated offenders but as for others...

So it's alright to drink and drive the first time, but you can't do it a second? It's stupid and wrong everytime if ya ask me. Repeat offenders have nothing to do with it. If you do it once, you know what you're doing and the risks involved.

Quote:

Originally posted by yournamehere
So I take out a loan for a $30,000 vehicle, toss back two drinks, get pulled over, blow a .08, and forfeit my car? And still owe $30K? Without a trial? I don't think so.

If you drink, get pulled over, then blow a .08, I think you don't deserve to have a car. Drinking and driving is simply stupid! There are alternatives. Taxis...friends...designated drivers. Just don't drink and drive. Don't put other people in danger because you wanna get wasted and can't find a ride home. Once is enough to kill someone.

Now, I do agree with you guys about the ganking the car before trial -- that's bullshit. They should take your car if you're found guilty, but not before. That's some serious justice violations if they take it pre-trial.

-Lasereth

filtherton · 04-01-2004, 11:56 AM

I agree that drinking and driving is stupid, yet i seem to remember recent studies comparing dui-ing and talking on a cell phone whilst driving as very similar in terms of lowering reaction time and inhibiting safe driving. That being the case, could you confiscate someone's car for talking on the cell phone whilst driving if that is indeed illegal to do in l.a.? Would that be justice?

Also, this would have little effect on those wealthy enough to afford to buy a new car on a whim. It's just like the fellow in europe with the $22,000 or $220,000 speeding ticket. Punishing people in their pocketbooks is meaningless if not applied proportionally.

kutulu · 04-01-2004, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by User Name
Maybe I'm naive, but one of the main goals of the justice system should be to treat everyone equally. While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal. Instead of just switching victims, justice system bias should be eradicated completely.

And allowing cars to be taken away before a trial is ridiculous too, a gross violation of the "due process" requirement.

The person driving the 15 year old Corolla isn't driving it because he loves it, he can't afford a new car. The guy who's driving the 50k car CAN afford a new car. How is it more unfair to the rich guy? In a $ sense it is, but in reality buying a new car won't be a problem for this guy.

I could see them forcing the person to sell the car and prevent them from registering a new one, but this is a bullshit way for a bankrupt govt to bring in more revenue. Even if all the proceeds go to DD awareness, any money they collect from that is money that they don't have to spend on current DD awareness.

onetime2 · 04-01-2004, 12:31 PM

Yep just as I remembered. NYC has been doing this for years.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/22/drunken.drivers/

Quote:

New York City to start seizing cars of drunken drivers

Driving under the influence in New York City could mean losing your vehicle

From Reporter Deborah Feyerick

NEW YORK (CNN) -- People who drink and drive may want to think twice before getting behind the wheel in New York City -- or they may not have any wheels to get behind.

The police department has issued a sober warning that anyone caught driving under the influence will have their car taken away on the spot. If found guilty, the driver loses the car forever.

The policy, set to begin in February, applies not only to personal cars but also to rental cars and leased cars. Only cars that belong to another individual will be returned.

New York's Police Commissioner Howard Safir is basing the policy on a city forfeiture law that lets police seize any weapon used in a crime.

By seizing cars, police hope to cut down on the city's drunken driving fatalities, which last year totaled 31. More than 6,000 people were arrested with too much alcohol in their bloodstreams.

While some say the policy is too extreme, Maureen Riccardella of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, whose family was hit by a drunken driver and who still suffers from the injuries, supports Safir's initiative.

"Drinking drivers are using their vehicles as weapons, and in no other situation would the police take the weapon from a violent felon and then hand it back to him," she says.

Across the country, 23 states have laws permitting police to confiscate or impound cars of drunken drivers, though they usually apply only to repeat offenders. Only New York is using a city law of criminal forfeiture to achieve the same end.

The police department currently confiscates cars of people who buy and sell drugs and those who pick up prostitutes.

At least one attorney says taking away the cars of drunken drivers is redundant because they already lose their driver's licenses.

"Now the commissioner, on his own, is announcing a new punishment, and that would be an additional punishment to what the law provides for," says attorney Gerald Lefcourt.

Late Friday, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he fully supported Safir's new policy.

Cynthetiq · 04-01-2004, 01:01 PM

NYC even did it for people buying drugs....

User Name · 04-01-2004, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
NYC even did it for people buying drugs....

