proves it again ...

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

.... if, in the UK, you want to do away with someone and get off with a slapped
wrist, once again it shows the car to be the weapon of choice :-(

I am not ever surprised by these things any more, but I am *always* angered by
the leniency shown to drivers who kill when clearly, it *wasn't* unavoidable. I
am also continually appalled by the comment of the coroner, who seems to be an
utter, well, the word rhymes with banker...

See

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Ne
ws&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED19%20Nov%202004%2019%3A13%3A
39%3A320

or

http://tinyurl.com/677hy

"Driver didn't see cyclist, inquest hears

MIKE SHERBURN

20 November 2004 06:15

A 17-year-old BMX enthusiast was killed after being hit by a car because the
driver did not see him, an inquest heard yesterday.

James Dean Halil had been on his way to meet friends on March 23 when the
silver Peugeot 106 hit his bike. The trainee cabinet maker died in hospital
from a fractured skull and brain injuries.

Christopher Bulstrode, who was driving the car, told the hearing he had not
seen any lights or reflective clothing before the crash, which happened at
about 6.50pm as he was driving along the B1077 from Occold to Eye, near Diss.

Mr Bulstrode, of Mill Road, Occold, said he had been on his way to see his
girlfriend at the time and did not stop after the collision. But at 9pm he went
to Eye police station and told them what had happened.

Reading his statement, the 20-year-old carpet fitter said: "I heard a bang and
something came up over the bonnet.

"I was stunned by the sudden impact and looked behind to see I had hit a
cyclist."

The inquest heard that Mr Halil's father had watched him leave the family home
in Dublin Road, Rishangles, near Diss, and had seen that a red rear-facing
light was tucked in his rucksack and visible.

And police had spoken to two motorists who said they had seen him with his
light visible shortly before the accident.

Sgt Colin Teager said Mr Bulstrode told police he had been checking his rear
mirror just before the crash, but could have just had a "momentary lapse of
concentration".

Recording a verdict of accidental death, Lowestoft coroner George Leguen de
Lacroix said the crash had already had a "devastating effect" on Mr Bulstrode
and the family of James Halil.

He added it was "impossible to say why" Mr Bulstrode had not seen the cyclist.

On July 21, Mr Bulstrode admitted careless driving, failing to stop after an
accident and driving a vehicle which had sustained sufficient damage to cause
potential injury. He was disqualified for a year and fined a total of £450."


helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[Roger Zoul]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
|| ... if, in the UK, you want to do away with someone and get off with
|| a slapped wrist, once again it shows the car to be the weapon of
|| choice :-(
||
|| I am not ever surprised by these things any more, but I am *always*
|| angered by the leniency shown to drivers who kill when clearly, it
|| *wasn't* unavoidable. I am also continually appalled by the comment
|| of the coroner, who seems to be an utter, well, the word rhymes with
|| banker...

Honestly.....the more I read of events like this the less I want to ride.
There is simply too little motivation for someone to worry about NOT killing
a cyclist.

 

[Badger]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:56:23 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>|| ... if, in the UK, you want to do away with someone and get off with
>|| a slapped wrist, once again it shows the car to be the weapon of
>|| choice :-(
>||
>|| I am not ever surprised by these things any more, but I am *always*
>|| angered by the leniency shown to drivers who kill when clearly, it
>|| *wasn't* unavoidable. I am also continually appalled by the comment
>|| of the coroner, who seems to be an utter, well, the word rhymes with
>|| banker...
>
>Honestly.....the more I read of events like this the less I want to ride.
>There is simply too little motivation for someone to worry about NOT killing
>a cyclist.

You have to carefully choose the times not to ride, i.e., foggy conditions,
any low visibility, driving rain, dawn or dusk with its lower light, or
lower contrast, and night, where you're only seen by your lights. Ride low
or no traffic routes (bike trails), if you really are concerned.

Remember the number of biking fatalities compared to the number of riders
is quite low, iirc, something like under 1000 per year (~750 springs to
mind).

But yeah, I know what you mean. Back in the day when I rode a lot, you
could easily ride anywhere around here with very little danger (or so it
seemed), but about 20-25 years ago the traffic numbers increased to the
point that I started wondering how anyone could cycle in this
(geographically) small University town.

Surprisingly the cyclists continue to ride one traditional route out in the
country that is now a major route (but not improved to handle the traffic)
into the city. I see them riding the very edge of the road (the white
line), and then half a mile later I see a little sports car driving that
road like it's some kind of gym kana road rally, hugging the curves and I
wonder how in the world there's not gonna be a collision when the meet, and
it makes me shudder. It's ridiculous that in a college town with a fair
number of cycling commuters that six people would be hit in the last three
weeks...these drivers see cyclists enough to -know- to expect them...yet
they must be unconcerned, as though 'oh cyclist=bug on windshield, just
drive on by an hope paint's not chipped'. So I may exaggerate, but to
suggest that someone slow down to decrease chances of hitting someone?
Impossible.

Fortunately, for me, they've doubled the size of the MUT so I'm back there
for the winter, plus I have that 2 mile hill trail that lets me get in
hilll repeats, so it's pretty good.

Keep safe out there good buddy. ;-)

-B

 

[mark]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" wrote...
> ... if, in the UK, you want to do away with someone and get off with a
slapped
> wrist, once again it shows the car to be the weapon of choice :-(
>
> I am not ever surprised by these things any more, but I am *always*
angered by
> the leniency shown to drivers who kill when clearly, it *wasn't*
unavoidable. I
> am also continually appalled by the comment of the coroner, who seems to
be an
> utter, well, the word rhymes with banker...

<snip story of cyclist killed by hit and run motorist>
> helen s
> --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched
off--
>
>
What does UK law say about leaving the scene of an accident? I've always
understood that leaving the scene of an accident where someone was injured
is a serious crime in itself, regardless of how the accident happened.
Reading your post and a few other posts on urc, hit and run driving seems to
be treated more leniently in the UK than in the US, making it only too easy
for a driver to just drive off after killing or injuring someone.

I agree with you that the coroner's comments are appalling.
--
mark

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You have to carefully choose the times not to ride, i.e., foggy
conditions,
> any low visibility, driving rain, dawn or dusk with its lower light, or
> lower contrast, and night, where you're only seen by your lights. Ride low
> or no traffic routes (bike trails), if you really are concerned.

If I didn't ride when it was foggy -- any morning that isn't raining, it's
foggy, except maybe for a month in the summer, I swear. It was probably
foggy every morning this week. If I didn't ride when it was foggy, I
couldn't commute by bicycle. Ditto the dawn or dusk thing. And driving rain?
I guess I'd only be riding for a month in July. Geez.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Badger]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:03:26 GMT, "Claire Petersky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> You have to carefully choose the times not to ride, i.e., foggy
>conditions,
>> any low visibility, driving rain, dawn or dusk with its lower light, or
>> lower contrast, and night, where you're only seen by your lights. Ride low
>> or no traffic routes (bike trails), if you really are concerned.
>
>If I didn't ride when it was foggy -- any morning that isn't raining, it's
>foggy, except maybe for a month in the summer, I swear. It was probably
>foggy every morning this week. If I didn't ride when it was foggy, I
>couldn't commute by bicycle. Ditto the dawn or dusk thing. And driving rain?
>I guess I'd only be riding for a month in July. Geez.

Now you have to realize I was replying to a message where the poster said
the more he hears about traffic fatalities the less he wants to cycle at
all.

If you've got the conditions wired, then you're good to go, mostly.

Having said that, I think riding in fog can be about the most dangerous
condition, b/c even lighting won't make you visible beyond a few dozen
yards if the fog is heavy.

-B

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]omcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) writes:

....

> http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Ne
> ws&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED19%20Nov%202004%2019%3A13%3A
> 39%3A320

> Christopher Bulstrode, who was driving the car, told the hearing he had not
> seen any lights or reflective clothing before the crash, which happened at
> about 6.50pm as he was driving along the B1077 from Occold to Eye, near Diss.
^^^^^^
>
> Mr Bulstrode, of Mill Road, Occold, said he had been on his way to see his
> girlfriend at the time and did not stop after the collision. But at 9pm he
^^^
> went to Eye police station and told them what had happened.

Impaired drivers who've caused collisions have been known to
flee the scene and turn themselves in later, once they've
had a chance to sober up somewhat. If liquor is still
detectable on them, they figure they can excuse themselves
by saying they were so distraught by the incident, they had
to slurp down a couple when they got home, to steady their
nerves.

I'm not saying that's the case here. But my suspicions are
whetted by Bulstrode's taking so long to report the incident.


regards,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>What does UK law say about leaving the scene of an accident?

It is indeed a crime.

