Even without that option, if a license is suspended, it usually is for a reason. And more often than not the reason is that the driver is not safe for the environment. The risk of losing whatever is dear to them if they lose the licence is a something that should have been taken into consideration before whatever lead to the suspension.
Treczoks
Loss of security of employment, thus security of water, food, clothing, shelter, sleep, and defense for self and children, is not a humane punishment. It inhibits the individual’s ability to rehabilitate themselves. Perhaps you should’ve thought about this before demonstrating in public your lack of basic human empathy, now preserved in quote.
Loss of security of employment, thus security of water, food, clothing, shelter, sleep, and defense for self and children, is not a humane punishment.
Here, at least, suspending a license is done only when a driver has definitely shown that he or she is a danger for other people. For somemone going through a school zone with 90km/h or driving completely drunk, I care more for the actual or potential victims of the driver than the drivers’ ease of transport.
Predicating your very survival on a privilege that you may not always be entitled to is hopefully something that will be bred out of the species in a few more generations.
I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be. Look, people become disabled and have to stop driving very, very frequently. People lose their earning ability and cannot afford to keep driving very, very frequently. I know you can’t wrap your head around it, but it’s not a fucking death sentence. It’s just a life change.
Where is the human empathy if the suspended driver harms or kills another community memeber in a car crash?
If a person has harmed others, and is likely to do more harm in the future, it’s appropriate to remove them from society. This is why prisons exist.
Drivers licence suspension typically is the consequence of crimes that are too minor to warrant prison. In this case, the perpetrator has the chance to make changes to their life to avoid prison. For example, they can accept slow public transit, bike to work, get a closer job, move to a place where it’s easier to live without a car.
Obviously, It will be challenging for the perpetrator to reorganize their life in a way that does not require them to risk harming others, and many will fail.
But your argument that society is required to accept being victimized by dangerous drivers because it would be inhumane to force them to use alternative forms of transportation (used by millions of people too poor to afford a car, even in the most car dependent cities) is absurd.
They’re expected to fail and end up in prison. But, you recommend it. That’s not only absurd, but also inhumane and unethical.
