Why do we allow people like this to exist?

[Lewkowski]

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/c...e13841399.html

"Gross has a history of DUI convictions, according to a State Law Enforcement Division background check. The convictions include one in Lexington in 1993, one in Kershaw County in 1999, one in Elgin in 2000 and another in Kershaw County in 2007, according to SLED records.

Gross was out on bond awaiting trial in a November 2013 DUI arrest at the time of Friday’s accident, SLED records show.

Laura Hudson, executive director of the S.C. Criminal Victims Council, said this week that suspending driver’s licenses is not preventing DUIs and tragic crashes. “It’s absurd,” she said.

The proposed “Emma’s Law,” now in the S.C. House Judiciary Committee, would put interlock systems on the vehicles of those convicted of driving under the influence. The measure is named for a first-grade Lexington County girl killed in 2012 on New Year’s Day by a drunk driver.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article13841399.html#storylink=cpy"

Gross is aptly named. This piece of shit probably drank and drive HUNDREDS of times in order to have this many convictions. Nothing apparently stopped him. He was fucking out on bond on the same charge when he KILLED a three year old. Hopefully he gets raped to death in prison.

Thankfully Emma's law passed however it doesn't go nearly far enough. Why do we as a society mess around with this shit? DUI once - put the ass in jail. DUI twice, never let the bastard out again. Two strikes. Would have saved the three year old's life. Too bad liberals love criminals more than they do the innocent.

[RandBlade]

Suspending licences is an absurd punishment as clearly in order to get prosecuted you're willing to break the law and drive illegally, so what benefit do we get from suspending a licence and thus ensuring someone breaks the law and drives illegally?

People who drive without a licence, while intoxicated, while on drugs or without insurance should be incarcerated.

[Lewkowski]

Suspending licences is an absurd punishment as clearly in order to get prosecuted you're willing to break the law and drive illegally, so what benefit do we get from suspending a licence and thus ensuring someone breaks the law and drives illegally?

People who drive without a licence, while intoxicated, while on drugs or without insurance should be incarcerated.

Agreed - sadly liberals don't agree. If you follow traffic laws you don't get pulled over often so people who drive without insurance and/or without a license is fairly common.

[LittleFuzzy]

People who drive without a licence, while intoxicated, while on drugs or without insurance should be incarcerated.

And here's where you go off the rails. That is not a criminal offense and it should not be a criminal offense. I'll stipulate that driving without a license (or with a suspended license) ought to be one and that a license should be suspended for driving without insurance but I can't agree that incarceration is the appropriate response to violating a piece of purely administrative law, and something which properly should be administrative law. Ensuring insurance coverage may be a legitimate regulatory interest but it's not a legitimate police/penal interest.

[RandBlade]

It's not criminal there? It is here: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance...hout-insurance

[LittleFuzzy]

It's not criminal there? It is here: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance...hout-insurance

50 different legislating jurisdictions
Note what I said though. ". . .and it should not be a criminal offense." "Ensuring insurance coverage may be a legitimate regulatory interest but it's not a legitimate police/penal interest."

[Aimless]

This is interesting, is there any good and mandatory treatment program targeting alcohol abuse? Is it possible to confiscate a person's car? Or require them to drive vehicles equipped with breathalyzers that prevent them from driving drunk?

[Timbuk2]

If you follow traffic laws you don't get pulled over often so people who drive without insurance and/or without a license is fairly common.

In the UK ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) is universal, is equipped in all traffic-division police cars, and is used in roadside checks.

The ANPR system is linked directly and in real-time to the PNC (Police National Computer).

The PNC holds details of all UK licence holders, and all car-insurance holders.

If ANPR in a traffic-division car or roadside check automatically detects a suspended/disqualified licence, or a lapsed/non-existent insurance policy for that registration, it pings the police driver immediately, who will then pull over the driver of the offending vehicle.
No insurance, as Rand indicated, means the police have the power to immediately impound the vehicle, and to charge the driver.
No licence or disqualified and the driver is arrested under the charge of Driving Otherwise in Accordance with the Law.

All of this can take place on a crowded little island like the UK, but would be prohibitive in a large multi-jurisdictional place like the US, as fuzz indicated.

