-
Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
If you were to buy a gun, drive somewhere with intent to shoot someone, but changed your mind, is that a crime? I know this is a radical thought and not the best analogy, but isn't this the thought behind DUI laws. It reminds me of the movie "MINORITY REPORT". Due to previous DUI and wreckless driving charge, I have been to 2 victim impact panels. Though my heart goes out to victims and their families, every situation was someone, not only intoxicated, but driving wrecklessly(excessive speed, driving on the sidewalk,etc.). When someone commits murder it has many classifications all with different punishments, but a DUI is a DUI. It is not illigal to drink and drive and not all people arrested for DUI fit the stereotypical drunk on "COPS". Unfortunately most people will think you have a drinking problem. Drinking has never negatively affected my life unless you consider a once a year hangover after Memorial Day(when I drink at home). Sure this could be all BS, but no one would know since good behavior or attributes are only considered when you are in jail! Good luck to all of us "CRIMINALS". Are there any groups against DUI laws?
-
Re: DUI laws: the real crime!
You have DWI Gulag and Drivers Against Mad Mothers as a couple of groups that take positions against DUI and DWI laws.
DUI laws are somewhat similar to other preemptive strike type laws such as loitering, conspiracy, etc.--what some would refer to as inchoate crimes, the theory being by nipping a problem in the bud you help prevent more dangerous criminal activity from occurring.
The battlefront on DUI and other crimes is within the legislative arena so you need to join a group and/or contact your legislator to have input on changing the laws.
-
Re: DUI laws: the real crime!
Quote:
Quoting tech72
Due to previous DUI and wreckless driving charge, I have been to 2 victim impact panels. Though my heart goes out to victims and their families, every situation was someone, not only intoxicated, but driving wrecklessly(excessive speed, driving on the sidewalk,etc.).
Which you were apparently convicted of ... DUI and reckless driving.
Call me back when you have the "pleasure" of pulling the remains of a family of four out of a van and holding a child of four in your arms when he breathes his last struggling breaths of life as the drunk that veered over the lane hitting his family head on is screaming at you about how you have violated HIS rights for daring to arrest HIM!
That is but one of the many DUI memories seared into my mind over the last 15 years.
If the only damage caused by DUI drivers was to their own vehicles or to their own person, then I woudl say, "Have at it." But, this is an easily preventable crime and there is NO EXCUSE to drive impaired at all. Measurable impairment can begin at as low a BAC as .02. The only safe way to drink is to do so when you are not driving.
Good luck advocating for rescinding or loosening DUI laws! I pity the politician that campaigns on THAT platform!
And if you think the USA has tough DUI laws (and it does not) take a look at the DUI laws in most every other country.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting tech72
If you were to buy a gun, drive somewhere with intent to shoot someone, but changed your mind, is that a crime? I know this is a radical thought and not the best analogy, but isn't this the thought behind DUI laws.
Perhaps it's more like you're driving to a big field then shooting your gun randomly across the field. It may be that there aren't many people in the field, but you put them in danger each time you shoot and eventually you would probably hit somebody.
Quote:
Quoting tech72
When someone commits murder it has many classifications all with different punishments, but a DUI is a DUI. It is not illigal to drink and drive and not all people arrested for DUI fit the stereotypical drunk on "COPS".
It is illegal to drink and drive if your blood alcohol is above the legal limit. It's not truly one-size-fits-all. Most, probably all, states have tiered drunk driving charges - repeat offenders face greater sanction. Also, many states have additional laws which can impose a greater penalty if serious injuries result from the drunk driver's actions.
Quote:
Quoting tech72
Unfortunately most people will think you have a drinking problem. Drinking has never negatively affected my life unless you consider a once a year hangover after Memorial Day(when I drink at home).
Or getting you twice convicted of drunk driving and costing you your license.
Most people assume you have a drinking problem if you have two DUI's, because virtually every person who has two DUI's also has a drinking problem. A lot of them are in denial of the nature and extent of their drinking problem, and some (like the one cdwjava described) have an enormous sense of entitlement about what they describe as their right to drive.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush correctly stated: ‘‘We know from long experience that if [former prisoners] can’t find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison. America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.’
