Home » Legal Medicinal Marijuana » Republican Aide Gets Probation in Drunk Hit & Run Death

Republican Aide Gets Probation in Drunk Hit & Run Death

Republican Aide Gets Probation in Drunk Hit & Run DeathNo Jail Time For GOP Aide Gabrielle Nestande In Drunken Hit And Run Death. –On the Bonus Show: Professor caught watching porn in class, lack of sleep turn…


  1. brw3rd says:

    Not even close to good enough, for anyone.

    In fact, your narrow-mindedness in framing your example is intellectually dishonest. From all indications, Gabrielle does NOT fit the sample of either study. And, your apparently narrow-minded scope of the concept of deterrence is naive, at best. Lastly, you took another step backward by attempting a circular argument.

    On all accounts, fail.

  2. whyamimrpink78 says:

    …..made money off of me through fines and probation payments. Some people require more severe punishment then others. To me, and others, the fact that you have to pay fines and end up with a mark on your record is scary enough to keep them from doing a crime. To the ones that deserve jail time the usually don’t care. They know their actions will send them to jail and usually don’t care so making an example of someone isn’t going to do anything.

  3. brw3rd says:

    “To me, and others”
    What others. Your argument is not strengthen by other’s opinions.

    “scary enough to keep them”
    Bull. Lindsay Lohan.

    ” usually don’t care”
    Measurable by self-accountability, apparently lacking in this case.

    “making an example of someone”
    Yes. It does. It sends a message to society that such actions will not be tolerated. And, by holding all violators to the same standard, it would eliminate any contention that you can “buy” your punishment. Deterrent. (more)

  4. brw3rd says:

    Exactly the review of studies to which which I was referring. Please cite where in the review that it was stated that there were controls groups. The review clearly states that the information was provided by seven (7) different studies. Those studies were conducted on data pertaining to individuals that participated because they were pre-selected as troubled.

    As the deterrent worked on some of those participants. your argument remains weak, Again, the deterrent is for all members of society.

  5. whyamimrpink78 says:

    Is putting her to jail, wasting tax payer’s dollars and hindering her even more of being productive in society going to bring that person back? No, never, sorry. The fact is this. Due to her record she is avoid jail. Her life is ruined a lot. There are many jobs she can’t get, she probably doesn’t have car insurance and can’t drive for a long time. She has to live with the stigma of a DWI. Throwing her in jail is not going to do anything……

  6. whyamimrpink78 says:

    Your argument is weak now. It says in that review that there were control groups. It says it early on. You refuse to read it and admit that you were wrong. The evidence is right there in your face and you refuse to acknowledge it.

  7. whyamimrpink78 says:

    Honest people make mistakes. She is given a second chance. It isn’t like we are giving her a slap on the wrist or letting her walk. For the next 10 years she is under watch and is hindered from doing certain things. If she passes then great, if not then she does jail time. No reason to destroy someone’s life on their first charge. We are a very forgiving country which is why we are such a great country.

  8. brw3rd says:

    Her sentence needs to serve as a deterrent to other, non-criminals, that her behavior that night is unacceptable. Had she stopped that night and called 911, probation may be sufficient. But, one should expect serious consequences for a drunk driving hit and run fatality.


  9. brw3rd says:

    Wrong. On one hand you argue that her employment opportunities are limited. Then, on the other, you argue she is a productive member os society. So, which is it?

    “frivolous punishment”
    Again, you offer more evidence that you are devoid of a moral compass.

    BTW, I know how probation works. So, you can strengthen your argument by discontinuing your silly rant.

    “it is obvious”
    Killing a person and leaving the scene is enough to determine that she needs jail time. That is obvious.

  10. whyamimrpink78 says:

    There was a program called “Scared Straight” where they send juvenile delinquents to interact with convicts for hours to scare them from committing crimes. Professors at Harvard and Bridgewater studied that not only did those programs failed, it lead to more criminal behavior. So for the truly wicked it doesn’t matter. Punishment as a deterrent won’t work because you are wasting money and someone’s life in something that won’t work.

    Good enough for you.

  11. brw3rd says:

    OMG…You are the most dense person I have ever encountered.

    You continually ignore the deterrent part of legal punishment. Not once have you answered that argument. Apparently, you have no rebuttal. Instead, you continually trumpet your nonsense argument. I do not care that he will not be able to work several jobs. I do not care that she has to live with the guilt. I do not care because all criminals have he same problems. Ever heard the adage “do the crime, do the time”?

  12. brw3rd says:

    “jail time isn’t going to do anything”
    Wrong. Again, it serves as a deterrent. A point I argue, which you have not rebuked.