And here's where you go off the rails. That is not a criminal offense and it should not be a criminal offense. I'll stipulate that driving without a license (or with a suspended license) ought to be one and that a license should be suspended for driving without insurance but I can't agree that incarceration is the appropriate response to violating a piece of purely administrative law, and something which properly should be administrative law. Ensuring insurance coverage may be a legitimate regulatory interest but it's not a legitimate police/penal interest.

I disagree.
An uninsured driver who hits another driver leaves the third party liable for the cost of all damages.
It is equivalent to the offender stealing that same value from the third party. There is an offence in the UK; Going Equipped to Burgle, section 25 under the Theft Act; under which police can arrest a person who is equipped with the tools needed to burgle property. I see that offence as an equivalence to an uninsured driver, as the uninsured driver is driving around effectively equipped to steal.

It is not just an administrative offence.

Saying that however, the offence does not carry the sentence of incarceration. Rand's link states at worst an unlimited fine and disqualification from driving. Though an idiot may repeatedly refuse to pay the fine I suppose, in which case incarceration may eventually result.

[RandBlade]

50 different legislating jurisdictions
Note what I said though. ". . .and it should not be a criminal offense." "Ensuring insurance coverage may be a legitimate regulatory interest but it's not a legitimate police/penal interest."

Well our judiciary does think it is a legitimate police interest and I agree. If you are driving a motor vehicle without third party insurance then it is possible for you to cause an accident that can not just cause immense damage to a third parties vehicle but can potentially kill, cripple or leave massive medical costs to a third party.

Third party insurance is a legal requirement to ensure that if you do cripple a third party for instance then their medical etc costs are covered by the insurance. If you illegally drive without third party insurance then who do you think picks up the bill if you collide with a third party and are liable?

[Being]

Did Fuzzy say driving without insurance in California is NOT a criminal offense? If that is the case then he is using a ridiculously narrow interpretation of crime.

16028.


(a) Upon the demand of a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (b) or upon the demand of a peace officer or traffic collision investigator pursuant to subdivision (c), every person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall provide evidence of financial responsibility for the vehicle that is in effect at the time the demand is made. The evidence of financial responsibility may be provided using a mobile electronic device. However, a peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the vehicle is being driven in violation of this subdivision.

(b) If a notice to appear is issued for any alleged violation of this code, except a violation specified in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11 or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to that chapter, the cited driver shall furnish written evidence of financial responsibility or may provide electronic verification of evidence of financial responsibility using a mobile electronic device upon request of the peace officer issuing the citation. The peace officer shall request and write the driver’s evidence of financial responsibility on the notice to appear, except when the peace officer is unable to write the driver’s evidence of financial responsibility on the notice to appear due to an emergency that requires his or her presence elsewhere. If the cited driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility at the time the notice to appear is issued, the peace officer may issue the driver a notice to appear for violation of subdivision (a). The notice to appear for violation of subdivision (a) shall be written on the same citation form as the original violation.

(c) If a peace officer, or a regularly employed and salaried employee of a city or county who has been trained as a traffic collision investigator, is summoned to the scene of an accident described in Section 16000, the driver of a motor vehicle that is in any manner involved in the accident shall furnish written evidence of financial responsibility or may provide electronic verification of evidence of financial responsibility using a mobile electronic device upon the request of the peace officer or traffic collision investigator. If the driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility when requested, the peace officer may issue the driver a notice to appear for violation of this subdivision. A traffic collision investigator may cause a notice to appear to be issued for a violation of this subdivision, upon review of that citation by a peace officer.

(d) (1) If, at the time a notice to appear for a violation of subdivision (a) is issued, the person is driving a motor vehicle owned or leased by the driver’s employer, and the vehicle is being driven with the permission of the employer, this section shall apply to the employer rather than the driver. In that case, a notice to appear shall be issued to the employer rather than the driver, and the driver may sign the notice on behalf of the employer.

(2) The driver shall notify the employer of the receipt of the notice issued pursuant to paragraph (1) not later than five days after receipt.

