Todd Spitzer Co-Sponsoring Innovative Anti-Drunk Driving Bill

As readers can tell, I'm trying to catch up on the stack that's piled up on the transom and I found a couple of Todd Spitzer-related items in there.

This is a little old (from Feb. 14, to be precise), worthy of mention. Todd teamed up with uber-liberal state Sen. Carol Midgen of San Francisco, the California Highway Patrol and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to support mandatory ignition interlock devices for those receiving their first-time drunk driving conviction. The OC Register editorialized in support of it today.

The other is a silly, utopian, "I believe in people" law being proposed by a liberal legislator from -- where else? -- San Francisco:

A California legislator apparently believes in rehabilitation regardless of the seriousness of the crime that originally sent a minor to jail. San Francisco's Leland Yee wants to ban life without parole sentences for minors.

The justice system is prohibited from giving minors the death penalty. So when criminals like 17-year-old Deondre Hudson was convicted of killing his pregnant girlfriend, Quinnisha Thomas, the most he could get was life.

Phyllis Mulwee, Victim's Mother, June 22, 2004: "I'm real happy with life in prison. That gives him time to sit and think of everything he did and think of what he could've done; how stupid it was."

But State Senator Leland Yee just introduced a bill that would prevent a judge from giving a minor life without parole no matter the crime. He say some kids can be rehabilitated and should be given the opportunity to be paroled.

St. Senator Leland Yee, (D) San Francisco: "As a child psychologist, as a father, as an educator, I believe in kids. I believe in the future and the goodness of youngsters."

Senator Yee estimates about 200 juveniles in California are serving life without parole. He says most would likely not be granted paroled. But he cites the case of Sara Kruzan, a Riverside teen who received that sentence for killing her molester.

St. Senator Leland Yee, (D) San Francisco: "We cannot in our civilized society here in America, here in California, say that for children, we're going to throw away the key. We're not going to give you hope whatsoever."

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer is a former prosecutor who says district attorneys need the tough punishment because teens are committing adult crimes. He says gang killings are examples where life without parole are needed.

Assm. Todd Spitzer, (R) Orange: "Since we don't have the death penalty for those underage, this is the next closest thing to making sure somebody truly pays for the crimes they commit."

Under Yee's bill, the most those under 18 can be punished for is 25 to life.

Kudos to you, Todd.

Should every single teen guilty of a heinous crime be sentenced to life in prison? Maybe not -- but that's for a judges to decide. And it's also why we give governor's the power to commute sentences in those rare cases where there has been a genuine, life-alerting change in the convict that might merit release.

But to abolish entirely the option of sending some murderous teenage animal away to the Big House for the rest of his or her life? Unfortuantely in this day and age, we need that option, and to legislate it away is the fuzzy-headed Pollyannism.

Comments

[bruce alm]

The Answer to the Problem of Drunk Driving, etc.

by Bruce Alm

The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.

This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;

murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.
If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.

There could also be many other positive results; families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we've all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.

This new law could go something like this:

Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.

For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.

What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?

What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.

This permit doesn't seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.
Most people of drinking age have a driver's license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don't drive.

This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.

After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.

Would this be a violation of rights? There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.

This could be a good saying, "If a person who doesn't know how to drive shouldn't have a license to drive, a person who doesn't know how to drink shouldn't have a license to drink."

Here are some other pluses to this idea:

A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.

A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could become things of the past.

What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.

Even though A.A. members as a group don't become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.

A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said "One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S.." If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue 'down the drain,' and so on.

But it doesn't seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.

P.S.

What ever happened to the skid row drunk?

http://www.geocities.com/dwi_dui/index.html