    “I love the idea…”
    Of course you do. You are devoid of a moral compass, as proven by your continually arguing nonsense.

    “doing something that actually helps…”
    Wrong. It sends a terrible amoral message to society – If you have no criminal past, you can skate proper punishment. You are advocating anarchy.

  13. brw3rd says:

    “done with a control…”
    I see no evidence of that claim, care to share a citation?

    Otherwise, you overstate the studies’ conclusions. The deterrent worked for non-delinquent individuals like myself and some of the studies’ participants. I never claimed deterrents to be a panacea.

    Sending her to jail would provide a deterrent for others like her that drive drunk with NO intention of causing harm. And it would send a clear and consistent message – drunk driving will NOT be tolerated.

  14. whyamimrpink78 says:

    Some people require a more severe punishment then others base on their previous actions. More severe punishments cost more tax dollars. Base on her history she doesn’t need that severe of a punishment. We are not letter her off free. If she messes up again during the next 10 years she will serve jail time. If she doesn’t and is fine from then on then her punishment worked for her. Anything more severe then would have been pointless and really wasteful.

  15. brw3rd says:

    As conceded by you, she doesn’t even represent the sample populations in the studies; making the studies irrelevant to your argument. “Admit that you were wrong” by refusing to understand the scope of my argument. You intentionally narrowed the definition to be consistent with your own. And, in doing so, proved nothing that was in contention.

    I do not refute the studies,only your application here.

  16. brw3rd says:

    I noticed that you had no response to my “Having different standards of right and wrong punishments is amoral.” statement. Can it be that you agree?

    Also, no response to my destruction of your “deterrents don’t work” argument. Your narrow-minded quote mining exemplifies your inability to apply this situation to a much larger context.

    Do you really believe that people should get the punishment that they can afford? If so, check that moral compass again.

  17. whyamimrpink78 says:

    And you haven’t address the issue of people getting a second chance. It is one thing if this person had a history of crime but they didn’t. She made a great mistake and like I keep saying, no amount of jail time is going to bring that person back. Then why ruin that person’s life even more? You are punishing them already. Their life is ruined a lot. Here you are giving them a chance to become a productive citizen. Instead, you just want her life to be ruined.

  18. whyamimrpink78 says:

    …..It comes down to this. If she violates her probation she serves jail time. Due to her record we are deciding to keep her out of jail to keep being productive to society and not waste tax dollars on a frivolous punishment. If she goes 10 years and does fine then she has clearly learned her lesson in life so jail time would have been pointless. If she violates her probation then it is obvious she needs jail.

  19. whyamimrpink78 says:

    This is a person that has a clean record. She made a huge mistake and base on her past it will hurt her a lot. If this was a person with a criminal record then they won’t care which you should send them to jail. This person doesn’t have a criminal record so they do care and they will continue to do their part to be productive in society even though they are greatly hindered in many ways now. Your feeling that sending a person to jail will solve the problem is just asinine, it will make it worse.

  20. SinnFein4ever says:

    It’s like talking to a Creationist.
    So let’s not feed the troll any longer.

  21. brw3rd says:

    “isn’t like we are giving her a slap on the wrist or letting her walk”
    She is getting probation where others would serve jail time, I consider that a “slap on the wrist”.

    “hindered from doing certain things”
    Like what? Driving drunk?

    “No reason to destroy someone’s life on their first charge”
    Wrong, should we give probation to all first time killers?

  22. brw3rd says:

    Rebuttal of “second chance” argument:
    Most people receive the equivalent of pre-trial intervention of their first misdemeanor charge. However, felonies convictions, rightfully, have less option for a “second chance”,because the charge indicates extensive human/ property damage or a general contempt of another’s rights

    One are NOT entitled to a second chance. Most people have to EARN it. This is why your argument is WEAK. There is NO right to a second chance

    Now, will you address deterrents?.

  23. brw3rd says:

    Again, you are wrong. She was convicted of a felony. In lieu of jail time, she was sentenced to 10 years of probation. But, she is a convict.

    She needs to EARN redemption, not be GIVEN a “second chance”. Outside of cruel and unusual, the effects of her punishment on her should not be considered. That is why it is called punishment. Had she been sentenced to 10 prison time, she could be eligible for parole in less than 2.5 years. Parole is a true “second chance” because it is EARNED not GIVEN.

  24. brw3rd says:

    “Like I said, I am so sorry…”
    You, nor I, never claimed I was perfect. This is called an ad hominem. This fallacious argument is an indicator of a weak argument.