Sadly, over here killing with a motorcar seems to be treated along the lines of
"it's an accident" - even when it's clearly not :-(

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[Bill Baka]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:36:08 -0800, Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]omcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) writes:
>
> ...
>
>> http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Ne
>> ws&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED19%20Nov%202004%2019%3A13%3A
>> 39%3A320
>
>> Christopher Bulstrode, who was driving the car, told the hearing he had
>> not
>> seen any lights or reflective clothing before the crash, which happened
>> at
>> about 6.50pm as he was driving along the B1077 from Occold to Eye, near
>> Diss.
> ^^^^^^
>>
>> Mr Bulstrode, of Mill Road, Occold, said he had been on his way to see
>> his
>> girlfriend at the time and did not stop after the collision. But at 9pm
>> he
> ^^^
>> went to Eye police station and told them what had happened.
>
> Impaired drivers who've caused collisions have been known to
> flee the scene and turn themselves in later, once they've
> had a chance to sober up somewhat. If liquor is still
> detectable on them, they figure they can excuse themselves
> by saying they were so distraught by the incident, they had
> to slurp down a couple when they got home, to steady their
> nerves.
>
> I'm not saying that's the case here. But my suspicions are
> whetted by Bulstrode's taking so long to report the incident.
>
>
> regards,
> Tom
>
Remember Ted Kennedy, a girl named Koppeckne(sp?) and Chappaquidick(sp?)
about 20 years ago?
He is still a senator. Living proof.


--
Bill (not always politically correct) Baka

 

[mark]

"Bill Baka" wrote:

"Tom Keats" wrote:
> > Impaired drivers who've caused collisions have been known to
> > flee the scene and turn themselves in later, once they've
> > had a chance to sober up somewhat. If liquor is still
> > detectable on them, they figure they can excuse themselves
> > by saying they were so distraught by the incident, they had
> > to slurp down a couple when they got home, to steady their
> > nerves.
> >
> > I'm not saying that's the case here. But my suspicions are
> > whetted by Bulstrode's taking so long to report the incident.
> >
> >
> > regards,
> > Tom
> >

> Remember Ted Kennedy, a girl named Koppeckne(sp?) and Chappaquidick(sp?)
> about 20 years ago?
> He is still a senator. Living proof.
>
>
> --
> Bill (not always politically correct) Baka

1969 or '70, I believe. Part of Mr. Kennedy's reluctance to contact the
police supposedly arose from the fact that Ms Kopechne was not his wife.

The answer to Tom's scenario is to make the penalties for hit and run
involving death or injury at least as severe as the penalties for DWI,
driving without a license, etc. From the postings I've read on urc about
similar incidents, British law seems to treat hit and run as a fairly minor
offense, making it only too easy for impaired drivers to behave as Tom
described.
--
mark

 

[Roger Zoul]

Badger wrote:
|| On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:56:23 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
||||| ... if, in the UK, you want to do away with someone and get off
||||| with
||||| a slapped wrist, once again it shows the car to be the weapon of
||||| choice :-(
|||||
||||| I am not ever surprised by these things any more, but I am
||||| *always* angered by the leniency shown to drivers who kill when
||||| clearly, it *wasn't* unavoidable. I am also continually appalled
||||| by the comment
||||| of the coroner, who seems to be an utter, well, the word rhymes
||||| with banker...
|||
||| Honestly.....the more I read of events like this the less I want to
||| ride. There is simply too little motivation for someone to worry
||| about NOT killing a cyclist.
||
|| You have to carefully choose the times not to ride, i.e., foggy
|| conditions, any low visibility, driving rain, dawn or dusk with its
|| lower light, or lower contrast, and night, where you're only seen by
|| your lights. Ride low or no traffic routes (bike trails), if you
|| really are concerned.
||
|| Remember the number of biking fatalities compared to the number of
|| riders
|| is quite low, iirc, something like under 1000 per year (~750 springs
|| to mind).
||
|| But yeah, I know what you mean. Back in the day when I rode a lot,
|| you
|| could easily ride anywhere around here with very little danger (or
|| so it seemed), but about 20-25 years ago the traffic numbers
|| increased to the point that I started wondering how anyone could
|| cycle in this (geographically) small University town.
||
|| Surprisingly the cyclists continue to ride one traditional route out
|| in the country that is now a major route (but not improved to handle
|| the traffic) into the city. I see them riding the very edge of the
|| road (the white
|| line), and then half a mile later I see a little sports car driving
|| that road like it's some kind of gym kana road rally, hugging the
|| curves and I wonder how in the world there's not gonna be a
|| collision when the meet, and it makes me shudder. It's ridiculous
|| that in a college town with a fair number of cycling commuters that
|| six people would be hit in the last three weeks...these drivers see
|| cyclists enough to -know- to expect them...yet they must be
|| unconcerned, as though 'oh cyclist=bug on windshield, just drive on
|| by an hope paint's not chipped'. So I may exaggerate, but to suggest
|| that someone slow down to decrease chances of hitting someone?
|| Impossible.
||
|| Fortunately, for me, they've doubled the size of the MUT so I'm back
|| there for the winter, plus I have that 2 mile hill trail that lets
|| me get in
|| hilll repeats, so it's pretty good.
||
|| Keep safe out there good buddy. ;-)

The problem I see is this: some wacko could decide to kill someone on a bike
and get off scott free. Just claim a momentary loss of attention and all
will be forgiven. Thus, it can be open season on cyclists.

