Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I think that it's time for this Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I truly believe that the best way to prevent a bad thing happening is to make the punishment so severe that the person has it constantly in their mind when their thoughts even come close to the prohibited deed in question. Drink driving costs many lives a year and is a purely disgusting thing to do, akin in my mind to walking down a street blindfolded and waving a nunchuk around and around and taking a chance that nobody gets hurt. A drink driver wouldn't do that would they, so why get pissed and then operate a potential death machine? ****ing idiots.

    I think that the Government should impose severe punishments for anyone caught drink driving and I'm talking even a little bit of alcohol in their blood stream. For being slightly over the limit give them a 3 year ban and £2000 fine and for being absolutely wrecked nd behind the wheel, tell them that they can't drive for 10 years and slap them with jail time too. What argument could anyone possibly have against this? 'Oooo, but this penalises drunk drivers who aren't in the wrong....' . Exactly, there's nothing that could be said against this as its a fact that anyone who is drink driivng is at fault and I do believe that measures like this will make some of these idiots think about their actions and then not act...... on those actions.

    I remember in school we had a teacher who told us on our first day that 'if you ever mess around in my class, ill make sure to get you expelled' and she made true on her promise with a few other students to at least get them suspended nd she was known to be tough and absolutely no one played up in her class. My class wasn't averse to disruption and I suppose bullying some other teachers but with her, we all made sure to do our work and keep quiet. Also, when I was a kid I remember my dad threatening to put chilli powder In my mouth if I swore as I'd developed a bad habit and he did it once and I didn't swear in front of him again (until I was 15 obv). Point is, the threat of a disproportionate (arguably proportionate, only disproportionate relative to the current punishments and their blind acceptance by non victims of things) punishment definitely serves to reduce incidences of said bad behaviour and I believe that one of the only ways for Britain to solve its drink driving problem is to levy on culprits massive sentences that will leave people thinking 'to heck am I drinking and driving, not if THAT will happen'.

    Discuss and please actually consider everything that I've wrote and keep this civil |
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    You assume that people commit criminal acts with a rational, normal state of mind, which unfortunately is not the case. If you look at all major crimes committed, the perpetrator is either under the influence of drugs or alcohol, has a mental illness, has had an extremely troubled childhood or is filled with such strong emotion that they wouldn't care less about the crime they're planning to commit. In all of these cases, a more serious penalty wouldn't affect their likelihood to commit a crime. I am fairly certain that the possible consequences of their actions are just about the last thing going through a murderer's mind as they are about to do the deed.

    Additionally, if punishments are excessively harsh, they not only run the risk of punishing innocent mistakes extremely unfairly but they would also bring about resistance and protest from the kind of people who such legislation would affect. You can't fight fire with fire, unfortunately. Education and early state intervention are the best mechanisms to combat crime in my view.

    Whilst your idea would work in an ideal world where everyone has a similar mind-set and always thinks clearly and rationally, this isn't the world we live in.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    You assume that people commit criminal acts with a rational, normal state of mind, which unfortunately is not the case. If you look at all major crimes committed, the perpetrator is either under the influence of drugs or alcohol, has a mental illness, has had an extremely troubled childhood or is filled with such strong emotion that they wouldn't care less about the crime they're planning to commit. In all of these cases, a more serious penalty wouldn't affect their likelihood to commit a crime. I am fairly certain that the possible consequences of their actions are just about the last thing going through a murderer's mind as they are about to do the deed.

    Additionally, if punishments are excessively harsh, they not only run the risk of punishing innocent mistakes extremely unfairly but they would also bring about resistance and protest from the kind of people who such legislation would affect. You can't fight fire with fire, unfortunately. Education and early state intervention are the best mechanisms to combat crime in my view.