    You still have yet to address the deterrent aspect of legal punishment. If you killed someone as a result of driving drunk, you did not deserve your “second chance” either. On top of killing someone, she fled the scene,in combination with DUI, a felony in most states . Felonies are more serious and generally REQUIRE incarceration.

  25. brw3rd says:

    Exactly what I have been saying all along. The control groups do NOT contain non-delinquents. So, it can not be used to gauge the overall effectiveness of deterrents. At best, it shows that that kind of deterrent does not work for the majority of delinquents.

    “refuse to acknowledge it”
    Because, it is NOT evidence that deterrents do not work when applied to the entire society. Your narrow-minded focus on a group, that by your own admission does not include Gabrielle, is not sufficient evidence.

  26. brw3rd says:

    Even though not explicitly stated, I would think that a reference for a non-delinquent control group was understood given my comments.

    Also, your logic fails here anyway. You can not disprove deterrents in general across an entire society based on studies of sociopathic adolescences. That was my point. Your argument is conveniently too narrow. One should not expect great results from a deterrent in those sample population. Yet, there were some positive results.

  27. brw3rd says:

    whyamimrpink78 is as thick as they come.

  28. whyamimrpink78 says:

    Maybe you should find your moral compass. You want to ruin people’s lives and waste tax dollars doing it on something that won’t prove a point. We have the law written out and many people know it. When I committed my crime they told me the max sentence. I was given a plea bargain. The reason being is because as mentioned before, more severe crime requires more money. Instead of wasting tax dollars on a jury, a defense lawyer and jail time they actually…..

  29. whyamimrpink78 says:


  30. brw3rd says:

    News Flash, many states still have the death penalty for a reason, it serves as a deterrent and a punishment.

    I assure you that I am a person. So, no need to question that. Yet another ad hominem.

    “Why do you want to destroy someone else’s life as much as possible?”
    Never said that. And, she destroyed her own life. However, like everyone else, she should have to face the consequences of her actions.

    “With the way you talk…”
    Wrong. That is how you decide to represent my opinion..

  31. brw3rd says:

    Why obfuscate my point?

    Most criminals are sociopaths, which have trouble empathizing with others. That prohibits learning from others’ mistakes. And, that can lead to a disregard for the social contract, expressed by government as laws.

    However, most of society can empathize and can learn from others’ mistakes. So, deterrents can and do work for most, including some of the studies’ participants.


  32. whyamimrpink78 says:

    Criminals are criminals. That is what that study is showing as a whole even though it doesn’t say so. You can try to scare people from committing crimes but criminals usually don’t care. It is like gun laws, gun laws don’t prevent criminals from getting guns because they don’t care the consequences. Criminals commit crimes knowing the punishment and in some cases been punished before. Deterrents don’t work.

  33. PacoTheLowRyder says:

    There was nothing criminal about the accident that Laura Bush was involved in. You libtards are hilarious,Ted was drinking,swam to safety and SLEPT! Before calling his lawyer first. You are one dumb little useless idiot.
    Keep your child mind occupied with some cookie monster puzzles or something,you ignorant and pathetic lemming tool.

  34. brw3rd says:

    “while control groups did not receive the intervention”
    That states that there was a control group of other delinquents that were not exposed to “Scared Straight”. Again, the scope of all studies excludes non-delinquent persons. So, the control group was arranged only to evaluate the programs effectiveness amongst already pre-determined troubled youth, a contention that I previously stated. (more)

  35. whyamimrpink78 says:

    That is overall the big picture, jail time isn’t going to do anything and it isn’t going to bring that person back. It will just make the situation worse. I love the idea of keeping her out of jail. It is one thing is she had a criminal record and if she does violate her probation then she should go to jail. Right now we are doing something that actually helps out society.

  36. brw3rd says:

    Gsbrielle’s formal sentencing will most likely include an inpatient and outpatient treatment at her expense. And, she will most likely have to further submit to alcohol monitoring of some kind for a longer period. But, that is a punishment that few can afford and most would accept.

    Having different standards of right and wrong punishments is amoral. The punishment should be equal for all under similar circumstances, which it clearly is not.

  37. brw3rd says:

    Personal aside:

    When I was a freshmen in high school (1984), I was one of the many that were exposed to “Scared Straight” without prejudice via Peer Leadership on VHS. Having not had any prior experience of the prison system, it deterred me from engaging in activities that could make that form of punishment a possibility. I consider that a pivotal experience between childhood and adolescence.

  38. brw3rd says:

    If I am not mistaken, those studies were based on participants that were chosen based on their prior behavior. But, they did not evaluate those who were exposed without prejudice. Why? Because, it is generally accepted that deterrents do work when applied to society as a whole.