(e) A person issued a notice to appear for a violation of subdivision (a) may personally appear before the clerk of the court, as designated in the notice to appear, and provide written evidence of financial responsibility in a form consistent with Section 16020, showing that the driver was in compliance with that section at the time the notice to appear for violating subdivision (a) was issued. In lieu of the personal appearance, the person may submit by mail to the court written evidence of having had financial responsibility at the time the notice to appear was issued. Upon receipt by the clerk of that written evidence of financial responsibility in a form consistent with Section 16020, further proceedings on the notice to appear for the violation of subdivision (a) shall be dismissed.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “mobile electronic device” means a portable computing and communication device that has a display screen with touch input or a miniature keyboard.

(g) For the purposes of this section, when a person provides evidence of financial responsibility using a mobile electronic device to a peace officer, the peace officer shall only view the evidence of financial responsibility and is prohibited from viewing any other content on the mobile electronic device.

(h) If a person presents a mobile electronic device pursuant to this section, that person assumes all liability for any damage to the mobile electronic device.

(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 76, Sec. 195. Effective January 1, 2014.)

16029.


Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 16028 is an infraction and shall be punished as follows:

(a) Upon a first conviction, by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not more than two hundred dollars ($200), plus penalty assessments.

(b) Upon a subsequent conviction, occurring within three years of a prior conviction, by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) and not more than five hundred dollars ($500), plus penalty assessments.

(c) (1) At the discretion of the court, for good cause, and in addition to the penalties specified in subdivisions (a) and (b), the court may order the impoundment of the vehicle for which the owner could not produce evidence of financial responsibility in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 16028.

(2) A vehicle impounded pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be released to the legal owner of the vehicle or the legal owner’s agent if all of the following conditions are met:

(A) The legal owner is a motor vehicle dealer, bank, credit union, acceptance corporation, or other licensed financial institution legally operating in this state.

(B) The legal owner or the legal owner’s agent pays all towing and storage fees related to the seizure of the vehicle.

(C) The legal owner or the legal owner’s agent presents foreclosure documents or an affidavit of repossession for the vehicle.

(3) (A) A legal owner or the legal owner’s agent that obtains release of the vehicle pursuant to paragraph (2) shall not release the vehicle to the registered owner of the vehicle or any agents of the registered owner, unless the registered owner is a rental car agency, except upon presentation of evidence of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16020, for the vehicle. The legal owner or the legal owner’s agent shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that the evidence of financial responsibility that is presented is valid.

(B) Prior to relinquishing the vehicle, the legal owner may require the registered owner to pay all towing and storage charges related to impoundment and any administrative charges authorized under Section 22850.5 that were incurred by the legal owner in connection with obtaining custody of the vehicle.

(4) A vehicle impounded under paragraph (1) shall be released to a rental car agency if the agency is either the legal owner or the registered owner of the vehicle and the agency pays all towing and storage fees related to the seizure of the vehicle.

(5) A vehicle impounded under paragraph (1) shall be released to the registered owner of the vehicle only upon presentation of evidence of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16020, for that vehicle, and evidence that all towing and storage fees related to the seizure of the vehicle are paid.

This paragraph does not apply to a person, entity, or agency who is entitled to release of a vehicle under paragraph (2) or (4) and is either:

(A) The registered and the legal owner and is described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2).

(B) The registered owner or legal owner and is described in paragraph (4).

(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that fines collected pursuant to this section be used to reduce the number of uninsured drivers and not be used to generate revenue for general purposes.

(e) (1) Except as provided in this subdivision, the court shall impose a fine that is greater than the minimum fine specified in subdivision (a) or (b), and may not reduce that fine to the minimum specified fine authorized under those provisions, unless the defendant has presented the court with evidence of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16020, for the vehicle. In no event may the court impose a fine that is less than the minimum specified in subdivision (a) or (b), or impose a fine that exceeds the maximum specified fine authorized under those subdivisions. In addition to the fine authorized under subdivision (a) or (b), the court may issue an order directing the defendant to maintain insurance coverage satisfying the financial responsibility laws for at least one year from the date of the order.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the imposition of the fine required under subdivision (a) or (b) is mandatory upon conviction of a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 16028 and may not be waived, suspended, or reduced below the minimum fines, unless the court in its discretion reduces or waives the fine based on the defendant’s ability to pay. The court may direct that the fine and penalty assessments be paid within a limited time or in installments on specified dates. The Legislature hereby declares that it is in the interest of justice that the minimum fines set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) for these offenses be enforced by the court, as provided in this subdivision.

