Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Idiot of the Century?

Profile

Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media.(static)

Search This Blog

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Pilot Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Anti-Gay Distortions of Research | Main | How Things Change »

Idiot of the Century?

Category: Politics
Posted on: July 23, 2008 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

Guy drives drunk. Guy crashes into another car, seriously injuring a woman. Guy gets charged with a felony. Guy throws a party, dresses up in a prison jumpsuit with the name "jail bird" on it, gets bombed out of his skull and puts pictures of his drunken revelry on his Facebook profile. Prosecutor uses pictures as evidence that guy has no remorse for what he did. Judge sends guy to prison for two years. I'm all for an extra year for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty.

Find more posts in: Politics

Comments

Agreed!

Posted by: gary l. day | July 23, 2008 10:04 AM

I think that instead of putting him back in jail, they should have had him jaywalk for one hour on a busy street shortly after a city-wide closing time... That might "drive" the point home about the dangers and possible "reaper"-cussions of such stupidly reckless actions as driving while intoxicated.

(Sorry for the bad puns.)

Posted by: Umlud | July 23, 2008 10:06 AM

Actually, it sounds like one of his friends put the images up on their Facebook page, which was linked to the idiot's Facebook page.

Not that this makes him much less of an idiot, mind you. The whole "dressing up in a prison jumpsuit and posing for the camera" bit is stupid enough. But I'd really thought he'd gone that extra idiot mile by putting the pictures up on his own page.

As for the defense attorney's claim that the kid "didn't know how to react". Feh. That may actually be an argument for a more severe punishment since the kid's own conscience clearly didn't stop him from drinking more or mocking the situation he was in. And "writing letters of apology" doesn't mean much if you're not going to change the behavior that led to the problem in the first place.

Posted by: NonyNony | July 23, 2008 10:41 AM

I don't want to sound like I'm defending this young gentleman. He obviously did not think very clearly and got punished appropriately. However, something NonyNony said sparked an immediate hold-the-phone moment that I have to comment on here.

And "writing letters of apology" doesn't mean much if you're not going to change the behavior that led to the problem in the first place.

The pictures do not show the young man drinking and driving and it is possible that he did learn a lesson and will never drive drunk again. That does not mean that he must now abstain from alcohol for the rest of his life. There is plenty of other things in these pictures the paint the kid into a stupid corner, but just drinking alcohol shouldn't be one of them.

Posted by: Scott Reese | July 23, 2008 11:46 AM

That does not mean that he must now abstain from alcohol for the rest of his life.

I think we can all agree with that in principal, but I think we'd all agree that the rest of his life starting from 2 weeks after he nearly killed someone by his drunk driving is a little too soon, even if he didn't decide to wear a prison jumpsuit as some sort of joke.

Posted by: Citizen Z | July 23, 2008 12:15 PM

I think he actually did get two years for stupidity. My recollection from when I read the first report is that his probation officer and the prosecutor had initially recommended some non-custodial sentence.

Posted by: Stephen Llewellyn | July 23, 2008 12:29 PM

I had a circuits professor who would hand out negative points on certain problems. If your answer is wrong, that's one thing. If your answer isn't even internally consistent or obviously violates laws of physics/common sense, you lose an additional point, even if it means a score of -1 for the problem. It's a good way of reminding young engineers to sanity-check their results.

This is definitely one of those cases where you lose that additional point on your exam.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 23, 2008 1:31 PM

If you're going to prison, and it's a choice between having a party and sinking into a deep depression, possibly hurting yourself, I'd go with the party. A party doesn't have to mean "Yay, it's great that I injured that woman." It can mean (and I suspect is much more likely to mean) "Holy shit, I'm going to prison and I'd better enjoy all of my friends and my freedom while I can."

Posted by: Gretchen | July 23, 2008 1:51 PM

Gretchen:

All indications are that he probably wasn't going to prison before he had the party. Plus if you are going to trial it is best to put on the best face possible. In this day you don't know where any pictures are going to end up. Who needs big brother with friends like these, eh? :P

Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | July 23, 2008 2:46 PM

Another contender for the title:
Underwear chicken dare puts man in hospital

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 23, 2008 2:57 PM

Herod, the only time the words "chicken" and "underwear" should appear in the same sentence is if it includes "choking the".

