I was reading todays paper, and there was an article about a "vulnerable users" bill for pedestrians. If anyone is hit by a reckless driver and fits the profile of a "vulnerable user", which includes people in wheelchairs, construction workers, and bike riders, then there'd be a stiffer penalty.
This seems nonsensical to me... You could simply make an all encompassing law that targets reckless drivers who hit anyone, period. What's the point in only applying the penalty based on certain people, instead of everyone?
So, thinking about this, I got to thinking about "protected classes" in general, who get protections from discrimination and such if they're one of such class.
No one will condone discrimination/racism, certainly, but again, why couldn't such problems be addressed by all encompassing laws? It just seems like needless complication....
The only "arguments" were that something needed to be done for pedestrians, on account of multiple accidents over the past year.
But again, this can be addressed by making a "Hit ANYONE, and pay a penalty" bill. I can't see the logic behind "Pay for hitting wheelchair, bikers, and construction workers" bill instead.
it is why i am against Hate Crimes Laws. You can't say someone's life is more important that someone elses, just because one victim was killed for being asian, and one was killed for his wallet. Both victims are dead, both families suffer, you shouldn't punish one criminal worse than the other.
I agree that increasing all penalties (or is there no penalty for vehicular homicide where you live?) sounds like it would be more effective than naming certain groups.
That list is just lawyer speak for "everyone". Laws generally have to specifically identify things. If you just say "pedestrians" then someone will argue that the construction worker was not traveling, and thus not a pedestrian.
What a magical world you must live in.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
It's touchy-feel good legislation. They know it'll get right through, because who wants to be known as the guy who voted against protecting handicapped people?
Except me of course... but that's because morality is too mainstream.
The only way you could conceivably combat this shit legislation is fighting fire with fire. It's a booboo, pussy cat, pinko liberal position, so go more liberal, classic liberal on them. Suggesting that if you impose stiffer penalties on WHO you injure, it's excessive use of our justice system. It's unnecessary to charge someone MORE, just because they hurt or kill someone who is handicapped in reckless driving. But does anyone in Washington other then Jim Profit have the testicles to say outright, that the only reason they want to do this, is so people can stay in jail longer, contributing to the machine, doing the hard labor for pennies a day?
Prison is the modern slave trade. Has been for decades, and getting more popular by the day. It's a lack of priorities when you only think of punishing the small time crook, while the big time, rich crooks benefit from imprisonment and a harsh justice system. It benefits the truly evil, (those that actually have influence over the world...) and screws YOU over.
If you had bothered to read people;s responses, jimprofit, you will have seen that the bill is nothing like what you describe. It's a bill about hitting pedestrians- it is not about 'handicapped' people or any protected class.
Closed for pointlessness. Some of you need to check facts more closely in future.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
KMC Community Forums
May 26th, 2011 12:39 AM
