And it’s followed by: “i wouldn’t want to imprison drink drivers, either”.
Thus my question.
But here’s a thought, why don’t you let Puzzlegal speak for herself. She’s well spoken.
If I say “If all cars were made of cotton wool it would be safe to let your dog run free.” I am not advocating letting your dog run free because all cars are not made of cotton wool.
@colinfred and @LSLGuy understood me clearly.
Also, it is easy to prevent someone from piloting a commercial flight.
It’s also easy for someone to pilot a plane without a license. Limiting it to an airliner is certainly many magnitudes harder than a small plane but you’re missing the point. The only way to prevent the negligent actions of someone is to incarcerate them. It temporarily takes away the ability to engage in the behavior and it is punishment for the negligence committed.
I think the sentence was too lenient.
Well then why don’t we go all Minority Report on them & use precogs to arrest people before they commit their first crime! Otherwise all these dastardly soon-to-be criminals are driving around waiting for their first DUI. 
Why don’t courts jail people convicted of DUI’s instead turning them loose again and again.
You seem to be missing the point that it’s pretty easy to prevent someone from flying, unless they own their own plane. And the court can probably learn who owns a plane. And his actions probably wouldn’t have killed anyone but him if he’d been flying his own plane, for that matter.
We can actually prevent him from repeating that action without paying for his incarceration. Like, really certainly.
Now, if you are really just interested in retribution, that’s a different matter.
Not really. There’s nothing stopping someone from buying an airplane or going to an airport and steeling one. The best detection you can hope for is a random ramp check. That’s easy to avoid. don’t park on a ramp.
Putting that aside
The FAA and the airlines will make it almost impossible for him to enter a cockpit for any reason. That’s true. But the court’s function goes beyond that.
Incarceration isn’t about vengeance and it’s not about spending/saving money. It should take into consideration the gravity of the situation. He could have killed hundreds of people.
The pilot in this case likely drove to the airport while under the influence. What if he was a passenger on a bus who grabbed the wheel and tried to drive into a bridge abutment. Would he have gotten the same treatment in court if he worked at McDonalds? I don’t think so. But he could afford to get a Doctor to testify he wasn’t in his right mind.
Well, really, in my case I was stopped from buying an airplane by a lack of money.
Sure, it has happened that someone has snuck into a small airport and stolen an airplane for either a joyride or nefarious purposes. It’s really freakin’ rare. Even small airports increased their security after 9/11. By this time some complacency is setting in so not as great as it was, but even so compared to auto theft airplane theft isn’t even a rounding error.
The shame is not that he could afford to get a doctor’s testimony the McDonald’s worker couldn’t but that the McDonald’s worker wouldn’t be afforded an equal quality defense on their own behalf.
The pilot really wasn’t in his right mind at the time.
If the defendant had no prior history of substance abuse (that is, this truly seems to be a first time) and has shown no signs of having a desire to try this substance again I don’t see where a lengthy prison sentence serves anyone’s interest. It is possible to make a thing called a mistake. It is possible to learn from such an experience and take steps on one’s own to prevent a recurrence, and if the defendant was already demonstrating signs of having learned a lesson by taking such steps prior to trial then I don’t see the purpose of further punishment than that given by the court. He’s not being released entirely free, he will be under observation and subjected to supervision requirements. If he’s already effectively rehabbed then let him get on with his life.
Granted, I don’t have all the information here. Neither do you.
If he had attempted to grab the steering wheel of a bus, been effectively restrained such that one was actually hurt, and immediately realized what he has done and asked to be tied up until he could be delivered someplace safe… Then i wouldn’t want to imprison that guy, either.
This guy was temporary insane. He did not realize what he was doing. He did not attempt to hurt anyone. He didn’t actually down the plane. He was horrified when he realized he nearly did. He made a mistake in attempting to treat his mental health disorder, a mistake he won’t repeat.
He’s already served time, he’s on parole, he’s trying really hard to help other people avoid making the mistake he made, and he lost his job. I really don’t see what purpose would be served by locking him up for longer.
There are four general arguments given for imprisoning people:
- It separates dangerous people from society - he’s not currently dangerous.
- It provides an opportunity for rehabilitation - he’s already rehabilitated himself.
- Knowing that crimes are punished dissuades others from committing the crime - there is not a soul who wants to do what he did.
- Retribution - he didn’t actually kill anyone, and has already suffered a lot of punishment. But i guess in your mind, he hasn’t suffered enough.
