doubleplusundead

October 24, 2008

I Know What You're Thinking

But no, it isn't because she was shot on sight:

The Buffalo woman whose infant son became ill on crack cocaine and opiates at a party almost five months ago was spared a jail term Tuesday.

City Judge Joseph A. Fiorella orderedMarceia D. Dixon, 20, to submit to unannounced drug testing and warrantless searches of her new home while she is on probation for the next year. In sparing her a jail term, he said he was impressed with her “evidence of remorse” and her willingness to turn her life around.

Fiorella imposed the maximum- allowable probation for her Aug. 18 plea to a charge of attempted child endangerment for the June 6 incident at a Grider Street party.

The judge also ordered her to submit to City Court’s drug court program to overcome her “issues with marijuana,” maintain the job she recently obtained and get her high school equivalency diploma. He also fined her $160.

What about overcoming her issue with... I don't know... fucking crack? And I paid more than that for a speeding ticket.

Exit Question: Why couldn't someone like Ashley "WEE" Todd have eaten a little more crack as a child?

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 03:22 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

"Issues"?

I'd say, especially since she is 20 and still doesn't have a GED

Posted by: eddiebear at October 24, 2008 03:24 PM (wnU1W)

2 So, exit question: if this was a guy, what do you thinkthe sentence would have looked like? Breaking rocks on Mars from now to eternity?

Posted by: ECM at October 24, 2008 03:33 PM (q3V+C)

3 You see that's how it works. A person who gives their kid CRACK not only gets to keep the kid, but doesn't go to jail. Then someone who gets caught "drunk" driving, blows a .09, pays $7000 in fines, and loses his license has to go to jail for a month to learn his lesson.

Posted by: Jeff_McAwesome at October 24, 2008 03:38 PM (G07ST)

4 Geez Jeff, when you put it like that, you almost make it sound like it's un-fair...

Posted by: ECM at October 24, 2008 04:05 PM (q3V+C)

Let's not get me started on the DUI obsession in this country. I'm not saying drinking and driving are good or shouldn't be punished but let's also remember that .09 for the average man is like 2 beers in an hour. Not exactly shitfaced. Sure those two beers will affect the driving ability of the individual but not as much as severe fatigue, cold medicine, cell phone use, two kids in the back seat or any number of other things that happen millions of times every day.

I'm not saying make all those things illegal... just that they should probably put drunk driving into perspective a little bit. Especially mildly intoxicated levels like .09.

Please refer to the South Park Drunk Driving episode for further MP irritation at the punishment of DUI criminals, particularly the assumption that the individual has a "drinking problem" because they got drunk, stupid and got behind the wheel.

That's like assuming someone you gave a jaywalking ticket to is a habitual risk-taker and needs therapy to stop jumping in front of buses.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at October 24, 2008 04:19 PM (83gRI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment