Jail

[Rev. Powell]

This is the only stuff worth drinking ... IMHO!

I know we've had this conversation before... but do you mean Makers in specific, or bourbon in general?

I'm partial to Knob Creek and Elijah Craig myself, but I'm no connoisseur by a long shot and Makers is just fine with me.

[Patient7]

Wait, can I change my order?  I'll have a beer.    RC would want it that way.

Actually, BELA doesn't like beer... 

That's true, he doesn't drink...          wine.   

Karma to you... that's what I SHOULD have said.

It just came to me out of nowhere 

[AndyC]

I don't get as many opportunities to enjoy a drink as I used to, but if it's whiskey, it's gotta be Canadian whiskey.

The great thing about CR is that it not only tastes great and mixes well, but the velvet bag comes in surprisingly handy.

I also rather enjoyed Wiser's Extra Old, a nice 18-year-old oak-aged Canadian rye (but expensive). For a party situation, Alberta Premium offers a nice balance of taste and price.

[CheezeFlixz]

This is the only stuff worth drinking ... IMHO!

I know we've had this conversation before... but do you mean Makers in specific, or bourbon in general?

I'm partial to Knob Creek and Elijah Craig myself, but I'm no connoisseur by a long shot and Makers is just fine with me.

Nothing wrong with Knob Hill, Elijah Craig but my beverage of choice is Maker's.  I have a cask at the distillery with my name on it. I think that means I drink to much of it.

[Rev. Powell]

Getting back on topic...



There's a recipe for "classic pruno" on this page, which the author describes as tasting like "a bottle of Thunderbird filtered through a dumpster full of rotted garbage."

[Allhallowsday]

Getting back on topic...
There's a recipe for "classic pruno" on this page, which the author describes as tasting like "a bottle of Thunderbird filtered through a dumpster full of rotted garbage."

     

[AndyC]

Gee, and the original Longest Yard made liquor brewed in a bag stashed in a toilet look so tasty. You mean that wasn't true?

[frank]

Getting busted because some paper-shuffler smells alcohol under your breath in your very own home sounds so surreal to my European ears. Sorry to hear about that. Actually I don't know what one would have to do to get 60 days over here - probably smashing the bottle on the guy's head instead of drinking from it, feeding it to infants, or showing "Gigli" to the public...

I've never been to jail, but when I was in the sates for vacation for four weeks after graduating from high school, my former classmates placed bets on the number of days it would take to get me arrested for an alcohol related offence. No one won, I stayed out of trouble.

[AndyC]

It has more to do with violating a court order than with drinking specifically. I know our justice system here takes that very seriously, because a court's authority depends on people obeying orders. So when somebody breaches a probation order, the penalty can be more severe than you might expect for what actually happened.

And it is quite fair, because probation, house arrest, and such are given in lieu of more severe punishment. I saw one woman brought into court because somebody spotted her driving her mother to church while she was supposed to be confined to her home on a drug conviction. It seems like a little thing, but the judge explained to her that the conditional sentence was for her benefit, allowing her to work and take care of her mother, and making provision for grocery shopping, appointments, etc. She would otherwise spend the time in jail. These types of sentences are somewhat controversial, and when people don't abide by them, judges find it harder to justify giving them to others who might benefit. Basically, she was screwing it up for everybody.

She'd already spent a couple of weeks in jail by this time, so she was sentenced to time served on the breach and sent home to finish her original sentence.

So you see, having a drink isn't really the issue, it's disobeying the court.

It's just a shame when it happens to somebody like RC, who is certainly no criminal.

[frank]

It has more to do with violating a court order than with drinking specifically. I know our justice system here takes that very seriously, because a court's authority depends on people obeying orders. So when somebody breaches a probation order, the penalty can be more severe than you might expect for what actually happened...

I totally agree that respecting the law and the people who represent it is crucial for any society.
However, I can't see any kind of commensurability here (might be the wrong word, and/or grammar - I had to look it up) and I think being punished in the same way for not obeying the order not to drink at home, not to drive drunk, not to start brawling when drunk, etc might screw up people's common sense.