PUBLIC POLICIES ADOPTED IN FURTHERANCE OF MADD’S ANTI-ALCOHOL POLITICAL AGENDA MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNNECESSARY DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR.
The NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) assumes we have all succumbed to their anti-alcohol propaganda. This statement appears on their website: "Whereas: Each year drunk and drugged driving leads 1.5 million arrests nationally..." No longer is the target group vaguely called "impaired" drivers. Now their all drunk or drugged.
Labling someone as a serious offender when no harm to another vehicle or human life has occurred is wrong. I agree having a few drinks at a restaurant then driving to a DUI checkpoint is a crime. Every arrest and conviction including murder is noted on a rap sheet stating the severity of the crime **EXCEPT DUI**.
If we forget, in every criminal there is a potential saint, we are dishonoring all of the great spiritual traditions. Saul of Tarsus persecuted and killed Christians before becoming Saint Paul, author of much of the New Testament. Valmiki, the revealer of the Ramayana, was a highwayman, a robber, and a murderer. Milarepa, one of the greatest Tibetan Buddhist gurus, killed thirty-seven people before he became a saint. Moses, who led the Jews out of bondage in Egypt, began his spiritual career by killing an Egyptian.
We must remember that even the worst of us can change.
10yrs later, I am still being refused work and my insurance rates are currently at four grand per year. For a one and only criminal offense in my 37 years of existence, I was told that this will be on my permament record as a Serious Offender.
No wonder there is alot of repeat offenders, they cann't get work or afford the treament they need. They drown their sorrows! So please give us a break. Stop harassing us and making it look worse then it really was.
**I DO BELIEVE IN PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME BUT NOT TOTAL ELIMINATION OF DUI LAWS.**
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Driving is a PRIVELAGE not a RIGHT! I can understand getting one DUI, everyone screws up sometimes... but the reason the laws are so harsh is so that you LEARN YOUR LESSON! If you haven't learned your lesson after the first one, you are apparently in denial and need proffessional help.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
PUBLIC POLICIES ADOPTED IN FURTHERANCE OF MADD’S ANTI-ALCOHOL POLITICAL AGENDA MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNNECESSARY DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR.
THAT is an absurd statement.
Quote:
"Whereas: Each year drunk and drugged driving leads 1.5 million arrests nationally..." No longer is the target group vaguely called "impaired" drivers. Now their all drunk or drugged.
Yep. And you can choose to call that group whatever you want. If you want to call them "chemically misunderstood," feel free.
Quote:
I agree having a few drinks at a restaurant then driving to a DUI checkpoint is a crime.
It's only a crime if they are impaired or over the 'per se' limit.
Quote:
Every arrest and conviction including murder is noted on a rap sheet stating the severity of the crime **EXCEPT DUI**.
Have you ever seen a rap sheet? In my state they list the code section of the violation for the crimes alleged and the crimes convicted of. From what I recall of other state's raps, they are the same way ... but, each state does it differently.
Quote:
If we forget, in every criminal there is a potential saint, we are dishonoring all of the great spiritual traditions.
Because someone can be "redeemed" does not mean they cannot have been guilty of a crime at some point in their lives.
Quote:
We must remember that even the worst of us can change.
Of course.
Quote:
10yrs later, I am still being refused work and my insurance rates are currently at four grand per year. For a one and only criminal offense in my 37 years of existence, I was told that this will be on my permament record as a Serious Offender.
What state is this where a single DUI conviction is so heinous? Was it just a single DUI? Or was there more to it?
And what kind of jobs are turning you down for a past DUI? I know of hundreds of jobs that don't require a driver's license or driving history. And I know many people with prior DUI convictions that are gainfully employed - including a couple of cops. So it makes me wonder if there might not be something else keeping you from getting a job you want.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
What state is this where a single DUI conviction is so heinous? Was it just a single DUI? Or was there more to it?- Carl
It is not the CT. GA18 that is showing inacurate info it is the CT. DMV. Online searches or others that gather info only report the info found, weather or not it is correct. I was told you can't sue the DMV. Even though they are breaking CT. GEN. STATUES and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
The fact is, when employers and myself included perform a driving record search, there are 4 offenses that appear, when in reality it was only one. I have been in contact with DMV to straighten this out, to no avail. They tell me: "Sorry sir, this is how we list it on the report."
