Prosecutors in New Jersey are seeking the maximum penalty of nearly three years in prison for a man who initiated a head-on collision with a truck carrying a man and his daughter while he was intoxicated.
Shaun Campbell of East Rutherford told a judge Tuesday that he had been drinking "quite a bit" of beer when he crashed his SUV head-on into a pickup in April. The truck's occupants, a man and his 4-year-old daughter, were not seriously hurt.
The 40-year-old Campbell's blood-alcohol level was .288 percent, more than triple the state's legal limit.
Authorities say Campbell's license has been suspended 78 times in 22 years. He still faces drunken-driving charges in two other New Jersey cities.
First of all, it doesn't matter how many times Campbell's license has been suspended in the past. None of those incidents is relevant to the issue at hand. And if Campbell didn't hurt anyone or cause property damage while he was driving under the influence in any of the previous cases, he never should have been charged for civil or criminal offenses, much less had his license suspended. You can't have an offender without a victim.
Moreover, forget the fact that current drunk-driving laws have apparently put no dent in Campbell's recidivistic behavior. What's most imperative is that the accident that occurred as a result of his intoxication is between him and people in the vehicle he struck, not between him and "society" in general. However, instead of being compelled to compensate his victims in the form of monetary damages, thereby bearing sole responsibility for his offense, Campbell will most likely be sent to a government cage where tax-surrenderers will be forced to house and feed him for the duration of his sentence.
If you're wondering how a system of "punish the innocent in order to punish the guilty" can be even remotely just, congratulations, you're beginning to think like a libertarian.
Comments
I am delighted to contribute my tax money to put this scumball behind bars. He is a menace and I want him kept far from me and my friends.
George Copeland
National RNC Examiner
www.examiner.com/x-13572-RNC-Examiner
About 200 years ago, people, who committed a horse-theft had been hung on the next tree. America did a great step into new times, when the electric chair was introduced in the beginning of the 20th century. Why not use this wonderful piece of furniture against people, who drive drunken and put human lifes in danger?
Your article glosses over a very important question: What right does a person have to drive drunk and potentially kill others? Answer: he has no such right. In fact, once he/she drives intoxicated, he/she is not a potential danger, but an actual one. If he/she is involved in an accident, but the victims suffer no serious injuries, this does not mean he has committed no serious crime. If I fire my pistol at someone and miss, does that make it okay? No. The intoxicated driver is no different. The accident could have killed; therefore, he or she needs to be locked up. And we should look at his past crimes. History often repeats itself. And if he only gets three years - that's three years of no drunk driving.
These points, I have mentioned, are not specifically libertarian, nor am I of that political party. They are, simply, common sense.
And "punishment" of the taxpayors would be to allow the drunks to drive, wreck, hurt...oh, and kill us.
Drunk driving is an offense against the public order. I do work and raise my family so that I must constantly place my well being in the hands of those who recklessly disregard their own safety and those of many others for their lack of self control. Your reasoning behind having the evil of government intervene may be applicable to other avenues of thought, but rule of law is hardly one of them. DUII is not a crime without a victim, it is a crime waiting for a tragedy. Look at MADD and the countless number of other stories of those effected by drunk driving.
You seem to be pushing the extremes of libertarian thought. Based upon your writing it society should have no rule of law and only be ruled by choice. To which I would say apparently everything would come down to money and what is the cost of human life? What is the cost of taking someones future? Driving a motor vehicle, is a privilege not a right.
George-
You have every right to donate your own money to fund such as fascist system. You have NO right to steal mine.
Rick-
You miss a very important distinction in your comparison. Drunk drivers do not intend to target other motorists, whereas in firing your gun at others and merely missing you intend to do harm. The latter should be a crime.
Tim-
Everyone has the right to travel. Driving, walking, flying - whatever - is indeed a right. Especially when we're all robbed to fund the roads.
Everything we do involves risk. Bad things can happen inadvertantly. The crucial distinction is whether we intend to do harm or not - this is what separates the criminal from the mere civil offender.
The criminal state most certainly has devolved to the point where punishing the POTENTIAL to do harm is the order of the day. We all have the potential to do harm. There's nothing the state won't control if all it has to do is argue we're all criminals simply by virtue of existing.
George,
Your opinion is your own, but I would like to ask you. Is putting a man like that behind bars really going to solve anything? With the type of wrap sheet he already has one can be certain he has done some time for it already. Obviously that has not "helped" him. So what does "society", aka the state, earn from locking him up but a false sense of security?
Secondly, towards the idea of having the potential to commit a crime. Short story, I had just picked up pizza and beer and was meeting a buddy at his apartment. I beat him home and he was stuck in traffic. I opened a beer and had a piece of pizza. TECHNICALLY being in a car, parked, idle or whatever and drinking; you are considered by the state to be drinking and driving for THE POTENTIAL that you could drive.
So George, and everyone, do i deserve to go to jail because I didn't want to eat cold pizza?
How long until owning a gun is enough "potential" to do harm that it becomes illegal "for the betterment of society
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!