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | July 23, 2008 3:28 PM

Like Gretchen, I'm uneasy about this. He may richly deserve the 2-year sentence for his actions, but I'm not so sure that this photo should make the difference between no prison time and two years in jail. How people contend with distressing events isn't always so simple.

As for the photo, it does seem from the report that someone else posted it. Second, why is the photo cropped in so man postings of this story? I'm not saying he wasn't drunk, but isn't that Red Bull that he's drinking in the uncropped version that was actually posted? Did he admit that he was drunk, did others testify that he was drunk at the party or was his drunken revelry something that was just surmised based on the expression on his face?

I also wonder about the circumstances of the accident? People can get charged for DUI in crashes even when the accident wasn't their fault. I think there should be distinctions in sentencing when someone blows .02 and hits another driver head on while driving on the wrong side of the road versus someone who blows .08 and gets hit by another driver who blows a stop sign. His behavior may have been outrageous the night of the accident, but I'd put more weight on that then this particular photo.

Posted by: Dr X | July 23, 2008 3:28 PM

than this particular photo

Posted by: dr x | July 23, 2008 3:30 PM

he was underage for his DWI and he was still underage at the time of the party. interesting how that aspect is getting glossed over

Posted by: skyotter | July 23, 2008 3:33 PM

"he was underage for his DWI and he was still underage at the time of the party. interesting how that aspect is getting glossed over"

Yeah, but as I asked above, was there testimony or other evidence presented to indicate that he was drinking at the party? The uncropped photo shows him holding two cans of Red Bull.

Posted by: Dr X | July 23, 2008 3:42 PM

Typically if you've been arrested for drunk driving one of the conditions of bail is that you not consume alcohol. So most likely it's not just that he went and got drunk 2 weeks after nearly killing someone but that he also flaunted the conditions of his release on bail.

Posted by: Noadi | July 23, 2008 3:52 PM

This comment by Ed is very disturbing.

"I'm all for an extra year for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty."

You place so little value on freedom and liberty that you think it is acceptable to take one year away from a person's life just for stupidity?

Posted by: Mike | July 23, 2008 4:01 PM

Hyperbole, Mike. 90% sure it's hyperbole.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 23, 2008 4:05 PM

Mike, you may find this link helpful.

Posted by: Abby Normal | July 23, 2008 4:09 PM

Sorry, I must have messed up the link to the uncropped photo that appears to show him holding two cans of Red Bull. Here it is .

Posted by: Dr X | July 23, 2008 4:11 PM

You place so little value on freedom and liberty that you think it is acceptable to take one year away from a person's life just for stupidity?

I can't speak for Ed, but I'm sure that his definition of freedom and liberty does not extend to possibly ruining someone else's life due to idiotic intoxicated driving. What this man did goes beyond simple stupidity.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 23, 2008 4:34 PM

To all those who feel we're being a bit harsh on the stupid: Stupidity that is detrimental only to the stupid couldn't bother me less (so long as it's kept away from me--e.g., watch all the Jackass movies you want or make all the idiotic you tube videos you like). But stupidity that enhances danger to others, or is indicative of depraved indifference--by ALL means, tack on an extra year or so. I'm quite serious.

Posted by: gary l. day | July 23, 2008 4:51 PM

Okay, I found a description of the accident itself. If Lipton did what is reported here on the night of the accident, prison doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I wonder why they were considering no jail time at all in the first place?

Posted by: Dr X | July 23, 2008 4:54 PM

Dr. X, the fact that the cans say redbull on the outside at a house party does not indicate the contents of said cans. I know many college-aged kids who have the dubious honor of being "ravers" who like to mix vodka in with their redbull. It's actually really physically dangerous for your system, since one way the body tries to cope with too much alcohol is to put you to sleep...

I don't know what would have happened to me if I were in teh same situation at his age, but assuming my parents didn't kill me odds are I wouldn't be out partying again for a long while. Certainly not two weeks later.

That said, I hope that the kid isn't put into a really tough facility, and that he can manage to get re-admitted to school when he's back out. I also hope the victim fully recovers.