    Whilst your idea would work in an ideal world where everyone has a similar mind-set and always thinks clearly and rationally, this isn't the world we live in.
    A lot of that may be true but I was on about drink driving specifically and not crime in general. If the punishment is excessively harsh, it only runs the risk of affecting guilty people who are at fault as there's no way that an innocent person can be caught drink driving. You either have a drink and decide not to drive before hand or you have one and then jump in your car, its as simple as that.

    I should have touched on it more but the whole point of this thread, the named excessive nature of the punishments, may not even be neccesary just for the purposes or prevention. If a person knew the consequences and did it anyway, sentences like the one that I've proposed seem fair to me in relation to the reason behind them. Drink driving is a terrible thing to do, risks other people's lives and without a major change in legislation I can't see how or why drink drivers will stop doing it.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    A lot of that may be true but I was on about drink driving specifically and not crime in general. If the punishment is excessively harsh, it only runs the risk of affecting guilty people who are at fault as there's no way that an innocent person can be caught drink driving. You either have a drink and decide not to drive before hand or you have one and then jump in your car, its as simple as that.

    I should have touched on it more but the whole point of this thread, the named excessive nature of the punishments, may not even be neccesary just for the purposes or prevention. If a person knew the consequences and did it anyway, sentences like the one that I've proposed seem fair to me in relation to the reason behind them. Drink driving is a terrible thing to do, risks other people's lives and without a major change in legislation I can't see how or why drink drivers will stop doing it.
    You also have to remember that we live in a democracy, not a police state. I cannot believe that the general public would support such a decision, since I'm sure quite a lot of people have driven when they're at least close to the limit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The fear of the threat of being hit by abusive parents causes children to develop stutters, tics, anxiety, paranoia and other mental disorders.

    And similarly you think using fear is an acceptable medium to keep people in check. Fear just creates resentment, anger, sorrow and despair.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    You also have to remember that we live in a democracy, not a police state. I cannot believe that the general public would support such a decision, since I'm sure quite a lot of people have driven when they're at least close to the limit.
    They may not support the decision but when the device comes out that shows people what could have happened, an omniscient technology of this kind will show things like....... people and their loved ones being Run over and killed by someone who had been given a lenient sentence, drove again but this time more pissed and crashed into them. The only ones who won't support the decision are those who teeter on the brink between over and just under the limit and these people's opinions in this matter are irrelevant.

    It wouldn't be a police state at all, hyperbole is what I expect from a reveller proclaiming the greatness of the one he loves on a Friday night, not from a debater on TSR. It would be a heavier punishment which might or might not act as a deterrent but probably will AND if it doesn't, then the consequence will not prove to be a bad one. If it turns out that the incidence of drink driving doesn't decrease then at least those caught drink driving won't be legally able to get into a car again and repeat the action that got them where they are and that's no loss to the roads.

    I'm really sick of this 'democracy, human rights, police state ahhhhhh' ****. What do you suggest? If it was a loved one of yours who became a victim of a drink driver you'd be full of rage and would want to stab, kill, 'have 5 minutes alone with the expletive'. But when that isn't the case, you can't even support measures to increase the punishments of those whose actions bring about that devastations And has the possible side effect of actually preventing this behaviour.

    Tell me, what do you suggest is the cure for the drink driving problem? If not bigger punishments, what exactly?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    The fear of the threat of being hit by abusive parents causes children to develop stutters, tics, anxiety, paranoia and other mental disorders.

    And similarly you think using fear is an acceptable medium to keep people in check. Fear just creates resentment, anger, sorrow and despair.
    My parents Weren't abusive at all, they were just sick of me using the F word as a 9 year old and implemented measures to try and make me stop. They never hit me, never threatened to but still succeeded in getting me to stop swearing.

    Fear is a term which encompasses more than just a singular thing with one set of associated characteristics. If you would consider the context of my argument, you might see that the fear that would be created would only be felt by those who were basically planning to risk theirs and other people's lives. Your average motorist who wouldn't even think of getting near the drink limit won't feel any fear, nor will your Aunty Sues around the country. The ones feeling the fear are the ones who should be feeling the fear and hopefully its that fear which stops them from doing such a ridiculous and ignorant thing and potentially saves a life, perhaps theirs.