I think the only things that prevents this is moral and religous beliefs and
a certain lack of ignorance on how easy it is to kill a cyclist and get away
with it. Sure, there is minor issue of the hassle one must deal with after
killing someone, but i do believe there is some segment of the population
who'd be willing to ensure that for a certain amount of satisfaction. And
morals seems to be fading fast amongst the younger crowds....

Still, I'll keep riding.

||
|| -B

 

[Badger]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:06:50 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The problem I see is this: some wacko could decide to kill someone on a bike
>and get off scott free. Just claim a momentary loss of attention and all
>will be forgiven. Thus, it can be open season on cyclists.
>
>I think the only things that prevents this is moral and religous beliefs and
>a certain lack of ignorance on how easy it is to kill a cyclist and get away
>with it. Sure, there is minor issue of the hassle one must deal with after
>killing someone, but i do believe there is some segment of the population
>who'd be willing to ensure that for a certain amount of satisfaction. And
>morals seems to be fading fast amongst the younger crowds....
>
>Still, I'll keep riding.

Right, and I agree. But be aware that b/c we're in a cycling group that
monitors and reports occasional incidents we're getting a magnified and
distorted view, just as when you work in a hospital emergency room
(BT/DT)...you start to wonder how people can live a long life at all, b/c
you see so many accidents. Not trying to dispute your comment...just trying
to mitigate a little bit for ya. ;-)

Even among 'bad' people there are only a few that are actually
psycho-social personalities (i.e. no conscience), of the type that would
run down an innocent biker, and the chance for meeting up with one of those
in the one or two hours per day you're on the bike are -extremely- remote.
Heh, you're probably thousands of times more likely to be hit by lightning.

It's similar to the distorted view one gets by watching violent shows on
TV. After a while you start to think that the noise you heard was a mutant
killer hiding in the basement, heh.

Again, not trying to be argumentative...actually just mentioning what I
tell myself when I sometimes get 'sensitized' to this kind of stuff.

-B

 

[Roger Zoul]

Badger wrote:
|| On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:06:50 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| The problem I see is this: some wacko could decide to kill someone
||| on a bike and get off scott free. Just claim a momentary loss of
||| attention and all will be forgiven. Thus, it can be open season on
||| cyclists.
|||
||| I think the only things that prevents this is moral and religous
||| beliefs and a certain lack of ignorance on how easy it is to kill a
||| cyclist and get away with it. Sure, there is minor issue of the
||| hassle one must deal with after killing someone, but i do believe
||| there is some segment of the population who'd be willing to ensure
||| that for a certain amount of satisfaction. And morals seems to be
||| fading fast amongst the younger crowds....
|||
||| Still, I'll keep riding.
||
|| Right, and I agree. But be aware that b/c we're in a cycling group
|| that monitors and reports occasional incidents we're getting a
|| magnified and distorted view, just as when you work in a hospital
|| emergency room (BT/DT)...you start to wonder how people can live a
|| long life at all, b/c you see so many accidents. Not trying to
|| dispute your comment...just trying to mitigate a little bit for ya.
|| ;-)
||
|| Even among 'bad' people there are only a few that are actually
|| psycho-social personalities (i.e. no conscience), of the type that
|| would
|| run down an innocent biker, and the chance for meeting up with one
|| of those in the one or two hours per day you're on the bike are
|| -extremely- remote. Heh, you're probably thousands of times more
|| likely to be hit by lightning.
||
|| It's similar to the distorted view one gets by watching violent
|| shows on
|| TV. After a while you start to think that the noise you heard was a
|| mutant killer hiding in the basement, heh.
||
|| Again, not trying to be argumentative...actually just mentioning
|| what I
|| tell myself when I sometimes get 'sensitized' to this kind of stuff.
||

I hear ya. I'll still ride. In fact, I have a big week of riding ahead of
me.

