Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Drunk in charge of a dog

We read that:

The grandmother of Ellie Lawrenson was nearly twice the legal drink-drive limit when the five-year-old was mauled to death by the family dog, a court has heard.
That was a terrible case, but what does it matter that she'd had a couple of drinks? The drink driving limit is incredibly low, by design. It's supposed to be the level at which drink doesn't affect a person's judgement or reactions to any significant degree. That's the point. Double it, and you have a person who is still pretty sober.

The puritan thread in this news report is obvious. Drink! She'd had a drink!

She failed to take proper care with a dog and a child. From the other reports of the case, the dog had been scared by fireworks and she should have handled it accordingly. She should not have let it near a child if it was behaving strangely. Drink has nothing to do with it. This is important, because most of the authoritarian, restrictive, ineffectual legislation we're burdened with now was the half-assed, populist response to some subsidiary issue in a notorious crime or incident. Next thing you know, after half-witted reports like this, there will be laws restricting the amount of drink you're allowed if in charge of a dog.

Make people responsible for the consequences of their actions, and leave it at that.

1 comment:

Marcusa said...

She had also been on the wacky baccy