Posted by: kodiak | July 23, 2008 5:01 PM

Gary,

We don't put people in prison for being stupid. We put them in prison for crimes committed as a result of such stupidity. If we're ready to imprison someone for his crime of drunkenly hitting a woman with his car, fine. Successive revelations of stupidity, however, should not lengthen his sentence.

Kodiak,

It's actually really physically dangerous for your system, since one way the body tries to cope with too much alcohol is to put you to sleep...

I've drunk vodka and Red Bull before. Combining the two is only really dangerous if you're already fall-down drunk and want to stay up so you can keep drinking. Otherwise, I don't see how it's really any different than having an Irish coffee.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 23, 2008 5:07 PM

Dr. X, the fact that the cans say redbull on the outside at a house party does not indicate the contents of said cans.

I know that, but the photo alone doesn't come close to proving that he was drinking or drunk at that party. Sometimes people mix red bull with vodka and sometimes they drink Red Bull alone. You could say the same thing about any other beverage he might have been holding in his hand except a non-alcoholic beer.

But, I'm also interested in how the cropped photographic evidence was processed by readers. Many people treated a cropped photo of Lipton's face and upper torso as evidence that he was drinking or drunk. I suspect this is because Ed described him as engaging in drunken revelry. Ed's choice of words primed readers to believe that we were seeing something that isn't clearly shown in that photo. If the image was captioned "Bob Smith, 5th grade teacher mugs for students at PS 151 annual Halloween party", I don't think we'd be calling it a photo of someone who is drunk. The assessment of the photo was based on priming by Ed's attribution of drunkenness, more than the actual content of photo itself.

Aside from this, I think that what Lipton did to cause the accident is far more important in sentencing him than speculation about the meaning of this photo.

Posted by: Dr X | July 23, 2008 5:48 PM

My wife and son were hit head on buy a girl driving DUI.
It set our lives back seven years, to dig out of the expenses and now fourteen years later my wife still deals with pain on a daily basis. The drunk girl got probation.

Posted by: dale | July 23, 2008 6:12 PM

"I'm all for an extra year for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty."

You place so little value on freedom and liberty that you think it is acceptable to take one year away from a person's life just for stupidity?

Given the fact that the willful or reckless refusal to employ rational and mature judgement at the minimum level expected of a mentally competent person of one's age (my working definition of "stupidity," and this qualifies) is a contributing factor in almost every fatal or destructive incident in history or imaginable, arguing that the choice to commit Stupidity, in cases involving potential or actual tangible harm, should not be punished is idiotic.

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 23, 2008 6:30 PM

I know that, but the photo alone doesn't come close to proving that he was drinking or drunk at that party.

There are bottles on the table behind him. Now it's possible that the one that looks like a beer bottle is just a root beer bottle, and the larger glass one is an empty bottle of olive oil. Parsimony suggests otherwise.

But let's grant for a moment that he didn't drink. You've still got that moron in a prisoner's jumpsuit having a good old time 2 weeks after he put a girl in a intensive care. "Her family's lives revolve around her 24-hour care. Even though she's come out of a persistent vegetative state, she can barely move on her own and her future remains precarious" according to the projo.com link.

There are many words that could be used to describe him in that picture, "remorseful" is most certainly not one of them.

Posted by: Citizen Z | July 23, 2008 6:59 PM

"There are bottles on the table behind him. Now it's possible that the one that looks like a beer bottle is just a root beer bottle, and the larger glass one is an empty bottle of olive oil. Parsimony suggests otherwise."

Parsimony? Is that a new theory of perception? Actually, unconscious processes, including priming, determine our perceptions and it can be very difficult to shake these perceptions once they form. Our tendency is to consciously rationalize and justify what we've already concluded automatically and unconsciously.

Cognitive and perceptual biases are tied to neural efficiency (not parsimony). This efficiency is not the same as scientific parsimony. It's beneficial to us, but it also causes us to make many perceptual errors that are usually, but not always, outweighed by the benefits of the efficiency.

Lipton may or may not be drunk in the photo, but the photo does not tell us either way. If there was a court order that Lipton not drink, Lipton might have decided to drink straight Red Bull at that party or he might have decided to violate the order and drink alcohol. There is nothing far-fetched about either interpretation, but I'm arguing that we were primed to see him as drunk.