    Going by your argument, we should just end the criminilsistion of all things currently considered worthy of society exacting retribution through the so called justice system. Why doesn't a thug just brazenly steal an expensive car from a supermarket car park when there's a few police around? Because they're scared of getting caught. Why doesn't a rapist attack 4 women a day and do it when people are around? For fear of getting caught. Yet you are intent on wagering a war on fear?

    Pal, all I fear is that your hypothesises are accepted by a policy maker who is drink driving and Working while he cruises in 3rd gear...... at 60mph.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    They may not support the decision but when the device comes out that shows people what could have happened, an omniscient technology of this kind will show things like....... people and their loved ones being Run over and killed by someone who had been given a lenient sentence, drove again but this time more pissed and crashed into them. The only ones who won't support the decision are those who teeter on the brink between over and just under the limit and these people's opinions in this matter are irrelevant.

    It wouldn't be a police state at all, hyperbole is what I expect from a reveller proclaiming the greatness of the one he loves on a Friday night, not from a debater on TSR. It would be a heavier punishment which might or might not act as a deterrent but probably will AND if it doesn't, then the consequence will not prove to be a bad one. If it turns out that the incidence of drink driving doesn't decrease then at least those caught drink driving won't be legally able to get into a car again and repeat the action that got them where they are and that's no loss to the roads.

    I'm really sick of this 'democracy, human rights, police state ahhhhhh' ****. What do you suggest? If it was a loved one of yours who became a victim of a drink driver you'd be full of rage and would want to stab, kill, 'have 5 minutes alone with the expletive'. But when that isn't the case, you can't even support measures to increase the punishments of those whose actions bring about that devastations And has the possible side effect of actually preventing this behaviour.

    Tell me, what do you suggest is the cure for the drink driving problem? If not bigger punishments, what exactly?
    What Kiss said was absolutely right. Punishment should be the absolute last resort when trying to combat a crime and making crimes unnecessarily harsh isn't going to bring about any change other than making people even more apprehensive of the state than they were before.

    By making punishments extremely harsh, you create a society where people obey the law not because they think it's a moral thing to do, but because they're afraid of the consequences. A society where the only thing stopping people from doing a crime is an extraordinarily dangerous one. It's easy to make somebody forget fear, it's a lot harder to make somebody forget their fundamental morals and upbringing.

    The best way to stop people committing crimes is stop them from wanting to commit the crime. Taking the example of drink driving, I assume most of the perpetrators would have been brought up in a family where excessive drinking was the norm or would not have been taught the dangers. Educating these families, educating the young people and even - if absolutely necessary - rehousing them would all be more effective ways of combating the issue.

    If someone is currently caught drink driving, whilst the penalties will not ruin them, they're certainly not convenient. Many people will face a driving ban of months or years. This is more than enough. It would be absolutely unfair to ban someone for life since people can change, if and only if they're given the chance to. As an altruistic species, we should be doing our best to create a positive society for everyone, rather than just shutting out 'imperfections' from our world.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously drink driving is a sensitive issue with you but I really don't think that comparing drink driving punishments to those in the classroom and given by your parents actually helps. I understand the point you are trying to make, that harsh punishment sticks, but do you know how much time and resources would have to be used by the government and police to for fill these obviously not though our punishments?

    Those 10 years in prison someone could have (for drink driving for the very and only time in their life) spent in a cell are useless when in fact that cell could go to a murderer instead.

    If you had researched this properly you would have realised people do get put in prison for severe drink driving and you are quite frankly silly to think someone could get 10 years in prison, unless if course they killed someone which would be a charge of manslaughter instead.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    What Kiss said was absolutely right. Punishment should be the absolute last resort when trying to combat a crime and making crimes unnecessarily harsh isn't going to bring about any change other than making people even more apprehensive of the state than they were before.