The only argument there is even a teeny tiny case for is retribution.
Given that the offender wasn’t in his right mind at the time of the crime, and it requires the theft of an airplane, do you really think it’s likely at all that somehow he’ll jump into another airplane and pull the same stunt? Do you think this guy is a serial hijacker, seeking to down more planes, when all the evidence is he was a pilot who just made a really bad mistake under the influence?
This guy isn’t going to reoffend. In what way do you believe your judgment is superior to the actual judge in the case who had access to all the documents, filings, and evidence, and actually looked the defendant in the eye? On what authority do you claim that you got it right and they got it wrong?
DUI laws in this country are a joke! Kill someone while driving drunk & you’ll serve far less time than if you kill them any other way.
We now end this hijack (should we use that word in an airplane-related thread?) & bring you back to your regular scheduled program.
That’s not true at all. [Or, I suppose if you want to get technical, we all probably commit some act of negligence on more than a few occasions. Luckily, most negligence doesn’t result in severe consequences.] If this pilot was only negligent once, what are the chances he’ll be dangerous in the future?
Are you forgetting he was incarcerated for 50 days? That temporarily took away his ability to engage in the behavior and was punishment for the negligence committed. You could (and have) argue that more time would be justified. How much more? Another 10 days? Another 100 days? Five years?
There’s an airport near me that had all their planes broken into and their radio equipment stolen. Small airports didn’t do much of anything after 9/11.
Larger airports added a perimeter road so Airport Security can patrol the fence line but not smaller airports.
The likelihood that it was a first time drug use is slim and his new found hobby of saving other sinners is what expensive lawyers come up with as a defense.
The reason to incarcerate someone is to avoid a repeat of what happened. Yes it’s easier much much easier to stop an airline from flying a large plane around. But it’s ridiculously easy for the same pilot to get into a car. It’s common for repeat offenders to drive a car under suspension.. I see it on the news all the time.
I would like to believe the world is a better place but reality has a way of dampening that belief.
Drug users experience a significant recidivism rate. If he had personal problems before destroying his career what are the odds he’s going to need a pick-me-up? Prisons usually offer programs designed to reduce that rate.
People keep saying he didn’t know what he was doing as if that somehow makes it better. I’d say it makes it worse to think he could relapse on a busy highway.
I agree that when a drug user gets caught it is seldom the true first time… but it is an actual possibility. Neither you nor I have that information, but perhaps the court did and that weighed one way or another with the judge when it was sentencing time.
Also, it’s not a “hobby”, he did genuinely set up a business not to counsel drug-using pilots but pilots struggling with mental illness, which he claims (and which may be) the true root of his problems.
I realize of course that you are an extremely cynical and mistrusting person when it comes to others and their motivations and I’m unlikely to argue you out of your current position. Nonetheless, the court presumably had access to more and better information than we do and I would hope that that factored into the sentencing.
I don’t know - and neither do you. Again, the claim is that mental illness is his problem, not substance abuse, and he was attempting to self-medicate. If he is now receiving proper treatment for mental illness then he may not desire to use illicit drugs.
HA!
Now that I have some knowledge of from back when I was working at a clinic in the mid-1990’s. No, most prisons do NOT have programs designed to reduce drug use. Where anything is offered at all it’s 90-99% of the time allowing the inmates to run an AA or NA program among themselves. VERY common for inmates to relapse as soon as they’re released, if not before because prisons are full of drugs and alcohol.
In the US prison is for punishment and vengeance. Rehabilitation has long been discarded and forgotten. Government owned prisons have had everything pared to the bone. For-profit prisons don’t give a damn about the inmates, just how they can profit off them. Running “programs” costs money.
So no, I don’t think prison is a good way to address either the mental health needs or addiction problems of people.
Is this all people who ever use drugs? Because I can’t help but think that someone who tries a drug, has a terrible experience, and destroys his life in a major and very public way is not the same as a meth-head.
I would guess that drug users, as a class, experience a significant recidivism rate, but that this is particularly true of certain drugs and less true of others; particularly true of addicted users and less true of first-time users (even if there’s some overlap between those two groups).
He was an alcoholic. His claim of sobriety for 2 years doesn’t seem to include mushrooms.
Alcoholics do have a high recidivism rate, yes. I don’t think you can prosecute people for future crimes, though.
Which is a good thing nobody is suggesting it.