Let's just hope they don't do it for software piracy. A hell of a lot of people would be carless then.

water_boy1999 · 04-01-2004, 01:12 PM

It doesn't matter if you are lower or upper class. If you drink and drive, you have NO class. I agree that it should be taken away AFTER due process however. People are so worried about their rights being taken away.....well, what about the people who died from a one time offender. They have NO rights. What about the people who were killed because of multiple offenders? I don't see anyone mentioning the fact thet they are the true losers with this new proposed legislation.

yournamehere · 04-01-2004, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
NYC even did it for people buying drugs....

Yeah - but who owns cars in NYC?

Aletheia · 04-01-2004, 03:15 PM

Poeple who drink and drive shouldn't be able to drive. How I look at. This just helps the process of getting these people off the road.

Phaenx · 04-01-2004, 03:16 PM

I bet Hammurabi would put them to death.

meepa · 04-01-2004, 03:47 PM

Fuck you if you drive drunk even once. Sell the car, take away the privelage to drive permanently.

Xiomar · 04-01-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
I agree that drinking and driving is stupid, yet i seem to remember recent studies comparing dui-ing and talking on a cell phone whilst driving as very similar in terms of lowering reaction time and inhibiting safe driving. That being the case, could you confiscate someone's car for talking on the cell phone whilst driving if that is indeed illegal to do in l.a.? Would that be justice?

Umm... sorry. But how can you compare the two. Sure, talking on you cell phone is stupid... and it causes accidents, but how many people have died from cell phone related accidents in comparison to how many people drunk drivers kill?

Bottom line. People are coming up murdered. Thats right, murdered. If I walk down the street and start firing a gun... sure, I might hit someone.. I might not. It's the same gamble.
And they never see it coming. They never have a chance. Because some asshole was "okay to drive".

MXL · 04-01-2004, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by User Name
While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal.

Actual this is kind of the way Europe does it. That $2000 dollar car represents about the same percentage of the owners income as the $50K Vette does to its owner. Fines in Europe are often based on a percentage of your income. Last year there was a headline where some guy got an astronomical speeding ticket. I can't remember the amount but it was huge. Effectively you are taking the same amount of earning potental from each person regardless of their income.

Bamrak · 04-01-2004, 05:36 PM

it's a great idea, only flawed in the fact that it needs to be sold only after they are convicted.

Fenton-J-Cool · 04-01-2004, 05:56 PM

For convicted drunk drivers in Ontario, the government installs a breathalyzer into your car. The car won't start unless you breathe less than the limit. I think that's a damn good idea... frankly, it should be implemented in all cars. Why not?

moonstrucksoul · 04-01-2004, 06:06 PM

wow, i am sure there will be alot of nice Mercedes in the impound.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fenton-J-Cool
For convicted drunk drivers in Ontario, the government installs a breathalyzer into your car. The car won't start unless you breathe less than the limit. I think that's a damn good idea... frankly, it should be implemented in all cars. Why not?

they have that her in the states, too. My old boss had one, before he died of alcohol related illness.

Quote:

quote:
Originally posted by User Name
While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal.

maybe it would make up for all the poor people who couldn't afford a good attorney, like people who could afford a $50k car.

DEI37 · 04-01-2004, 08:16 PM

What I'm trying to figure out is you guys talking about being "convicted." If you blew a .10, there isn't a jury or a lawyer on this planet that will get you off. None. If you blew a .10, you just had your hearing. And it was a fair trial on top of that. You fucked up by drinking and driving. Then you got stupid and got caught. Guess what? Now, you can forfeit your privilege (not right) to drive, and be a visitor of the Iron Bar Inn for a while.

In all reality, they ARE taking the car after being convicted. I see no problem with this as it stands.

orphen · 04-01-2004, 08:27 PM

yeah i totally agree with DEI37.. drunk driving is just goo much a danger to the society for the law to tolerate it.

Kllr Wolf · 04-01-2004, 08:39 PM

The bad thing i see about this is the fact that the car is impounded and sold EVEN IF IT WASNT THE DRIVERS CAR. How many times do people loan out their cars to friends or family? Now it has to be that you wouldnt loan out your car for the small chance it would get impounded and sold.

Xiomar · 04-01-2004, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kllr Wolf
The bad thing i see about this is the fact that the car is impounded and sold EVEN IF IT WASNT THE DRIVERS CAR. How many times do people loan out their cars to friends or family? Now it has to be that you wouldnt loan out your car for the small chance it would get impounded and sold.

Sounds like a plan.

filtherton · 04-01-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xiomar
Umm... sorry. But how can you compare the two. Sure, talking on you cell phone is stupid... and it causes accidents, but how many people have died from cell phone related accidents in comparison to how many people drunk drivers kill?

Bottom line. People are coming up murdered. Thats right, murdered. If I walk down the street and start firing a gun... sure, I might hit someone.. I might not. It's the same gamble.
And they never see it coming. They never have a chance. Because some asshole was "okay to drive".