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
It is not the CT. GA18 that is showing inacurate info it is the CT. DMV. Online searches or others that gather info only report the info found, weather or not it is correct. I was told you can't sue the DMV. Even though they are breaking CT. GEN. STATUES and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
The fact is, when employers and myself included perform a driving record search, there are 4 offenses that appear, when in reality it was only one. I have been in contact with DMV to straighten this out, to no avail. They tell me: "Sorry sir, this is how we list it on the report."
They may list the specific offense you were charged with, any enhancements or pertinent related sections for the authorization of a suspension, etc. Unfortunately, there probably is not anything you can do about the way they list it.
And, specifically, what section of the CT. General Statutes or the federal CFR is being broken? While I am not familiar with the CT laws, I do have some familiarity with the CFR ... and the CFR does not always apply to states.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
They may list the specific offense you were charged with, any enhancements or pertinent related sections for the authorization of a suspension, etc.- Carl
specific offense yes I agree only once not multible times
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
And, specifically, what section of the CT. General Statutes or the federal CFR is being broken? While I am not familiar with the CT laws, I do have some familiarity with the CFR ... and the CFR does not always apply to states.
- Carl
CT. DMV nonfeasance of CT. Manual for Drafting Regulations > >
http://www.cga.ct.gov/lco/LCODraftRegu.asp VI. Summary In summary: *
> Avoid repeating or paraphrasing the provisions of the Connecticut
> General Statutes in a regulation. Make sure the regulations actually
> implement the program or statutory scheme. * Do not impose a
> requirement or authorize individuals to do something that goes beyond
the scope of the underlying statutory scheme.
> * All "guidelines," "requirements," "rules," and other directives
> affecting individuals, regardless of the terminology the agency uses,
> should be adopted as regulations pursuant to the rulemaking process
> set forth in chapter 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Almost
> all Regulations by CT.DMV are repeating or paraphrasing the provisions
> of the Connecticut General Statutes some of the Connecticut General
> Statutes have been repealed but CT.DMV has not done so. Lets not
> forget they go beyond the scope of the underlying statutory scheme. And other Regulations in the
CT. Manual for Drafting Regulations.
Or
CHAPTER 54*
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
Sec. 4-177c. Contested cases. Documents. Evidence. Arguments. Statements. (a) In a contested case, each party and the agency conducting the proceeding shall be afforded the opportunity (1) to inspect and copy relevant and material records, papers and documents not in the possession of the party or such agency, except as otherwise provided by federal law or any other provision of the general statutes, and (2) at a hearing, to respond, to cross-examine other parties, intervenors, and witnesses, and to present evidence and argument on all issues involved.
CT. DMV no longer does in person hearings for DUI only even though they have a very good legal team.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Okay ... have you consulted an attorney on the matter? Is the CT DMV out of compliance with it's regulations? Or, is this just your interpretation?
And the section you cited concerns the contesting of cases. Presumably your case was contested in court. I don't see where this has anything to do with how the inforamtion recorded in the DMV.
Sec. 4-177. Contested cases. Notice. Record.
(a) In a contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice.
(b) The notice shall be in writing and shall include: (1) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing; (2) a statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held; (3) a reference to the particular sections of the statutes and regulations involved; and (4) a short and plain statement of the matters asserted. If the agency or party is unable to state the matters in detail at the time the notice is served, the initial notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved. Thereafter, upon application, a more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished.
(c) Unless precluded by law, a contested case may be resolved by stipulation, agreed settlement, or consent order or by the default of a party.
(d) The record in a contested case shall include: (1) Written notices related to the case; (2) all petitions, pleadings, motions and intermediate rulings; (3) evidence received or considered; (4) questions and offers of proof, objections and rulings thereon; (5) the official transcript, if any, of proceedings relating to the case, or, if not transcribed, any recording or stenographic record of the proceedings; (6) proposed final decisions and exceptions thereto; and (7) the final decision.
(e) Any recording or stenographic record of the proceedings shall be transcribed on request of any party. The requesting party shall pay the cost of such transcript. Nothing in this section shall relieve an agency of its responsibility under section 4-183 to transcribe the record for an appeal.