    By making punishments extremely harsh, you create a society where people obey the law not because they think it's a moral thing to do, but because they're afraid of the consequences. A society where the only thing stopping people from doing a crime is an extraordinarily dangerous one. It's easy to make somebody forget fear, it's a lot harder to make somebody forget their fundamental morals and upbringing.

    The best way to stop people committing crimes is stop them from wanting to commit the crime. Taking the example of drink driving, I assume most of the perpetrators would have been brought up in a family where excessive drinking was the norm or would not have been taught the dangers. Educating these families, educating the young people and even - if absolutely necessary - rehousing them would all be more effective ways of combating the issue.

    If someone is currently caught drink driving, whilst the penalties will not ruin them, they're certainly not convenient. Many people will face a driving ban of months or years. This is more than enough. It would be absolutely unfair to ban someone for life since people can change, if and only if they're given the chance to. As an altruistic species, we should be doing our best to create a positive society for everyone, rather than just shutting out 'imperfections' from our world.

    (Original post by Americandream)
    Obviously drink driving is a sensitive issue with you but I really don't think that comparing drink driving punishments to those in the classroom and given by your parents actually helps. I understand the point you are trying to make, that harsh punishment sticks, but do you know how much time and resources would have to be used by the government and police to for fill these obviously not though our punishments?

    Those 10 years in prison someone could have (for drink driving for the very and only time in their life) spent in a cell are useless when in fact that cell could go to a murderer instead.

    If you had researched this properly you would have realised people do get put in prison for severe drink driving and you are quite frankly silly to think someone could get 10 years in prison, unless if course they killed someone which would be a charge of manslaughter instead.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Both of these posts are full of terrible logic and ignorance but I'm just too tired to respond to them properly right now so I will tommorow.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    Both of these posts are full of terrible logic and ignorance but I'm just too tired to respond to them properly right now so I will tommorow.
    You wrote "let's keep this civil" in your original post. Saying that others' opinions are "full of terrible logic and ignorance" doesn't come across as very civil to me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You say that society will obey the law only because they have to and not because they want to.... can't you see how flawed this is? Really? How many criminals out there aren't going around stealing cars 24/7 and doing it in full view of CCTV, police etc? It's because they don't want to get caught. Right NOW people have the option to obey the laws against drink driving but OBviously a minority choose not to so the only resort left is to make it so they have no choice but to obey the law. It's not about installing 'fear' in innocent people, which won't happen, its about trying to prevent people from doing things which they evidently haven't stopped doing, things which cause huge amounts of damage, and also setting a precedent so initial non believers and their punishments act as proofs of what the justice system will do. Educating people won't do anything.

    I never said ban motorists caught drink driving for life, but for a lengthy period of time. Clearly the punishments now aren't really having an effect on the rate of drink driving so something has to be done and I think that this could be the answer. If someone's functional enough to be able to drive a car, its a given that they are at least aware of the dangers associated with drink driving and so teaching them that 'drink.driving.is.bad' will be useless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    You wrote "let's keep this civil" in your original post. Saying that others' opinions are "full of terrible logic and ignorance" doesn't come across as very civil to me.
    You say that society will obey the law only because they have to and not because they want to.... can't you see how flawed this is? Really? How many criminals out there aren't going around stealing cars 24/7 and doing it in full view of CCTV, police etc? It's because they don't want to get caught. Right NOW people have the option to obey the laws against drink driving but OBviously a minority choose not to so the only resort left is to make it so they have no choice but to obey the law. It's not about installing 'fear' in innocent people, which won't happen, its about trying to prevent people from doing things which they evidently haven't stopped doing, things which cause huge amounts of damage, and also setting a precedent so initial non believers and their punishments act as proofs of what the justice system will do. Educating people won't do anything.