Mentioning the bottle of beer behind him when he's actually holding Red Bulls in his hand suggests that the presence of a beer bottle in the photo also primed the viewer. You're not saying he was drinking beer, but you seem to be admitting the priming effect of a beer bottle -- something you'd expect to see at a party. It's presence at a party tells you someone was likely drinking beer but it doesn't tell you who was drinking and who wasn't drinking. It merely inclines you to see the guy next to it as drunk, even though he's holding cans of Red Bull, not beer, in his hand.

This is what worries cognitive psychologists about notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony. Notwithstanding a great deal of experimental evidence showing the power of cognitive and perceptual biases, people have a hard time accepting the power of these biases even after they have it explained to them. One very robust example of neural efficiency is that we resist giving up perceptions and judgments once they are formed.

I'm not sure why you also mention the jumpsuit and remorse. I wasn't talking about remorse. I'm talking about the claim that he was drinking at the party. I already said that based on the description of the accident itself, a prison sentence seems reasonable. Given what he did, even a two year sentence seems reasonable to me.

Posted by: Dr X | July 23, 2008 7:44 PM

I'm not sure why you also mention the jumpsuit and remorse. I wasn't talking about remorse.

I mentioned the jumpsuit and remorse because that was the point of the post, and the reason he was sentence to 2 years in jail. Also because:

I'm talking about the claim that he was drinking at the party.

Yes, and you're missing the forest for the trees.

Posted by: Citizen Z | July 23, 2008 7:56 PM

As Robert Heinlien pointed out:

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 23, 2008 8:11 PM

I wonder if he'll be smiling when he hears the wolf whistles coming from the cell block.

Posted by: soboco | July 23, 2008 10:50 PM

Soboco, only sadists are gratified by the thought of prison rape. Regardless of the crime committed.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 23, 2008 11:18 PM

The decision between jail and a non-custodial sentence may quite properly rest on the attitude of the defendant. Remorse is absolutely relevant to that; stupidity is not.

Stupidity is only what got this guy's lack of remorse known. I assume that Ed's comment is satirical, rather than literal.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 23, 2008 11:50 PM

Idiot of the Century?

Nah.... This guy doesn't even come close to George Bush. He almost killed one person? And then was not remorseful for the damage he did? Gimme a friggin' break.

We still have 88 years to go in this century, but I am betting that Bush's record for 'Idiot of the Century' will hold up.

Posted by: Tex | July 24, 2008 12:37 AM

In reference to the costume he was possibly acting out his fear. That of going to jail. In order to make it less frightening.

People are not punished for their feelings, but for the crime they have committed. It cannot ever be a system for revenge or petty grievances, no matter how good that appears to feel.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 24, 2008 3:56 AM

People are not punished for their feelings, but for the crime they have committed.

People's feelings about the crimes they have committed are highly significant to their probability of recidivism, which only the most blockheadedly robotic system of law would fail to factor into the sentencing for those crimes.

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 24, 2008 4:08 AM

But then you have to ask:
1) What were his true feelings on the matter.
2) Would an extra year make a difference to doing it again.
3) Are the feelings of the judge and not the feelings of the man in fact the reason for the extra year (ie the judge is angry because he thought the guy wasn't taking HIS sentencing seriously).

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 24, 2008 5:34 AM

Gretchen:
Unless I am missing something here, I think you are misunderstanding the situation. The asshole is not getting extra years for being stuopid, he is getting extra years for showing remorselessness and even amusement at the crime he has commited. The stupidity the Ed refers to is what allowed the court to find out this fact, when it would have been child's play (to someone less intelectually challenged) to lie to the court and appear remorseful and contrite.

Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 24, 2008 5:44 AM

You are missing something. I am saying that his dressing up may not actually be remorselessness at the crime.
Also since he did not post the pics, someone else did, that also invalidates the cry of "stupidity" somewhat.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 24, 2008 6:38 AM

Valhar2000,

I understand perfectly well that he is getting the extra time for showing remorselessness (even if I disagree that that's necessarily what he's showing). However, due to Ed's comments the topic of extra sentencing due to stupidity came up as well, and so I also addressed that.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 24, 2008 1:46 PM

. . . that he also flaunted the conditions of his release on bail . . .

Actually, he flouted the conditions. Then he went ahead and flaunted the flouting.