I'm not sure you have much of an argument here.
Could it look worse than it is because there are more than one entry in the DMV printout? Maybe. But it is still one incident. If you have potential employers that don't understand what is on the printout, maybe you need to be up front about it and educate them as well.
I am still wondering what kind of employment you seek that requires a DMV printout. Until I became a police officer, I never had to show my DMV record to anyone! And I have worked since the age of 16 and I even taught in the public school system ... no DMV record required. So there is work out there that does not require a DMV printout.
- Carl
-
Re: DUI laws: the real crime!
I am not against DUI laws, but should somebody that causes an accident while they are on their cellphone, be any different? of course, no politician would advocate against any law that could save a life, so how do we decide which is punishable? Causing harm or death is always a possibility when any one is driving. Believe me, if I was responsible for causing anyone harm or death while driving ( sober or not ), I would deserve the same.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Choosing not to drive and sleeping in my car proves I haven't learned my lesson? Maybe I should have drove, then I probably wouldn't be replying to you!
-
Re: DUI laws: the real crime!
Quote:
Quoting tech72
I am not against DUI laws, but should somebody that causes an accident while they are on their cellphone, be any different?
Presumably the criminal charge for either would be the same. Out here, both could face charges for vehicular manslaughter.
Quote:
of course, no politician would advocate against any law that could save a life, so how do we decide which is punishable? Causing harm or death is always a possibility when any one is driving. Believe me, if I was responsible for causing anyone harm or death while driving ( sober or not ), I would deserve the same.
There is a far greater cry to criminalize DUI and not (yet) criminalize driving on a cell phone. While the data is present to show that driving with a cell phone can cause significant impairment, it is an impairment that is temporary. It is also barely a blip on the cause for collisions (at least in CA). As I recall, it is so insigificant it does not even appear on the statistics.
Personally, I would make DUI laws much harsher. Forrtunately for some, MY opinion on what DUI laws should be is not mirrored by legislation.
- Carl
-
Re: DUI laws: the real crime!
Causing an accident while being impaired by anything other than drinking is common. The statistics don't prove that because it is not tangible. Are you aware of the evidence that the national highway and safety system uses to determine alcohol related accidents? It is this information that misleads people to advocate tougher DUI laws. These same statistics classify people with a BAC of .08 and people with a BAC of .4. They also use gender and demographics to determine alcohol related accidents when no tests are given. I hope no one bases their opinion solely on statistics!
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
I am certainly aware of what the statistics are based on. And while DUI is certainly not the highest category of collisions, it is perhaps the most preventable. Driving DUI significanlty increases the chances of a collision by virtue of that impairment ... which, as I mentioned before, is measurable beginning at as low a BAC as .02.
Being the fellow that cleans up the remains of the victims of DUI, I have seen the flesh and blood of these stats and I know what is behind them.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting tech72
If you were to buy a gun, drive somewhere with intent to shoot someone, but changed your mind, is that a crime? I know this is a radical thought and not the best analogy, but isn't this the thought behind DUI laws. It reminds me of the movie "MINORITY REPORT". and not all people arrested for DUI fit the stereotypical drunk on "COPS". Unfortunately most people will think you have a drinking problem.
I agree, Its called "PREJUDICE" unreasonable preconceived judgment. I gave up drinking all together along time ago because I wanted to stop. I am the last person to tell you to stop drinking but you did give them reason to be tougher on repeat offenders. I know of some very stupid laws like passenger open container, DUI on your driving record for life, .02 for second DUI. Its a fact cough drops, and mouthwash will read .05
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
You use Stoli's as mouthwash? No wonder there's a problem. ;)
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
I know of some very stupid laws like passenger open container
And why is that a "stupid" law? There are reasons we don't want open alcohol in a car.
Driver: "Hey, bud, there's a cop coming - hold my beer."
Quote:
DUI on your driving record for life,
I suppose it varies by state, but it's my understanding that DMV records in all states fall off the back end after a time. In my state they remain for only 7 years, and as I recall only the suspension information will remain for up to 7 years - not the conviction.
Quote:
.02 for second DUI.
