|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True® - the First For-Profit E-mail Publication (and Still Going Strong). |
A Lingering Image
Another one of those stories that just begs for a photo. From True's 9 March 2008 issue:
Subscribe for Free!
Crime of Intoxication
Stephanie Pochron, 30, must spend six months in jail after a drunk driving accident, but she has something to come home to: the smashed car she was driving. The car was ordered towed to her Wanatah, Ind., front yard by the judge in the case, and he has ruled that it must stay there during her entire three-year probation. Pochron caused the crash, hitting a vehicle that then went out of control and crashed into a third car, which rolled with a family inside. One man was seriously injured. This was Pochron's third conviction for drunk driving. "I'm never going to drink again," she said. (Northwest Indiana Times) ...Of course, three years of having to look at the car will drive her to drink.
And here's the photo:
Leave it for the duration: Pochron's smashed car, sitting in front of her house. (Photo ©2008 the Northwest Indiana Times, reprinted with permission.) |
Do you think this sort of punishment will help deter other drunk drivers? Or is it just an eyesore for the neighborhood that really could drive a guilt-ridden woman to drink? You can post your comments below.
(A previous drunk driving story with photo -- an Ohio firefighter wearing a wig and a woman's bikini -- brought a lot of comment from readers. People are clearly mighty tired of drunk drivers.)
RSS
Most Recent Comments
I agree with many commenters that the laws and/or the application of those laws is often too lax. One year in prison for a first offense, three for a second, and 8 for a third seem quite reasonable to me. Fines are also okay, but I would want them scaled to the ability of the criminal to pay. Someone who earns $20,000 per year might be fined $2,000 for a first offense and $5,000 for a second; someone who only earns $10,000 per year might have to be fined smaller amounts.
I also don't like the idea of seizing criminals' vehicles — this only encourages them to buy inexpensive used ones to drive when they're drunk. They should not, however, be allowed to declare bankruptcy until they have sold any vehicles they own. Exceptions to license revocations that allow criminals to drive for work need to be tossed right out the window. If they need to drive for work, they need to get new jobs or go beg on the streets.
Posted by: David, Bethesda, MD | March 23, 2008 1:49 AM
"Most judges don't have the legal tools to keep drunks from driving."
Posted by: Pete, NJ | March 21, 2008 3:15 PM
Actually, they do. It's called an ignition interlock device (IID). 100% effective...for that automobile. All DUI's should be required to have one installed on their auto.
Posted by: Sharilyn, Calif | March 29, 2008 8:01 PM
I think that the visual aide will go a long way to keeping the topic in the forefront of hers and the neighbor's minds. At Prom time, many high schools display cars that have been in drunk-driving accidents. I believe that the sight of them is more powerful than a thousand words.
I have nephew has an ignition interlock device (IID) and I thank god that he does have it. Doesn't stop him from drinking, but it does stop him from driving.
I hope I've taught my son that a person can drink responsibly. I have also taught him that a car is a deadly weapon. A driver's license is a license to operate a deadly weapon.
Posted by: Lillian - Shepherdstown, WV | April 19, 2008 8:57 AM