Posted by: noncarborundum | July 24, 2008 1:49 PM

Hyperbole, Mike. 90% sure it's hyperbole

I'm 120% sure its hyperbole.

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 24, 2008 2:11 PM

The kid probably has alcoholism, and in all probability he's hanging out in a subculture that reinforces it. However that does not excuse what he did, and he still deserves the prison time: if nothing else, it will dry him out for two years.

Folks, this kind of s--- is going to keep happening unless we get to the root of the problem.

One, the culture's attitude toward alcohol. Compare to anywhere else, where alcohol is socialized starting while teenagers are still living at home. The puritanical BS that raises the drinking age to 21 just makes it worse: young people learn their drinking behaviors in an uncontrolled environment where alcohol is not a beverage but a legal narcotic.

The solution to this one is to set the drinking age at SIXTEEN, WITH parental supervision (that means "in the home only" or "at restaurants, one drink maximum") and parental legal responsibility for the conduct of their offspring. The latter point will give parents the incentive to make damn sure that their kids are not abusing the privilege.

Two, a solution to the entire drug problem , alcohol included, that I reasoned out at age eight and still stands: license it. You have a little "A" for alcohol on your drivers' license or state ID card. You get carded at ANY age, ANY time you want to purchase alcohol. If you're convicted of ANY offense involving alcohol (including public drunk & disorderly), the judge takes your card and takes a little hole-punch, and punches out the A. Bye-bye drinking license for some specified period of years.

And that goes for grownups other than parents or legal guardians who supply youths with alcohol. The latter point being quite the incentive for said grownups to not do the deed: risk of losing their own drinking privileges.

This gets at the root issue, which is substance abuse: the person with the voided license can't get the substance, so in effect they are dried-out for some period of time. Yes there will be sneak-arounds just as there are with the drug laws today, but at least the legal means will be available to deal with them, with an intrinsic incentive.

That system can be exteded to legalized recreational marijuana as well, with a little "M" on the license or ID card.

And if your substance abuse results in injury to another person, then in addition to whatever other penalties apply, you lose the drinking (or pot-smoking) license for the rest of your life. And if anyone supplies alcohol (or marijunana) to someone with a punched-out A (or M), then they lose theirs for the rest of their life.

Now ask yourself: how many people do you think would provide alcohol or marijuana to someone whose licesnse was voided, if they stood to lose their own license for some period of years up to & including the rest of their lives...?

Posted by: g347 | July 25, 2008 5:05 AM

As a wise man once told me "Image is everything."

In a way, I don't care about the kid's emotions, I care about his judgment and behavior. Having a party after causing a near-fatal accident is bad judgment. Dressing like a jailbird at said party is bad judgment. Posting pictures of yourself at said event is bad judgment.

Taking it all into account, I have to ask how this kid is going to act in the future - has this incident caused him to reflect and work to improve his judgment or has it had no effect, leaving him with the same bad judgment, likely resulting in future irresponsible behavior? Can society afford to leave him to his own devices or does he need some time in lockup so the gravity of his situation has time to sink in?

He could be remorseful as all hell, but it doesn't matter one whit if he doesn't change the judgment which determines his behavior that to this point has made him a danger to himself and others.

Posted by: Bob | July 26, 2008 12:15 PM

Late, but I don't care.

Quite honestly, I would love to see the fucker in prison a lot longer and just for the initial nearly killing someone. I imagine that we might get a handle on drunk driving if we make the penalties nasty enough. But that aside.

It is not in the least bit wrong to make it worse on him for being an idiot. Mainly because that's not what he got the harsher sentence for. He got a harsher sentence because there was a reasonable implication that he had no remorse for nearly killing a women. I don't care that he might have just been dealing with this situation in his own way. Perception is is certainly a reasonable measure here and the perception would be that he just doesn't care. He also probably got a harsher sentence because as someone else pointed out, he wasn't supposed to be drinking as a term of his cooperating with the court.

DUI's are almost always required to abstain from alcohol. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the U.S. where this is not the case. The first time a DUI goes before the judge, the judge makes it crystal clear that they will get in a lot more trouble if they drink (or use other recreational drugs).

Posted by: DuWayne | July 26, 2008 6:48 PM