I only compared them because i remembered studies comparing them. The point is that drunk driving increases the chance that one will get in an accident. So does talking on your cell phone, or fucking with your gps system or watching a dvd. I don't think they collect statistics on these things, but i would wager that driver inattentiveness is just as murderous as drunk driving. This is all very irrelevant to the thread other than to say that we put more of a stigma on drunk driving than we do on equally risky automotive behavior.

Keep in mind that i'm not trying to justify or rationalize drunk driving. I think it is really fucking irresponsible to gamble with people's lives because you didn't want to call a cab, or spend the night somewhere. I think in some cases, taking away someone's car would be a good thing. I also think that taking away someone's car is a poor substitute for incarceration or court ordered treatment. Until a few years ago and maybe even still, dui was nothing more than a misdemeanor in my state. People have been known to get upwards of 15-20 dui's and not spend any time in jail, beyond sobering-up time. Especially in rural areas, you take away someone's car, they can very easily find a new one or borrow someone else's because they need one to get around. I don't think stealing people's cars is the way to go.

Xiomar · 04-01-2004, 08:55 PM

filtherton,
My apologies.. I over-reacted a little.. This is just a rather emotional subject for me, as well as probably others. I should remember to try and relax before I post.

filtherton · 04-01-2004, 09:02 PM

I can understand. No problem. God forbid that i am ever touched personally by this issue.

Xiomar · 04-01-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
I can understand. No problem. God forbid that i am ever touched personally by this issue.

You too huh... Wouldn't it be nice if everyone just decided to stop doing it?

filtherton · 04-01-2004, 09:05 PM

Yeah, the problem is that most people seem unable to make the choice to stop. It's a disease and this new tactic will do nothing to cure people.

analog · 04-01-2004, 09:31 PM

Simple. Easy.

The term "repeat offender" shouldn't exist. It's a gross statement to insist that a punishment wait until someone has done this twice.

You can have your first drinks ever in your life, get behind the wheel drunk for the first time, and kill someone IMMEDIATELY 30 seconds down the road.

FUCK THAT.

When I was 17, I had to be told that the guy who killed the girl I loved when his drunk ass plowed into her head-on at 60+ mph NOT ONLY is alive with just a few bruises, but gets to keep driving until he does it again.

What, you're waiting for him to kill someone else before you stop him??

While my tone and sentiment may be one of personal grievance, and therefore somewhat biased, I don't think there's a person here who could disagree with me and then be able to sleep at night.

This law is incredible. As long as it is a criminal punishment (allows for due process, etc.) I think it should be enacted everywhere.

I had no idea NY city was already doing this- but now that I know, i'm so proud.

Xiomar · 04-01-2004, 09:40 PM

When I was 24, I lost my sister in almost the same matter. So, I get a little pissed as well as agree... SO many parts of this world is just plain fucked up.

04-01-2004, 08:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	I'll be the first to admit that drunk driving is a serious problem. Now that I've said that, I must say this proposed law is bullshit. So I take out a loan for a $30,000 vehicle, toss back two drinks, get pulled over, blow a .08, and forfeit my car? And still owe $30K? Without a trial? I don't think so. I <i>maybe</i> could be convinced it would be fair to force <b>convicted</b> repeat DUI offenders to sell their cars - but confiscating them and auctioning them off before trial? Is this the LAPD or the Gestapo? __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

04-01-2004, 08:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I thought NYC was already doing that. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

04-01-2004, 08:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
User Name Banned Location: Urf	Maybe I'm naive, but one of the main goals of the justice system should be to treat everyone equally. While the justice system is somewhat biased against the lower classes (but not as much as they want you to believe), this law would be unfair to the middle and upper classes. After all, losing a new $50,000 Chevy Corvette would be a much stiffer punishment than losing a 15 year old Toyota Corolla that costs $2,000, and both things could happen theoretically with this proposal. Instead of just switching victims, justice system bias should be eradicated completely. And allowing cars to be taken away before a trial is ridiculous too, a gross violation of the "due process" requirement. Last edited by User Name; 04-01-2004 at 08:54 AM..

