http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html
Printable View
For those of you who listed to 660 (mike and the mad dog / now just Mike) may have heard this but someone brought it up on the show last week.
MLB needs to do what the NFL did and put in harsh penalties. make it 30 games 1st DUI and 60 for the 2nd, 162 for the 3rd. make is crazy harsh since we KNOW that the MLBPA will have them cut it about in 1/2 and 15/30/81 sounds good to me. start taking away pay before they start taking away lives
Leyritz Ring a bell
If MLB and the MLBPA want to put in this rule - fine. Drinking and driving is a problem that might be partially reduced by increasing penalties. But if you support this - why don't all employers suspend employees that are arrested for a DUI? Would you support your boss introducing a similar rule in your workplace?
Good, maybe Colorado will cut him, he sucks anyways
Say what??????Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Now if the job requires driving, absolutely 100% the company should suspend the driving priviledges for at LEAST a year and actually many recommend three years. If they can't be used elsewhere, they should be fired. However, if the job doesn't require driving, then no the employer should not discipline their employees for DUI unless they are in a position where they are a public figure in which case this incident can impact their performance and the company bottom line.
The govt. needs far more serious penalties...we're getting crazy thinking a walmart cashier, or assembly line worker has to be terminated.
So no....i wouldn't support the bosses implementing this rule but yes I would support law changes to mandate lengthy jail time for first offenders.
I would agree with harsher penalties for first offenses of drinking and driving if it was shown that these penalties significantly reduced its incidence. I am open to that evidence. My guess is that handing out lengthy prison sentences would ruin more lives than it saved. Harsher penalties for repeat offenders, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
My main point was that people hold athletes to a higher standard than themselves - and I don't think that makes sense. A player driving under the influence two weeks after the season will in no way affect their performance on the field and I doubt that a DUI will affect his team's season ticket sales. But even if it did there is an appropriate venue for that concern - write it into the player's contract.
Like I said, if MLB and the MLBPA want to agree to something - fine. I just don't think that Luis Viscaino should be held to a higher standard than I am.
I agree with everything you said except for the standards you and I are held to are not nearly high enough IMHO. First offenders can quickly shatter and end lives just the same. I know I have had a few drinks in my day and drove...now with a family to think about I am much more cautious. I know for a fact if there was jail time at the end of the first offense I CERTAINLY wouldn't have ever done it. I can only assume the same could be said for the vast majority of Americans. I know of no other evidence on this to provide....only as I said the personal opinion that strict punishment would work for changing my habits.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
100% agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
However, DWI is just too tolerated. It is a crime, and it is a dangerous crime. It is more dangerous than shoplifting (don't think shoplifting has ever resulted in death). Yet as a society we seem to be more outraged over shoplifting than DWI.
To get back to your point, I'd bet a person would more likely lose their job over shoplifting than DWI. I suppose a case could be made as to why the shoplifting directly affects a business's bottom line so they have to fire a shoplifter, but to me it's just another example of how lightly we take the very serious crime of DWI.
I believe a person should be able to do what they want with their bodies in the privacy of their own homes, but when they get behind the wheel of a car on a public highway it's a whole different ballgame. They shouldn't be under the influence of anything, alcohol, illegal drugs, or legal ones that cause reduced reaction times or bad judgement.
So, I too would, and have, supported tougher penalties for first time DWI. And an education program that attempts to change the overall attitude of acceptance of this behaviour to make it as unpopular as possible.
Please, if you're drinking. Call a cab. Or a friend. Or someone. It's just not worth ruining an otherwise fun time with a bad outcome, and a possible death.
OFG and Dickay, totally agree with your sentiments.
I just looked up some of the scientific evidence and found no support for the idea that higher legal punishments reduce drinking and driving. Maybe surprisingly,
The most striking finding is that mandatory seat belt use laws and beer taxes may be more effective at reducing drunk driving fatalities than policies aimed at general deterrence."
Other research in my quick survey was all supportive of the idea that legal punishments have no affect on the incidence of drunk driving. We all think it would and therefore don't worry about it before we are drunk. Once we are drunk we no longer think about it - and that is when people get into trouble.
In general I don't really believe in the deterrent effect of jail time - and US policy with regard to drug use seems to back up that feeling.
I understand your points however;Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
1. Drug use in all cases i've seen does not have very strict 1st time offenses either, in fact I've known many arrested and released after many times serving nothing more than community service. Drug possession of large quantities with intent to sell is of course more serious and I agree usually does result in larger penalties including jail time dependent on the instances. I do think those larger penalties does in fact deter some of the behavior.
2. I can only speak here for myself when I say i'm sure the penalty would deter my behavior. It works most certainly for CDL holders as they are far more responsible as they know their careers are on the line if they blow a .02. A severe one year mandatory jail time would I think change behavior however yes it would still not eliminate it and would be a cost to society to incarcerate these people. This is a very serious crime though which jeopardizes the life of others.
....although my mind isn't fully made up on this, i'm not totally against the idea of a breathalizer to turn your vehicle on. I know the technology is out there, though I haven't looked at this issue enough to be honest....
scary stat....after 10:00PM on a friday or saturday night, 1 in every 5 drivers is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
no offence, but I'm gonna need a source on that oneQuote:
Originally Posted by dickay
LOL. Well, if that stat is true then that makes me happy that I'm old and never out that late anymore. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by etothep
IF THE JOB HAS anything TO DO WITH DRIVING... ABSOLUTLYQuote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
I totally agree - but the thread was about Luis Viscaino and I doubt that the Rockies ever asked him to drive anyone anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet