Comments on: Sure, One More for the Road http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/ Sat, 19 May 2012 02:39:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Are We Sufficiently Outraged Yet? | cephyn http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-583 Are We Sufficiently Outraged Yet? | cephyn Fri, 04 May 2007 18:00:46 +0000 http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-583 [...] while ago I talked about the problems in baseball with alcohol, the most recent offender being Tony LaRussa. I called for harsher penalties. I pointed out the idiocy of forgiving LaRussa just because [...] […] while ago I talked about the problems in baseball with alcohol, the most recent offender being Tony LaRussa. I called for harsher penalties. I pointed out the idiocy of forgiving LaRussa just because […]

]]> By: Vanilla Spice http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-404 Vanilla Spice Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:27:22 +0000 http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-404 I think the difference between making a stupid choice and random chance is made more distinct by examining intent — in many cases, it's the degree of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea" rel="nofollow">mens rea</a> component of a crime so, instead of "murder versus attempted murder," I think the question is more like murder versus manslaughter. I think the difference between making a stupid choice and random chance is made more distinct by examining intent — in many cases, it’s the degree of the mens rea component of a crime so, instead of “murder versus attempted murder,” I think the question is more like murder versus manslaughter.

]]> By: cephyn http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-402 cephyn Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:20:23 +0000 http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-402 There is some room for interpretation on the part of the employer when an employee breaks the law. This is a bit of a special case - when you are a public figure, you accept that you are basically representing your company at all times. In this case, Tony LaRussa is always a representative of the St Louis Cardinals and Major League Baseball - it's the nature of the position. With fame comes responsibility. Players and coaches are typically suspended when they break the law. Steroids are illegal - not just in baseball, but period. And steroids fall under the greater substance abuse policy of MLB - so you get caught with coke, speed, heroin, marijuana or steroids, you face legal issues AND are suspended from your job. Alcohol is apparently not covered by that - odd. The likelihood of an employer to suspend should be proportionate to the crime. Should your employer suspend you for shoplifting, that might be excessive. It's not a violent crime, basically any misdemeanor. But DUI - especially when you're so far over limit like LaRussa - should be treated for what it is. It's reckless endangerment of who knows how many people. And I suppose you just have to accept that making a stupid choice carries one penalty, and random chance controls whether that penalty is made worse. You could spin it the other way - should criminals be treated more lightly because they were incompetent criminals? As in, Murder vs. Attempted Murder? If the criminal was better at it, he'd get a stiffer sentence. But he wasn't. The intent was the same, only his incompetence changed the ultimate outcome. Definitely a difficult question. There is some room for interpretation on the part of the employer when an employee breaks the law. This is a bit of a special case - when you are a public figure, you accept that you are basically representing your company at all times. In this case, Tony LaRussa is always a representative of the St Louis Cardinals and Major League Baseball - it’s the nature of the position. With fame comes responsibility.

Players and coaches are typically suspended when they break the law. Steroids are illegal - not just in baseball, but period. And steroids fall under the greater substance abuse policy of MLB - so you get caught with coke, speed, heroin, marijuana or steroids, you face legal issues AND are suspended from your job. Alcohol is apparently not covered by that - odd.

The likelihood of an employer to suspend should be proportionate to the crime. Should your employer suspend you for shoplifting, that might be excessive. It’s not a violent crime, basically any misdemeanor. But DUI - especially when you’re so far over limit like LaRussa - should be treated for what it is. It’s reckless endangerment of who knows how many people.

And I suppose you just have to accept that making a stupid choice carries one penalty, and random chance controls whether that penalty is made worse. You could spin it the other way - should criminals be treated more lightly because they were incompetent criminals? As in, Murder vs. Attempted Murder? If the criminal was better at it, he’d get a stiffer sentence. But he wasn’t. The intent was the same, only his incompetence changed the ultimate outcome. Definitely a difficult question.

]]> By: Rich http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-401 Rich Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:03:55 +0000 http://cephyn.com/2007/03/27/sure-one-more-for-the-road/#comment-401 If you were to get a DUI, would it be appropriate for your employer to punish you? I tend to think not, unless your work involves driving. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, just that the punishment should come from those whose rules he broke: the government. And the punishment should be severe. It is definitely in bad taste to be cheering the guy for what he did. Another interesting question is whether there should be any legal difference between a person who kills someone while driving drunk and a person who gets lucky and doesn't. It seems weird to me to punish a person based on chance. The real mistake is deciding to drive drunk in the first place. After that there is no decision of whether or not to kill someone, its just a matter of chance. If you were to get a DUI, would it be appropriate for your employer to punish you? I tend to think not, unless your work involves driving. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be punished, just that the punishment should come from those whose rules he broke: the government. And the punishment should be severe. It is definitely in bad taste to be cheering the guy for what he did.

Another interesting question is whether there should be any legal difference between a person who kills someone while driving drunk and a person who gets lucky and doesn’t. It seems weird to me to punish a person based on chance. The real mistake is deciding to drive drunk in the first place. After that there is no decision of whether or not to kill someone, its just a matter of chance.

]]>