04-01-2004, 01:01 PM	#10 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	NYC even did it for people buying drugs.... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-01-2004, 01:12 PM	#12 (permalink)
water_boy1999 Fly em straight! Location: Above and Beyond	It doesn't matter if you are lower or upper class. If you drink and drive, you have NO class. I agree that it should be taken away AFTER due process however. People are so worried about their rights being taken away.....well, what about the people who died from a one time offender. They have NO rights. What about the people who were killed because of multiple offenders? I don't see anyone mentioning the fact thet they are the true losers with this new proposed legislation. __________________ Doh!!!! -Homer Simpson

04-01-2004, 11:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I agree that drinking and driving is stupid, yet i seem to remember recent studies comparing dui-ing and talking on a cell phone whilst driving as very similar in terms of lowering reaction time and inhibiting safe driving. That being the case, could you confiscate someone's car for talking on the cell phone whilst driving if that is indeed illegal to do in l.a.? Would that be justice? Also, this would have little effect on those wealthy enough to afford to buy a new car on a whim. It's just like the fellow in europe with the $22,000 or $220,000 speeding ticket. Punishing people in their pocketbooks is meaningless if not applied proportionally.

04-01-2004, 03:15 PM	#14 (permalink)
Aletheia Psycho	Poeple who drink and drive shouldn't be able to drive. How I look at. This just helps the process of getting these people off the road.

04-01-2004, 03:16 PM	#15 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I bet Hammurabi would put them to death. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

04-01-2004, 03:47 PM	#16 (permalink)
meepa Insane	Fuck you if you drive drunk even once. Sell the car, take away the privelage to drive permanently.

04-01-2004, 05:36 PM	#19 (permalink)
Bamrak Enter Title Here Location: Tennessee	it's a great idea, only flawed in the fact that it needs to be sold only after they are convicted.

04-01-2004, 05:56 PM	#20 (permalink)
Fenton-J-Cool Insane Location: Toronto	For convicted drunk drivers in Ontario, the government installs a breathalyzer into your car. The car won't start unless you breathe less than the limit. I think that's a damn good idea... frankly, it should be implemented in all cars. Why not? __________________ wra

04-01-2004, 08:16 PM	#22 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	What I'm trying to figure out is you guys talking about being "convicted." If you blew a .10, there isn't a jury or a lawyer on this planet that will get you off. None. If you blew a .10, you just had your hearing. And it was a fair trial on top of that. You fucked up by drinking and driving. Then you got stupid and got caught. Guess what? Now, you can forfeit your privilege (not right) to drive, and be a visitor of the Iron Bar Inn for a while. In all reality, they ARE taking the car after being convicted. I see no problem with this as it stands. __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

04-01-2004, 08:27 PM	#23 (permalink)
orphen Insane	yeah i totally agree with DEI37.. drunk driving is just goo much a danger to the society for the law to tolerate it.

04-01-2004, 08:39 PM	#24 (permalink)
Kllr Wolf Psycho Location: Lubbock, TX	The bad thing i see about this is the fact that the car is impounded and sold EVEN IF IT WASNT THE DRIVERS CAR. How many times do people loan out their cars to friends or family? Now it has to be that you wouldnt loan out your car for the small chance it would get impounded and sold. __________________ Caffeine - the molecule of life.

04-01-2004, 08:55 PM	#27 (permalink)
Xiomar Psycho Location: Bay Area, California	filtherton, My apologies.. I over-reacted a little.. This is just a rather emotional subject for me, as well as probably others. I should remember to try and relax before I post.

04-01-2004, 09:02 PM	#28 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I can understand. No problem. God forbid that i am ever touched personally by this issue.

04-01-2004, 09:05 PM	#30 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Yeah, the problem is that most people seem unable to make the choice to stop. It's a disease and this new tactic will do nothing to cure people.

04-01-2004, 09:31 PM	#31 (permalink)
analog Banned	Simple. Easy. The term "repeat offender" shouldn't exist. It's a gross statement to insist that a punishment wait until someone has done this twice. You can have your first drinks ever in your life, get behind the wheel drunk for the first time, and kill someone IMMEDIATELY 30 seconds down the road. FUCK THAT. When I was 17, I had to be told that the guy who killed the girl I loved when his drunk ass plowed into her head-on at 60+ mph NOT ONLY is alive with just a few bruises, but gets to keep driving until he does it again. What, you're waiting for him to kill someone else before you stop him?? While my tone and sentiment may be one of personal grievance, and therefore somewhat biased, I don't think there's a person here who could disagree with me and then be able to sleep at night. This law is incredible. As long as it is a criminal punishment (allows for due process, etc.) I think it should be enacted everywhere. I had no idea NY city was already doing this- but now that I know, i'm so proud. Last edited by analog; 04-01-2004 at 09:35 PM..

04-01-2004, 09:40 PM	#32 (permalink)
Xiomar Psycho Location: Bay Area, California	When I was 24, I lost my sister in almost the same matter. So, I get a little pissed as well as agree... SO many parts of this world is just plain fucked up.