Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Brian (Coloradoan living in Austin) on May 8, 2007:

I detect a hint of moral relativism in the comment "Let's assume worst-case here: driving drunk inside a park near where kids are playing, certainly he does deserve punishment."

Does it really matter where he was driving or who was around? Is driving drunk on a road in the middle of nowhere with no traffic less illegal than the act of this fireman?

I don't think we should accept the idea that a crime is more or less punishable based on where it is or who it affects. For instance, hate crime laws are ridiculous. In essence, hate crime laws make it less "wrong" to murder an affluent white christian heterosexual male than it is to murder a poor black jewish homosexual female. Wrong! Murder is murder no matter who is killed. (There are a few mitigations like self-defense.)

Assuming a conviction, punish him for DUI; no more no less.

Kimberly in NH--Attempted murder?! You've got to be kidding! Who is the driver trying to kill?

---

As I said to you privately when you e-mailed me privately, there's no "moral relativism". There is an attempt to spur thought and discussion. -rc

Posted by Jarred, Olympia WA on May 8, 2007:

He may have served any public humiliation punishment, but I don't think that's enough to say he's been properly punished for his crime. If the judge were inclined to levy such punishments, he can skip that this time, but any other non-humiliation judgements still need to be handed down.

I'm a big fan of Denmark's drunk driving laws: one offense, and your license is revoked... FOREVER! The reason people continue to drink and drive (and get innocents killed) is because the potential damage isn't enough to deter them. It's not hard to get a taxi, catch a bus, or have a designated driver if you're committed to doing so, and a harsher penalty would encourage more people to make sure they have taken care of such necessities before getting sloshed. (Of course, if their licenses were revoked, we'd probably just get more driving without a license charges....)

Posted by Ole in Denmark on May 9, 2007:

Uh, Jarred, actually we in DK do not just revoke a license for one infraction - it usually take three to get a permanent revoke.

But you very easy end up with a 3-year suspension, depending on how sloshed you were. Another reasonable thing is that a repeated offence comes with a stiff fine - one month's wages.

Now that does not stop a lot of boozeheads from driving without a license - some 30% of all DUI offenders already had their licenses revoked.

But if you do that, you risk getting the car confiscated.
So there is quite bit of sense here.

The limit is 0.05% alcohol - the average souse being stopped is lying around 0.1-0.15% with some heavy hitters ending up around the 0.3 - a state where you wonder how they ever got in the car.

Posted by Eric in Michigan on May 9, 2007:

Of course he should be given whatever punishment his state gives out for drunk driving and endangering all the children in the area. His humiliation is not nearly enough for the crime, because he must want to be looked at in his skimpy outfit. For crying out loud, he was going to a gay bar to show off his attire, or lack thereof. So he wanted to be looked at, and thus, having his photo splashed all over the Internet is not punishment to him, as it would be to a normal person. If anything, his punishment should be even stricter. The more severe the better, because he shouldn't even be so close to exposing himself in front of the kids.

Posted by Marilou - Florida on May 9, 2007:

I know it's not a popular opinion but I think drinking and driving should be prosecuted as attempted murder, with the victim simply not chosen yet. If you fire a gun into a crowd it's attempted murder even if you haven't chosen exactly who is to die, when you drive a car without being able to control it, you may as well be firing into a crowd.

Public humiliation as a sentence is humiliation chosen by the judge, not the criminal, and since he chose to run around in public dressed in this fashion I don't think it could possibly be considered a punishment. Even if the police hadn't released the pictures, by being out in public he was leaving himself open for this. If I saw a guy dressed like this run by my house, I'd certainly be taking pictures and posting them somewhere. He chose to do something stupid, and these are the results of that choice.

Posted by Barbara in Utah on May 9, 2007:

Other than thinking he should be required to take fashion lessons from Dame Edna Etheridge, I think the discussion on whether or not the guy will suffer adequately ignores the prep he had to do for this bikini foray.

I notice the only hair the guy has appears to be the blonde bombshell wig and judging by his lack of body hair, it looks like he waxed. Believe me folks, waxing the bikini line for a woman is not for the faint of heart and for a guy's worth of body hair, it's got to rival medieval torture in the screech and scream department. That in mind, I seriously doubt the pain of public embarrassment is going to deter him.

He should be sentenced take his wardrobe disaster and enter the annual Bastile Day races for the next 20 years or so. He'll blend in with all the other guys in drag, wearing cheap wigs, spike heels and trying to hoof it to the finish line without breaking an ankle. And in his case to avoid a black eye when his hooters escape and whack him in the face.

Posted by Doug, Northridge CA on May 9, 2007:

The fact that Cole exhibited behaviors indicative of alcoholism, confirmed by the fact that he could walk at a .174, is relevant to determining consequences. He should suffer the usual ones for DUI and be required to prove abstinence--for years, as should every alcoholic who's proven to society they cannot safely drink.

His story will go into my "alcoholics do the craziest things" files. If it's crazy, it's usually alcohol or other drug addiction. And if there's addiction, the person is capable of anything.

Posted by Dottie, Houston TX on May 9, 2007:

Regarding the public indecency charges...according to the news posting in the Cincinatti Enquirer, the man who reported Cole to police said "he saw what appeared to be a naked person on the bike path, fondling or exposing himself or herself. The person seemed to be scared off moments later by a jogger...he then said he saw the bikini-clad person hop into a parked blue Ford F-150 pickup truck with red emergency lights on top and he realized the person was a man."

That would qualify as public indecency in my book. I'm glad my nine year old daughter was not on that bike path to witness that display.

---

For the record, I discounted that report: if they couldn't tell if it was a male or female doing the "exposing", I can't quite count it as exposure. But I agree that's probably what's behind the charge, and I agree with others who suggested that it's likely to be dropped. -rc

Posted by Abigail in MA on May 11, 2007:

The drunk driving part he should get the book thrown at him for, but I think that what's causing all the trouble is his attire. If it was a standard, unaltered women's bathing suit that fit him, then it covered all the essential bits, and you can't really charge someone with public indecency who hid all the essential bits.

But of course, since he was crossdressing, we can throw the book at him for that, because the US dislikes crossdressers.

This should be a drunk driving charge. And only a drunk driving charge. Otherwise it's a blow to freedom of clothing.

Posted by Patrick, Illinois on May 12, 2007:

If we are to look at law enforcement as impeccable models of conduct (which they should be but aren't), then the publicly humiliated driver should not receive any additional punishments. If people are upset by this, they can blame the law officers who publicly humiliated this man before he had a fair trial. There should be zero tolerance for drinking and driving, but there should also be zero tolerance for law officers misusing their power.

A successive approximation toward acceptance of police authoritarianism is far more dangerous than a drunk in a bikini who may have driven around a bunch of kids, but didn't hurt anybody. If we don't want to end up with cops or soldiers patrolling our streets and telling us how to breathe, then we need to keep conditions as far away from that as possible.