    Understand: the audience for the deterrent is society, not solely the individual being punished.

    “Punishment as a…won’t work.”
    Circular reasoning. You can not prove an argument by invoking your premise as evidence.

  39. whyamimrpink78 says:

    No. The study showed that the control group were delinquents that didn’t go to the Scared Straight program or any other program and what the results were is that Scared Straight didn’t have any effect compared to the control. Either you didn’t read the article or you are just stupid or you refuse to admit that your idea isn’t right. Seriously here, I give you evidence to support my case and you refuse to acknowledge it.

  40. whyamimrpink78 says:

    Ok. Lets just throw all people to jai that commit a crime. Lets just ruin everyone’s life without giving them a second chance to redeem themselves when they showed they can. Like I said, I am so sorry you are perfect. I made mistakes before and I am very grateful that we live in a forgiving enough society to give me a second chance. I am grateful that my life isn’t ruined. As a result I never committed another crime and I strive to be very productive.

  41. brw3rd says:

    Again, you promote a weak argument. Laws should be enforced equally. A hit and run fatality is a FELONY. Felonies should not be GIVEN second chances. They should EARN it. Please reply with a new argument, like discussing the deterrent aspect of punishment.

    Again, she ruined her own life. But, that is not a mitigating factor to be considered in punishment because to applies to all criminals. And, wasting tax payers dollars is a weak defense for an unusually lenient punishment.

  42. brw3rd says:

    Asinine? Why so, because you disagree with me? We are not discussing all crime. This incident is very specific, a hit and run drunk driving fatality. I don’t care if she is Mother Teresa. She needs to be made an example. It is NEVER acceptable to kill another and leave the scene because you were driving drunk. Period. That is not asinine.

  43. brw3rd says:

    Again, you are wrong. She was convicted of a felony. In lieu of jail time, she was sentenced to 10 years of probation. But, she is a convict.

    She needs to EARN redemption, not be GIVEN a “second chance”. Outside of cruel and unusual, the effects of her punishment on her should not be considered. That is why it is called punishment. Had she been sentenced to 10 prison time, she could be eligible for parole in less than 2.5 years. Parole is a true “second chance” because it is EARNED not GIVEN.

  44. whyamimrpink78 says:

    You are one person over a large spectrum of people. That study was done with a control as well and other methods were used on other individuals and the study showed the “Scared Straight” didn’t work. You can find the paper yourself and read it. It was published in 2003. That is the point. People who commit harsh crimes usually know the punishment, they just don’t care. So once again, sending this person to jail would have accomplished nothing and would have done more harm.

  45. brw3rd says:

    The studies did NOT evaluate the effectiveness of the program on people that were not previously identified as troubled, like myself and the rest of society. Again, your narrow-mindedness is blinding you from my main argument – Deterrents are effective when applied to the society as a whole.

  46. brw3rd says:

    So, it is not my argument that is weak, it is your understanding that is deficient.

  47. brw3rd says:

    “Honest people make mistakes”
    Of course. But, that is no reason for allowing a person to avoid the consequences of that mistake. Poor argument.

    “We are a forgiving country…”
    Forgiveness does not make this country great, adhering to a social contract that respects one’s human rights does. And, sentences like this erode at that greatness. Without proper and consistent punishment, there is no deterrent. Which reminds me, where is your rebuttal on deterrents? Your silence is deafening.

  48. brw3rd says:

    Again, I do not want to ruin her life. She has already done that. However, my desire to see that someone responsible for a hit & run fatality servers time in prison is not amoral.

    “I was given a plea bargain…”
    You decided to admit your guilt and save the tax payers money. However, she did not. Do you even under the facts of this case? She presumably rejected a plea bargain because there was a trial. She was found guilty.

    So, there goes your wasted money theory.

  49. whyamimrpink78 says:

    When you are on probation if you violate it then you get convicted of the original charge and end up doing jail time. If you are facing felony charge, get put on probation and violate then you end up with a felony. Considering that she has a clean record and is productive she is given that chance. It prevents her life being destroyed because of one incident. If she fails during the next 10 years then she failed on her second chance and ends up in jail.

  50. brw3rd says:

    Blah. Blah. Blah.

    You have commented about a dozen times since I first asked you to rebuke punishment as a deterrent. Instead of addressing the issue, you offer platitudes in defense of the excessively lenient sentence. That makes you intellectually dishonest.

    Maybe you should refrain from responding until you find your moral compass and can offer a rebuttal to my deterrent argument. Otherwise, your comments are “pointless and really wasteful”

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!