(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 880, Sec. 12. Effective January 1, 2000.)

[LittleFuzzy]

I disagree.
An uninsured driver who hits another driver leaves the third party liable for the cost of all damages.
It is equivalent to the offender stealing that same value from the third party. There is an offence in the UK; Going Equipped to Burgle, section 25 under the Theft Act; under which police can arrest a person who is equipped with the tools needed to burgle property. I see that offence as an equivalence to an uninsured driver, as the uninsured driver is driving around effectively equipped to steal.

It is not just an administrative offence.

Saying that however, the offence does not carry the sentence of incarceration. Rand's link states at worst an unlimited fine and disqualification from driving. Though an idiot may repeatedly refuse to pay the fine I suppose, in which case incarceration may eventually result.

Specifically, when you say "the third party," you mean "the insurer." Because the uninsured person has to cause damage to someone to inflict a loss and that person also has a regulatory/administrative requirement to be insured. Making such payouts is kinda the reason the insurer exists in the first place. I don't think having to cover the damages it is paid and contracted to cover counts as "stealing," Timbuk. That's why I consider this a regulatory matter and not a criminal one.

[Being]

Specifically, when you say "the third party," you mean "the insurer." Because the uninsured person has to cause damage to someone to inflict a loss and that person also has a regulatory/administrative requirement to be insured. Making such payouts is kinda the reason the insurer exists in the first place. I don't think having to cover the damages it is paid and contracted to cover counts as "stealing," Timbuk. That's why I consider this a regulatory matter and not a criminal one.

Really? Breaking the law is not a crime.

[RandBlade]

Specifically, when you say "the third party," you mean "the insurer." Because the uninsured person has to cause damage to someone to inflict a loss and that person also has a regulatory/administrative requirement to be insured. Making such payouts is kinda the reason the insurer exists in the first place. I don't think having to cover the damages it is paid and contracted to cover counts as "stealing," Timbuk. That's why I consider this a regulatory matter and not a criminal one.

No the requirement is your have third party insurance not first party. If you hit me then under traditional insurance you are liable and your third party insurance pays out. My insurance does nothing other than chase your insurance.

On the other hand if you are not insured then I lose out. If I only have the legally required third party insurance then that doesn't magically become first party just because you were driving without insurance. Leaving me uncovered despite you being liable as you were uncovered.

Alternatively if you hit me and I have first party insurance then I now need to make a claim and pay an excess and lose my no claims bonus leaving me again considerably out of pocket despite the fact you were liable and your insurance should have paid for it.

There is one insurance company in the UK that advertises they don't charge you if you are hit by an uninsured driver. That is them taking it on the chin to market that fact it is not standard.

[LittleFuzzy]

No the requirement is your have third party insurance not first party. If you hit me then under traditional insurance you are liable and your third party insurance pays out. My insurance does nothing other than chase your insurance.

On the other hand if you are not insured then I lose out. If I only have the legally required third party insurance then that doesn't magically become first party just because you were driving without insurance. Leaving me uncovered despite you being liable as you were uncovered.

Alternatively if you hit me and I have first party insurance then I now need to make a claim and pay an excess and lose my no claims bonus leaving me again considerably out of pocket despite the fact you were liable and your insurance should have paid for it.

Are you saying that it is in the least bit normal to have liability insurance but not coverage yourself over there? Doing some quick poking and that doesn't really seem to be the case. Yes, it means you'll have to actually deal with your own insurance. That's what it's there for, isn't it? You're free to deal with it out of pocket, with the way you have contracted for, by suing the guy who hit you, etc. None of that makes what he did "stealing," nor something that should be a criminal, incarceration-worthy, offense. Requiring liability insurance is an administrative/regulatory measure to make things easier and smooth out the process of executing liability claims. When you ask yourself "should this be a criminal offense", let concepts like "smoothing out the process" serve as a warning sign that what you're contemplating isn't an appropriate use of the penal system.

[Steely Glint]

What kind of barbarian jurisdiction lets people drive around uninsured?

[Being]

None of that makes what he did "stealing," nor something that should be a criminal, incarceration-worthy, offense.

Clarifying your thoughts doesn't make you any more correct. You don't go to jail for running a red light but you are breaking a law and that is crime.

