Yeah, because those high speed chases of which you speak are the single highest contributor to collision fatalities. Oh wait, drunk driving is.In New York and many northeastern states, I believe eluding is a misdemeanor. In any case, the penalty for most traffic violations (including drunk driving) needs to be significantly lower than the penalty for a high-speed chase.
Yeah, I can see your point. After all, letting people go around randomly killing the tax payers won't have any negative influence on state revenue. Incidentally, I'm glad that you're happy to say that there is a price limit on protecting the citizenry from those who would do it harm.Not if we don't have the money. At the end of the day, pragmatism is based off of whether we have the ability to do something or not. If the state can't borrow money (IE: California), can't tax people, and can't otherwise raise money, it might not be able to afford to molest the activity- let alone have the trooper's state-issued credit card get approved when he tries to put gasoline in the squad car. If the government doesn't have any money and doesn't have the ability to raise any, it will be forced to let the activity go on unmolested.
If it were shown that simply suspending licenses had a noticeable impact on the number of drunk drivers, you'd have a point. Alas, it hasn't been and you don't.Now the question is whether it is more pragmatic to give 20 drunk drivers a license suspension and put one more squad car on the road or whether it makes sense to send ONE drunk driver to jail for a year.
Let them push for them; that's their right. It's equally the majority's right to demur from such, which as you'll notice we largely do.Exactly. That's part of the constitution. Problem is that the more draconian punishments that many people are still pushing for- let alone pushing for the federal government to mandate on states via discriminatory highway spending rules- aren't specifically written out in the constitution.
Hrm, it's not specifically written into the Constitution? Oh, then it must be illegal since the Constitution, by its own terms naturally, proclaims that it is an exhaustive list of the rights, privileges and restrictions upon the citizenry, states and federal government, right? The Constitution is a framework of general tenets with a few specifics thrown in because they're of such fundamental importance to its general framework that they needed to be delineated in such a way as to make patent that x is not at the whim of the government.
Well, with such a strong assertion that it's probably the case as supported by all the underlying mathematics and analysis, I'm wholly convinced. At any rate, your response here isn't a response to what I said by any conceivable definition of the idea. I said when they cause the deaths of, not when they injure. In this conversation, we've been talking specifically about collision fatalities proximately caused by drunk drivers. We haven't talked one iota about the number of collisions generally, or injury collisions of any stripe.Running on sidewalks probably cause the injury of 1/3 of people who walk on sidewalks; why not punish it with jail time?
Which isn't the case. The drunk driving population comprises a very low percentage of the total driving population, as I referenced in an earlier post, but account for a third of all fatal collisions. This isn't the expected outcome unless the behavior itself has an inherently high risk.We need to figure out exactly what risk an individual drunk driver poses to the public and base punishments off of that. If there are 100,000 drunk drivers in the country and they kill 12,000 people per year, that's one thing. If there are 100 million drunk drivers in the country and they kill 12,000 people per year, there should obviously be a different punishment than if there were only 100,000.
I'm quite happy to pay taxes to cover the cost of jailing those drunk drivers who have taken the life of another because of their inability not to drive while drunk. I'm also happy to pay taxes to keep in jail those who are repeatedly convicted of drunk driving (no state makes a first time dui a felony). Hell, I'd triple my tax burden a year if it were necessary to keep from society those types who would run about killing of its members.How much do you think it costs? Remember that jail time automatically costs the state tens of thousands of dollars- and felony jail time is likely to cost the state hundreds of thousands.
I'm sure I wouldn't agree with that. It's not cost effective in the slightest if it does nothing to curb the problem. Who knew that those who are willing to drive drunk are also perfectly willing to drive without a license? It has happened once or twice, I believe.Oh, absolutely. The question is, are there more efficient ways of spending it? I assume you'd agree that suspending a driver's license is a more cost-effective way of dealing with drunk drivers than sending them to jail. Suspending a driver's license requires a court hearing and maybe a tow truck or two; sending someone to jail costs thousands and thousands of dollars a month.
No, it doesn't.It costs the same amount of money to keep a convicted murderer in jail as it does to keep a drunk driver in jail.
Well, if the drunk driver kills only one police officer we've been able to hire at the expense of not jailing that drunk driver, then someone somewhere would lose several hundred thousand dollars in just the insurance payment. Then there's the cost of training of the officer we won't get to use anymore because he's dead. And then we'd have to replace his patrol car. And then have a trial for the guy accused of killing the officer. And then we'd have to factor in the cost of protecting the guy for having killed the officer (as it turns out, some people get upset when someone kills a cop. Even a lot of criminals do.) And then there's the cost of any medical treatment the officer would require before being pronounced dead (you know those pesky doctors, nurses and EMTs are always going that extra mile for a police officer).It costs the same amount of money to hire a police officer in many places as it does to keep a drunk driver in jail for a year; which would you rather spend money on?
Oh yeah, plus a human being would have been killed because the state thought it was too high a price to pay to be bothered with jailing those whose conduct has a substantial likelihood of killing people.
Oh, well what with this appeal to authority and all, how can I possibly argue otherwise. I am supremely convinced now because you work in the "bond markets"; "bond markets" workers are, as I'm sure you'll all know, always right about predicting the financial affairs of the future.as someone who works in the bond markets, I can assure you that it's now become an either/or proposition for at least a few states and is liable to become an either/or for many more if they don't quickly get their fiscal houses in order.
Thankfully, drunk driving collisions are generally not that eccentric such that rapid attention by the paramedics usually results in the saving of a life. Indeed, if it worked often enough in the other direction, they might have to invent specific terminology to deal with the unthinkable. I bet they'd call it something like "doa".I'm not saying we should go easy on drunk driving- I'm just saying that if there's a trade-off in CA, it shouldn't be spending $100K to save an innocent person's life from drunk driving if it can spend $10K to save an innocent person's life by making sure there are more paramedics or firefighters.
Hrm, so back to my question: when has MADD ever campaigned that one's professional license should be revoked/suspended for being convicted of a dui?MADD wants drunk driving to be recognized as a violent felony. It is difficult to be a licensed ANYTHING if you have a felony on your record.
So, they're lobbying for dui to be considered a felony. Big deal. I know of no state in the union which precludes hair stylists from licensure if they have a felony on their record. Or an electrician. Some particular jobs have restrictions based on specifically enumerated felonies, or types of criminal convictions. None of which, incidentally, would be because of having a dui, felony or otherwise.
Even if none of that were true, you still have presented the slightest bit of data to suggest that MADD is or has specifically campaigned for such.