 

[Ronsonic]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:06:50 -0500, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:


>The problem I see is this: some wacko could decide to kill someone on a bike
>and get off scott free. Just claim a momentary loss of attention and all
>will be forgiven. Thus, it can be open season on cyclists.
>
>I think the only things that prevents this is moral and religous beliefs and
>a certain lack of ignorance on how easy it is to kill a cyclist and get away
>with it. Sure, there is minor issue of the hassle one must deal with after
>killing someone, but i do believe there is some segment of the population
>who'd be willing to ensure that for a certain amount of satisfaction. And
>morals seems to be fading fast amongst the younger crowds....
>
>Still, I'll keep riding.

Take that chain of thought and keep following it... It isn't just cyclists who
are easy to kill. It's everyone every day. We exist in an enormous sphere of
presumed trust. That trust is why we don't keep more distance and have more
weapons at ready.

Lose that trust and everything about how we live changes.

This is why we hate terrorists so much.

Ron

 

[Bill Baka]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:38:52 GMT, mark <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Bill Baka" wrote:
>
> "Tom Keats" wrote:
>> > Impaired drivers who've caused collisions have been known to
>> > flee the scene and turn themselves in later, once they've
>> > had a chance to sober up somewhat. If liquor is still
>> > detectable on them, they figure they can excuse themselves
>> > by saying they were so distraught by the incident, they had
>> > to slurp down a couple when they got home, to steady their
>> > nerves.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying that's the case here. But my suspicions are
>> > whetted by Bulstrode's taking so long to report the incident.
>> >
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > Tom
>> >
>
>> Remember Ted Kennedy, a girl named Koppeckne(sp?) and Chappaquidick(sp?)
>> about 20 years ago?
>> He is still a senator. Living proof.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill (not always politically correct) Baka
>
> 1969 or '70, I believe. Part of Mr. Kennedy's reluctance to contact the
> police supposedly arose from the fact that Ms Kopechne was not his wife.
>
> The answer to Tom's scenario is to make the penalties for hit and run
> involving death or injury at least as severe as the penalties for DWI,
> driving without a license, etc. From the postings I've read on urc about
> similar incidents, British law seems to treat hit and run as a fairly
> minor
> offense, making it only too easy for impaired drivers to behave as Tom
> described.


I am not arguing this one, I am with you 200%


--
Bill (not always politically correct) Baka

 

[Roger Zoul]

Ronsonic wrote:
:: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:06:50 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email protected]> wrote:
::
::
::: The problem I see is this: some wacko could decide to kill someone
::: on a bike and get off scott free. Just claim a momentary loss of
::: attention and all will be forgiven. Thus, it can be open season on
::: cyclists.
:::
::: I think the only things that prevents this is moral and religous
::: beliefs and a certain lack of ignorance on how easy it is to kill a
::: cyclist and get away with it. Sure, there is minor issue of the
::: hassle one must deal with after killing someone, but i do believe
::: there is some segment of the population who'd be willing to ensure
::: that for a certain amount of satisfaction. And morals seems to be
::: fading fast amongst the younger crowds....
:::
::: Still, I'll keep riding.
::
:: Take that chain of thought and keep following it... It isn't just
:: cyclists who are easy to kill. It's everyone every day. We exist in
:: an enormous sphere of presumed trust. That trust is why we don't
:: keep more distance and have more weapons at ready.
::
:: Lose that trust and everything about how we live changes.
::
:: This is why we hate terrorists so much.

Good points, Ron.

 

[gds]

[email protected]omcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> ... if, in the UK, you want to do away with someone and get off with a slapped
> wrist, once again it shows the car to be the weapon of choice :-(
>
> I am not ever surprised by these things any more, but I am *always* angered by
> the leniency shown to drivers who kill when clearly, it *wasn't* unavoidable.

But isn't this just the more fundamental problem of how to deal with
rule infractions of any sort. We are really stuck between
socio-economic rocks and hard places.

At one extreme we have the "slap on the wrist" which to many seems
unfair if there was real injury and culpability. At the other extreme
we have execution which seems harsh and/or immoral to many others for
all but the most heinous actions proven way way beyond any doubt.

And most of what is in between is varying amounts of incarceration.
And we know that such incarceration is (at least) a) expensive to
society in actual direct costs of housing, b) expensive to society in
costs in terms of actually creating criminals with worse behavior as
they leave incarceration, c) many if not most prisons have conditions
that some of us would judge to be "cruel and unusual punishment"

So, I always come back to the idea that the real solutions are in
education and social support systems that work to avoid the behaviors
and that punishment is really a failure of our system.

No, I'm not for not having prisons or incarceration--I'd just like to
prevent more of it from having to be and thus minimize the need for
their use.
G