[Lewkowski]

Are you saying that it is in the least bit normal to have liability insurance but not coverage yourself over there? Doing some quick poking and that doesn't really seem to be the case. Yes, it means you'll have to actually deal with your own insurance. That's what it's there for, isn't it? You're free to deal with it out of pocket, with the way you have contracted for, by suing the guy who hit you, etc. None of that makes what he did "stealing," nor something that should be a criminal, incarceration-worthy, offense. Requiring liability insurance is an administrative/regulatory measure to make things easier and smooth out the process of executing liability claims. When you ask yourself "should this be a criminal offense", let concepts like "smoothing out the process" serve as a warning sign that what you're contemplating isn't an appropriate use of the penal system.

Yeah but people who drive without insurance don't typically have any assets/money to lose in a law suit. You can't get blood from a stone.

I'm a bit curious as to why you think driving without insurance is A-OK? How do you force people to get insurance then to operate a vehicle? If there are no 'real' repercussions to it people will do it even more frequently.

Honestly I'm looking forward to the future (probably 50+ years) where your license plate will be scan-able by automatic cameras in patrol cars that will immediately identify if a vehicle has coverage or if it doesn't. Boom - an immediate stop and seizure of vehicle. High tech solutions will eventually exist that make the problem mostly go away for lack of insurance but until then we need to still treat it as a serious issue. The people driving without insurance are freeloading because they certainly won't pay when they get into an accident.

**Note in many states you can prove that you have the financial ability to payout claims and forego required insurance. This is of course acceptable.

All that being said the conversation is far afield to why we do we let human scum continue to walk around free after multiple DUIs. These people are a danger to others (and themselves but who the fuck cares if a drunk driver kills themselves and no one else? Its a reason to celebrate unless they harmed others or their property) and should be in prison like the animals they are.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah but people who drive without insurance don't typically have any assets/money to lose in a law suit. You can't get blood from a stone.

I'm a bit curious as to why you think driving without insurance is A-OK?

I didn't say it was ok. I said it was/ought to be a matter of administrative/regulatory law, not criminal law. Issue fines, suspend the license, etc.

How do you force people to get insurance then to operate a vehicle? If there are no 'real' repercussions to it people will do it even more frequently.

You know, you're right. We should just cut off the hands of anyone who does it. They won't be repeating the offense THEN, will they?

[Lewkowski]

I didn't say it was ok. I said it was/ought to be a matter of administrative/regulatory law, not criminal law. Issue fines, suspend the license, etc.

And if they then drive with a suspended license? Suspend it longer? RB is right punishing people for illegally driving by restricting their driving in a way that really isn't enforceable doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are people who go decades with unpaid fines, it isn't a deterrent to people working in the underground economy.

[Flixy]

Honestly I'm looking forward to the future (probably 50+ years) where your license plate will be scan-able by automatic cameras in patrol cars that will immediately identify if a vehicle has coverage or if it doesn't.

Oh yes, that distant future.. Which is already here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto...te_recognition

That system is also used to find stolen cars and people with unpaid fines.

[Lewkowski]

Oh yes, that distant future.. Which is already here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto...te_recognition

That system is also used to find stolen cars and people with unpaid fines.

Remember this thread in 40 years if this technology is being used across the United States to catch people without insurance. Its going to take some time.

[GGT]

Fuzzy is right: driving without insurance might be a criminal offense (according to state laws), but it doesn't warrant being arrested and detained in jail.....any more than driving while not wearing a seat-belt, or driving while texting or talking on a cell phone, or smoking in a car with a minor child would. Those are all illegal activities in certain states, just like speeding, but they're minor offenses and misdemeanors that can be settled with fines, penalties, or "points" on a driver's license.

And it's a good thing too, because I don't always have an updated insurance card in my glove compartment, and I don't use a smartphone app as "proof" that I'm insured, either. Gosh, sometimes I drive my car to the local gas station/convenience store to buy milk, or snacks late at night, with nothing but my debit card, leaving my wallet and driver's license at home. I know that if I'm involved in some traffic "incident" I have time to produce my legal documents to the authorities....and won't be hauled off to jail for not carrying my papers.

But Lewk isn't interested in legal nuances. He simply condemns the existance of people who break laws. Fry 'em all, huh Lewk?

