So many questions come up from reading this article:
- Half a bottle of Gin affecting the gentleman in question’s ability to drive safely we get, but where does the Viagra come into the equation? Was his dick entangled in the steering wheel of the van? Had he stopped due to the erectile dysfunction the gin caused being reversed by the Viagra to quickly smack one off and in the process passed out due to drunkenness?
- Why did members of the public drag him from his vehicle when there was clearly a police presence there already? (In the USA this would probably qualify for the case to be dismissed on evidence tainting).
- What possessed Kent Goran Borjesson to really expect to get away with claiming that his four previous drink driving convictions notwithstanding, that the old “Leaky Solvents In The Back Of The Van” story would fly?
- Should we have an arbitrary lower court system in NZ, run by a sheriff to pass judgement on ridiculous cases like this that otherwise waste the expensive tax payer funded process afforded serial idiots like this?
The obvious humour value to all concerned excepted, this is really a disrespectful & disgraceful individual, who, at the very least, needs to be treated or appropriately punished. Dig; he guzzles a half a bottle of gin and gets behind the wheel of a van, which by his own admission, contained containers of leaky solvents. Following on from that, he then attempts to negotiate a notoriously windy, hill pass to the Wairarapa, and halfway there, passes out with his vehicle stopped in the middle of the road and beginning to roll backwards down the hill.
Now don’t get me wrong, The Dunny is all for Darwin Award contenders like this doing society a favour and driving themselves off cliffs, however the question that begs is, what would happen to say Mum and the kids, or Myrtle & Des if they were driving up the same hill a couple of minutes behind old Kent? Imagine, starlets, there you are, steaming along happily in your people mover, around the blind corner you come, and there is an unconscious Kent and his driverless van, brimming with flammable liquids (and the 1/2 bottle of Gin) careering backwards down the hill straight at you. Not an enviable position to find yourself in is it? It adds a whole new dimension of seriousness to the situation that Kent probably never considered when he and his Juniper berry powered hard-on took to the highway.
So really, should New Zealand’s court system have to waste our tax dollars on the foibles of serial clowns like this? When we are in such a desperate financial situation that John Key is loosing sleep over whether or not to pawn the family silver to foreign interests, could we not look at trimming some fat off the budget?
The Dunny puts it out the to you all, that in the case of arbitrary offenders such as drunk drivers (especially repeat offenders), pot smokers, shoplifters, taggers and the rest of the selfish nuisance brigade, that we appoint local representatives on far simpler mandates, to deal with them, instead of wasting millions on the foregone conclusion that they’ll be slapped on the wrist and sent back into society to carry on their thoughtless path of destruction.
Why should you the tax payer, face cuts to your healthcare, a lesser education for your kids, and an overall suffering of the greater commonwealth of your nation and its people because of selfish wankers like Kent and his ilk? As we have informed you all previously, there are alternatives, and it is our opinion that even our medieval ancestors had a more concise concept of “Community Based Punishment”. Take for example, if some asshole made a pest of himself when he was in his cups, they’d make him wear a beer barrel for the day.
If someone was a malicious gossip, or a shrew who nagged and otherwise bullied her husband, there was “The Scold’s Cage”. Let us not forget the good old stocks either. Now, you may well be thinking “Typical Dunny, always leaning far right on crime and punishment..” but we beg to differ. Crime, its effects, and the remediation thereof are society’s problem-that’s us, you and, well us. It is society these selfish wretches inflict their indignities upon, and therefore it is society’s onus to punish them. Now, the people and rulers in medieval times understood this, and contrary to common legend, weren’t as brutal and savage as you may believe.
When it came to punishment of public nuisance types, the medieval mindset was to let society have some fair redress by participating in the punishment while at the same time, as a consensus, showing their intolerance of those who disrespected the accepted standards by which the community chose to live by-very democratic.
So, with no further ado, we at The Dunny suggest that Victoria University allocate a ridiculously large grant to some post grads to perform a feasibility study on the practicality of re-introducing A). The arbitrary sentencing of “Community Offenders” (as stipulated above) by a local sheriff or Justice of the Peace to save costs, and B). The re-introduction of such medieval hits as the stocks and the beer barrel instead of the ankle bracelet of our times which is essentially the same thing in converse because the offender and his punishment are hidden from those they have wronged collectively.
Of course the study will not be complete without several years of navel gazing research into how all this affects the offenders themselves, and their self esteem, their position within their ethnic group and the general concern we should have that this metaphorical kick in the ass might, perish the thought, sting a little.