    I never said ban motorists caught drink driving for life, but for a lengthy period of time. Clearly the punishments now aren't really having an effect on the rate of drink driving so something has to be done and I think that this could be the answer. If someone's functional enough to be able to drive a car, its a given that they are at least aware of the dangers associated with drink driving and so teaching them that 'drink.driving.is.bad' will be useless.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The other issue to think about, and I hate to say it, is that such bans may have an adverse affect.

    A 3 year ban for having 2 pints instead of 1 1/2 may seem like a good idea, but you must think of the consequences. That being that the person will almost certainly lose their job, probably find it very hard to find work after that, they may have families to support and so forth. Of course I realise that this isn't something you want to have to consider, crime should be punished, but it should be punished in proportion. If have swathes of people losing their jobs, homes, families over half a pint then we can cause a serious issue to snowball into a totally different problem.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    I truly believe that the best way to prevent a bad thing happening is to make the punishment so severe that the person has it constantly in their mind when their thoughts even come close to the prohibited deed in question. Drink driving costs many lives a year and is a purely disgusting thing to do, akin in my mind to walking down a street blindfolded and waving a nunchuk around and around and taking a chance that nobody gets hurt. A drink driver wouldn't do that would they, so why get pissed and then operate a potential death machine? ****ing idiots.

    I think that the Government should impose severe punishments for anyone caught drink driving and I'm talking even a little bit of alcohol in their blood stream. For being slightly over the limit give them a 3 year ban and £2000 fine and for being absolutely wrecked nd behind the wheel, tell them that they can't drive for 10 years and slap them with jail time too. What argument could anyone possibly have against this? 'Oooo, but this penalises drunk drivers who aren't in the wrong....' . Exactly, there's nothing that could be said against this as its a fact that anyone who is drink driivng is at fault and I do believe that measures like this will make some of these idiots think about their actions and then not act...... on those actions.

    I remember in school we had a teacher who told us on our first day that 'if you ever mess around in my class, ill make sure to get you expelled' and she made true on her promise with a few other students to at least get them suspended nd she was known to be tough and absolutely no one played up in her class. My class wasn't averse to disruption and I suppose bullying some other teachers but with her, we all made sure to do our work and keep quiet. Also, when I was a kid I remember my dad threatening to put chilli powder In my mouth if I swore as I'd developed a bad habit and he did it once and I didn't swear in front of him again (until I was 15 obv). Point is, the threat of a disproportionate (arguably proportionate, only disproportionate relative to the current punishments and their blind acceptance by non victims of things) punishment definitely serves to reduce incidences of said bad behaviour and I believe that one of the only ways for Britain to solve its drink driving problem is to levy on culprits massive sentences that will leave people thinking 'to heck am I drinking and driving, not if THAT will happen'.

    Discuss and please actually consider everything that I've wrote and keep this civil |


    I gave up here, because the evidence is entirely to the contrary.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Americandream)
    Obviously drink driving is a sensitive issue with you but I really don't think that comparing drink driving punishments to those in the classroom and given by your parents actually helps. I understand the point you are trying to make, that harsh punishment sticks, but do you know how much time and resources would have to be used by the government and police to for fill these obviously not though our punishments?

    Those 10 years in prison someone could have (for drink driving for the very and only time in their life) spent in a cell are useless when in fact that cell could go to a murderer instead.

    If you had researched this properly you would have realised people do get put in prison for severe drink driving and you are quite frankly silly to think someone could get 10 years in prison, unless if course they killed someone which would be a charge of manslaughter instead.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't give a damn about the Government having to use resources if the end goal of reducing drink driving and the lethal effects of that is realised. What's more important, the Government preserving 'resources' or using those resources and actually managing to reduce the death toll attributed to drink drivers? Don't even answer, you seem like you might be the type of person whose political infatuation would have him answering that question in a way that would make most people Having said that though, it wouldn't neccesitate the Government and police using a significant amount of time and money anyway so your point is more irrelevant than you thought, or knew it to be after I pointed out that preventing death is infinitely more valuable than preserving cash flows of supposedly human oriented entities.