[RandBlade]

Driving while texting can kill people as can being on a cell phone, I see no reason why a night's prison is unreasonable for anyone so callous. It's not like it's difficult to get a legal hands-free kit nowadays either.

While if someone wants to abuse their children by criminally smoking carcinogens with children in the car then calling in social services to look after the children away from their abusers unless or until they accept the sickening error of their ways may be more appropriate than prison. It is a crime for a reason, anyone who is so monstrous as to ignore child safety laws doesn't deserve kids. I couldn't imagine deliberately and criminally hurting my kids like that.

As for producing your papers what kind of lame backwards 19th century nation do you live in? Why is that not electronic and in the 21st century? I have been driving since the year 2000 and never in that whole time been made to "carry papers", they're all electronic and the cops can see from their patrol car without me being made to produce anything. Without me being able to forge anything either if it's appropriately and centrally maintained.

[Flixy]

Remember this thread in 40 years if this technology is being used across the United States to catch people without insurance. Its going to take some time.

Mobile ANPR use is widespread among US law enforcement agencies at the city, county, state and federal level. According to a 2012 report by the Police Executive Research Forum, approximately 71% of all US police departments use some form of ANPR.[40] Mobile ANPR is becoming a significant component of municipal predictive policing strategies and intelligence gathering,[41] as well as for recovery of stolen vehicles, identification of wanted felons, and revenue collection from individuals who are delinquent on city or state taxes or fines, or monitoring for "Amber Alerts".

[GGT]

Driving while texting can kill people as can being on a cell phone, I see no reason why a night's prison is unreasonable for anyone so callous. It's not like it's difficult to get a legal hands-free kit nowadays either.

While if someone wants to abuse their children by criminally smoking carcinogens with children in the car then calling in social services to look after the children away from their abusers unless or until they accept the sickening error of their ways may be more appropriate than prison. It is a crime for a reason, anyone who is so monstrous as to ignore child safety laws doesn't deserve kids. I couldn't imagine deliberately and criminally hurting my kids like that.

As for producing your papers what kind of lame backwards 19th century nation do you live in? Why is that not electronic and in the 21st century? I have been driving since the year 2000 and never in that whole time been made to "carry papers", they're all electronic and the cops can see from their patrol car without me being made to produce anything. Without me being able to forge anything either if it's appropriately and centrally maintained.

In other words, you think it's acceptable to detain and imprison people who are presumed "guilty" of misdemeanors?

[Khendraja'aro]

In other words, you think it's acceptable to detain and imprison people who are presumed "guilty" of misdemeanors?

It's pretty much an open and shut case if you're caught talking on your mobile. No need for the quotation marks.

[RandBlade]

Besides who said anything about presumed guilty rather than found guilty?

[Flixy]

Aren't misdemeanors by definition is anything punishable with up to one year in prison so it'd be hard to argue that a misdemeanor should not result in jail time per se.

[Timbuk2]

Yes. But no one has yet actually answered the question here.

Why DO* we allow such people to exist. Surely there must be some process, some genetic test, some socio-statistical algorithm which can be developed to predict the likelihood of one's future/newly arrived offspring perpetrating these detestable and socially offensive crimes. Y'know, so that we may be in a position to sensibly stop them from actually ... umm ... existing. Pre- or post-natally, i don't care, it's all the same in the end.(Non) existence is all.


* Shouty capital letters copyrighted to The Collective of Lazy Sensationalist Journalists and Internet Warriors of Limited Expressive Capability. Use is restricted.

[Lewkowski]

Yes. But no one has yet actually answered the question here.

Why DO* we allow such people to exist. Surely there must be some process, some genetic test, some socio-statistical algorithm which can be developed to predict the likelihood of one's future/newly arrived offspring perpetrating these detestable and socially offensive crimes. Y'know, so that we may be in a position to sensibly stop them from actually ... umm ... existing. Pre- or post-natally, i don't care, it's all the same in the end.(Non) existence is all.


* Shouty capital letters copyrighted to The Collective of Lazy Sensationalist Journalists and Internet Warriors of Limited Expressive Capability. Use is restricted.

Fair enough perhaps I should have put 'in society' at the end of it. I'm advocating for the scummy sub human shit stains who get caught 2+ times DUI to be removed from society.