Additionally I just plain hate this "Because I said so" - attitude - it didn't work for me as a kid neither ("Mom, can I go to the party?" - "No!" - "Why?" - "Because I said so!" - "Aha..."). Just imagine you park in a no-parking zone and get fined 10 $. You do it again and get fined 10 $ and the judge/police officer/... tells you not to do it again. You do it again and the judge fines you 10 $ for parking in the wrong place and 60 days in jail because you didn't do what he said. Well, my first thought wouldn't be "OK, you're right, I shouldn't have done it." but "Well, f**k you too".


Sorry, I got carried away a bit. Basically, I think 60 days in jail are way over the top, be it for drinking at home or drinking at home although you were told not to.

[AndyC]

It's a little more complicated than that. The terms of a probation order are very specific, usually related to the type of offence, and governed by law. Judges have to be able to justify them. A prohibition against all drinking, in my experience, is pretty standard, particularly in cases where alcohol is a factor.

Likewise, breach of probation is a specific offence, with a legal definition and standard penalties. The judge has some leeway, but has to apply the law in a justifiable manner.

I'll also admit that 60 days is a bit more than I've seen for a simple breach, although I'm more familiar with the Ontario justice system. Another possibility (and only RC could answer this) is that not drinking was one of the terms of a suspended sentence, and breaching that would mean serving a custodial term for the original conviction.

But regardless of whether we would all be a little more flexible and forgiving, court orders are not something people can obey or disobey as it suits them.

I think this particular penalty might seem extreme to some of us because RC is our friend, and we know him to be a pretty nice guy. I'm not sure we'd be so incensed if we didn't know him. And it's really not all that unreasonable when you consider that he is allowed to work. That might also account for the length of the sentence. Is a 60-day sentence with time off for work the same as a 30-day full-time sentence? People do get those, and suffer far worse disruption of their lives. It does sound like the judge tried to do his job with as little harm as possible.

Do I like that this happened to RC? No. From a purely personal standpoint, he doesn't deserve it. Is it reasonable from a legal point of view? I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

[frank]

Thanks, Andy. I still agree that judges need to enforce the law, and the decisions a judge makes need to be followed. But I also still think some laws, and this one in particular, push it a little too far regarding the punishment and the penalty in the first place. To me, a total ban of alcohol to someone who violated a law while drunk would basically be the same as to forbid someone to walk anymore because he was accused of tresspassing. Meaning, you can still do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone or mess with society. Also, I think it's not the best way to keep people from breaking laws.  But I always have trouble with the logics of laws (independent of the country), which basically shows that I have no basis for argumantations about legal matters.

Meaning I don't know what I'm talking about...

[AndyC]

You would be amazed how many people wind up in court as a result of something they did while drunk. It's an activity that changes behaviour (quite seriously for some people), and it's not as necessary as walking. A court order, in many of these cases, addresses the cause of the problem, and can augment a person's willpower somewhat. This is just in general, and not specific to RC, of course.

You can't simply tell somebody to keep the peace, and then let them go home and resume an activity that alters their personality in a negative way. And you can't order moderation, particularly for someone with a drinking problem. It's all or nothing. And you have to be consistent with everybody.

The fact is a lot of people wind up in court because they made bad choices, and alcohol impairs judgement. For some people, if you don't take it away, you are just increasing their chances of coming back.

What I'm hearing from you, Frank, is that a drink now and then in your own home is no big deal. For you and me, maybe, but not for everyone. Sit in court for a day. Alcohol is a running theme.

And we do have to consider that there wouldn't be much point in putting somebody on probation if we didn't place some kind of restrictions on them. And not drinking is a minor hardship at best, not to mention one that will improve your health.

[Patient7]

Meaning I don't know what I'm talking about...

Don't worry, neither do I, ever.

[CheezeFlixz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b3Zxy0X6ik

On the Chain Gang ...