    Also I never said that they should get 10 years in prison but driving bans that last 10 years...... so yeah.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by concubine)
    I gave up here, because the evidence is entirely to the contrary.
    It's case specific but it definitely does have an impact and no amount of scholarly 'evidence' can prove that wrong, no matter how determined one is to disprove that theory. There's the personal examples that I mentioned but there's also things like my school confiscating students' phones for 2 weeks if they caught them using them in class and after a few people had seen it happen to their classmates, no one wanted to do it and everyone was extra cautious about taking them out.

    I know that your evidence is likely to be centered on the death penalty in the US not having much of an impact on the murder rate but you can't compare murder and pretty much any other crime/thing. If someone wants to murder, that compulsion is strong enough to override any internal voices reminding them of the ultimate punishment that would await them should they get caught. The mentality of a soon to be murderer isn't conducive to logical or rational reasoning whereas someone looking to drive their car after having a few drinks isn't as intent and stubborn in wanting to do it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    The other issue to think about, and I hate to say it, is that such bans may have an adverse affect.

    A 3 year ban for having 2 pints instead of 1 1/2 may seem like a good idea, but you must think of the consequences. That being that the person will almost certainly lose their job, probably find it very hard to find work after that, they may have families to support and so forth. Of course I realise that this isn't something you want to have to consider, crime should be punished, but it should be punished in proportion. If have swathes of people losing their jobs, homes, families over half a pint then we can cause a serious issue to snowball into a totally different problem.
    Nah I disagree and like everyone else you seem to be missing the salient point of this whole debate and that's the prior awareness and ability to either do it or not do it. If someone did drink half a pint and they were under the limit, they have nothing to worry about. But people have control over whether or not they decide to drink a lot, or just enough to get them to the level where they're unfit to drive a car, and if they decide to do it whilst knowing the consequences then they deserve everything that they get.

    Like I said and like you should know, its not about punishing innocent people. If you were to demonise and legislate against people coughing in other people's faces, then you'd run the risk of innocent people being punished when they did it on accident (silly example but the point remains). Creating a system which punishes perpetrators of crimes such as this to a relatively huge level is not unfair as it only affects those who partake in a action which is extremely unfair....to every road user in Britain.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theonefrombrum)
    Nah I disagree and like everyone else you seem to be missing the salient point of this whole debate and that's the prior awareness and ability to either do it or not do it. If someone did drink half a pint and they were under the limit, they have nothing to worry about. But people have control over whether or not they decide to drink a lot, or just enough to get them to the level where they're unfit to drive a car, and if they decide to do it whilst knowing the consequences then they deserve everything that they get.

    Like I said and like you should know, its not about punishing innocent people. If you were to demonise and legislate against people coughing in other people's faces, then you'd run the risk of innocent people being punished when they did it on accident (silly example but the point remains). Creating a system which punishes perpetrators of crimes such as this to a relatively huge level is not unfair as it only affects those who partake in a action which is extremely unfair....to every road user in Britain.
    You should understand the difference between disagreeing and misunderstanding. I accept where you are coming from, I would like to see harsher punishment for a lot of crimes. Where your plan falls down is feasibility, for many reasons, one of them being that which I pointed out. You'll notice in my first post I conceeded it's not something you want to think about, but it is something you must think about.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    You should understand the difference between disagreeing and misunderstanding. I accept where you are coming from, I would like to see harsher punishment for a lot of crimes. Where your plan falls down is feasibility, for many reasons, one of them being that which I pointed out. You'll notice in my first post I conceeded it's not something you want to think about, but it is something you must think about.
    No, what you pointed out was wrong and the essay that I kindly responded to it with should have made you see that. Summarise in one sentence your key point and ill reply back in the same form and explain again why people who drink drive are completely AT fault.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.