For this reason. I have a good friend that is a girl(I guess that is the proper way of saying it) that just had her conviction “Deadly Conduct”(actually it was DWI but reduced to this charge IMO sounds worse than a DWI) released in one of those small town busy body newspaper that print that kind of crap. Her case is over a year old. BTW she has since before her charge quit drinking and has totally straightened out her life.
Does anybody know the difference between a “Deadly Conduct” charge and “DWI” charge both of us don’t get it?
I mean first she had to spend a night in jail then pay big money for a lawyer to help her with the case. Then had to pay over $3,000 in fines and have 6 months probation with rehab degrading piss test and all. I think she has suffered enough for her crime.
So why then does this little piece of crud rag of a newspaper need to print that about her. She is so upset she is almost suicidal and she is such a nice good person. I feel so sorry for her. Where ever she goes some busy body old gossiping hag asks her about it.
What gives a newspaper the right to ruin someones reputation over the penalties the court has already bestowed upon her? I mean just what does it accomplish other than feeding the sorriest form of human function - the taste for dirty laundry.
Billy, certainly newspapers are the worst thing since AM Radio…
Encourage your friend that opinions of others mean nothing, and most likely only those that are worthless busy-bodies read that part of the local rag, only to make themselves feel better by making others feel worse.
Certainly you can point her to someone that loves her unconditionally, and perfectly.
Criminal convictions are a matter of public record. (As they should be.) Newspapers print news of interest to the public, including reporting on criminal matters. The community certainly deserves to know about intoxicated drivers, among other things.
Are you saying she was convicted of this a year ago, and already served her sentence, and the paper just now printed this? That does seem stupid, if that’s the case. If she was just recently convicted, and this is a weekly paper, well . . . I’m glad she’s straightened out her life; unfortunately, some of the consequences and ramifications of her actions might last a while.
Thanks man. Your right the way He feels about her is all that really matters. But she is so embarrassed and stressed out about this.
Pldennison,
The reason it has been a year is because of that is how long it took to get to court. Second, I can see a newspaper pointing out child molestors and stuff like that. But what is the poing of DWI convictions(especially the first one and the only thing ever on her record) because lets face it almost everyone has drove when they shouldn’t of the only difference is that she got caught. Then why should she have to deal with the public humiliation of this.
I meanwhat does the community gain by knowing this information? Oh her comes that drunk driver lets get off the road. See what I mean?
Embarasing, for sure. But an opportunity as well. She can turn this unfortunate happenstance to His glory. She now has the opportunity to show people the change in her life and the reason for that change.
(Rom 8:1, Rom 8:28)
In the end it isn’t what is written in cheap black ink on recycled paper that is important but what is written in blood in His book. Right?
** Bill ** at the risk of getting into it again with you, please let me explain some facts.
Phil is exactly correct - ALL criminal courts convictions are public knowledge.
One of the many reasons is that for folks like your friend, we (society) hope that the potential of public humiliation is sufficient to cause the person to not do something like that in the first place. Obviously it wasn’t sufficient in her case. I doubt she wasn’t aware that driving under the influence was illegal.
I’ve worked with over a Thousand convicts over the years. Many had drug and alcohol problems. This does not in any way excuse, eliminate or justify their criminal behavior.
Please remember that we collectively have elected officials who promise to be tough on crime and increase penalties for criminal behavoir. This is one of the results.
It drives me nuts that the same people who are demand that we be “tough on crime” are also the first in line to complain about “tough” stances when it involves some one they personally know and like.
Which is fine too but why are they(especially DWIs and PIs) have to be listed in the paper. Make the busy body ole bitys work for their gossip material.
You know I thought about this too. But when you think about that is that really that good of a deterrent(sp). I mean when you are somewhere drinking with friends do you think about the newspaper writing some crap about you before you drive or are you think about the chance of getting busted. Answer this truthfully.
Yes, you are right she was aware and has been punished severely I think. That is alot of money to her and her family. And she was truly sorry for what she did.
I agree totally. But isn’t the whole point of the criminal system is to rehibilitate the offender not make them more upset to get them to do it again?
I agree with tough stances too. While I think she got nailed pretty good by the court system, I don’t think she should be publically humiliated especially for the first offense. Second then you got a habitual criminal. That knows what can happen to them and doesn’t care.
Follow me carefully here. The newspaper CANNOT print any information about her CONVICTION until she is CONVICTED. If that took a year, that’s hardly the newspaper’s fault. The newspaper has a right to print anything it feels might be in the public interest – and that includes the names of the nimrods who are skating around the streets drunk. Therefore, the following information is irrelevant: she’s turned her life around; she feels bad; she’s almost suicidal; that you feel sorry for her; that she’s a good person.
The fact is that she drove drunk and was caught and convicted of that offense. It is not the business of the newspaper to decide when a person has “suffered enough;” it’s the business of the newspaper to print the news. Maybe if she’s REALLY upset about it, she’ll think twice before driving drunk again.
Is this even true in this case? Is your friend out getting tanked out of despair, fondling her car keys and figuring, “the hell with it; I’ve been listed in the paper once, may as well get listed again!” It seems to me that the very example you provide shows that people do know what can happen to them and they do care.
I can’t believe that none of ya’ll(except gator) don’t have a little more empathy for this girl. If ya’ll knew her saw her crying in her depression, maybe you would feel differently.
I just want to know if Jody, Pldennison, and Wring have ever I mean ever(in your whole adult life) drove with your alcohol blood content higher than the legal limit? Be honest.
Not one fucking bit of empathy. One of my best friends in high school was killed by a drunk driver. And no I don’t drive when I’ve been drinking…honest.
Wildest Bill, are you for real? Something tells me this is a joke.
I will admit that I’ve driven drunk in the past. I got rid of my car and use public transportation - I don’t think I’ll ever drive drunk again in my life. So what?
Ok, I don’t understand the last two sentences, but let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let’s say the worst happened and she killed someone while driving drunk. Do you think the trial should be ignored by the press because she “feels bad”? The media doesn’t make allowances for the severity of the crime. Heck, my little neighborhood newspaper has a police blotter that includes domestic violence calls.
It seems like the only reason you’re upset is because she’s a friend of yours and you hate to see her hurt. Well, look at it as part of her punishment - it’s not up to you to decide the severity of it.