What state has THAT law? For minors, sure ... and for some commercial drivers, I can also see this ... but for the rest of us?
Quote:
Its a fact cough drops, and mouthwash will read .05
No, it's not. At least not on the machines in common use today. Any alcohol that MIGHT be present from these things is referred to as "mouth alcohol" ... the modern machines are designed to use deep lung air - the mouth alcohol will not be present there.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
I suppose it varies by state, but it's my understanding that DMV records in all states fall off the back end after a time. In my state they remain for only 7 years, and as I recall only the suspension information will remain for up to 7 years - not the conviction.
What state has THAT law? For minors, sure ... and for some commercial drivers, I can also see this ... but for the rest of us?
No, it's not. At least not on the machines in common use today. Any alcohol that MIGHT be present from these things is referred to as "mouth alcohol" ... the modern machines are designed to use deep lung air - the mouth alcohol will not be present there.
- Carl
Massachusetts OUI Laws
An OUI conviction plea of 'guilty" or admission to sufficient facts will be a permanent part of your driving record. It does not "come off" your record after 5 years…it never comes off your record. So who cares about drunk drivers and their constitutional rights?
YOU should care. The importance of what is happening in DUI law and procedures can be summarized in one word: precedent.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
Massachusetts OUI Laws
An OUI conviction plea of 'guilty" or admission to sufficient facts will be a permanent part of your driving record. It does not "come off" your record after 5 years…it never comes off your record.
But you're not IN MA, are you?
In any event, okay ... it stays forever like a criminal offender record does. That's what happens.
Quote:
So who cares about drunk drivers and their constitutional rights?
There is NO "Constitutional Right" to have a clear DMV record after a set number of years. You have a right to due process, not a clean slate.
Quote:
YOU should care. The importance of what is happening in DUI law and procedures can be summarized in one word: precedent.
And what dangerous precedent is being set by leaving a record of fact on someone's DMV record?
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
But you're not IN MA, are you?- Carl
I am on the border
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
There is NO "Constitutional Right" to have a clear DMV record after a set number of years. You have a right to due process,.- Carl
Since when? The last time I talk to DMV they told me "We can do what we want and how we want". Where is my Constitutional Right or due process?
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
And what dangerous precedent is being set by leaving a record of fact on someone's DMV record?
- Carl
I am talking about all DUI laws not just DMV.
Yawn at a roadblock? Be arrested.
Extended Work Shifts and the
Risk of Motor Vehicle
Crashes
DWD...Driving While Drowsy
cognitive function deteriorates to a
level equivalent to having a 0.1%
blood alcohol level, which is
significantly above the legal limit.
“We found that the odds that MD.
interns will have a documented motor
vehicle crash on the commute after an
extended work shift were more than
double the odds after a nonextended
shift. Near-miss incidents were more
than five times as likely to occur after
an extended shift as they were after a
nonextended shift.
http://www.cirseiu.org/docUploads/CI...805_095617.pdf
Driving distractions such as using cell phones, lighting cigarettes, eating food or changing CDs can cause such symptoms of drunk driving as "swerving" or "drifting" -- along with the officer's incorrect conclusion that the driver is intoxicated.
Driving in CT. talking on cell phone is illegal.
Did you know they check your cell phone records if you are involed in a crash? What if you drove to the grocery store that is a hour away and bought all kinds of food? But you forgot your wallet so you call home to kids. So you go home to get it and crash fortyfive minutes from home. You will have no constitutional rights under DUI precedent.
**I am not saying take away DUI laws but give us rights convict us on crimes commited not prejudice.**
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
Since when? The last time I talk to DMV they told me "We can do what we want and how we want". Where is my Constitutional Right or due process?
You do not have a Constitutional right to have the information recorded how you want it to be recorded. You had your due process in court or at the Admin hearing that resulted in a conviction or a plea to the offense that is recorded in the DMV database.
Quote:
Driving in CT. talking on cell phone is illegal.
Did you know they check your cell phone records if you are involed in a crash?
Good for CT (though I doubt they do it after EVERY crash ... maybe the most serious ones, but not every one). We don't. That would require a tad too many subpoenas.
Quote:
What if you drove to the grocery store that is a hour away and bought all kinds of food? But you forgot your wallet so you call home to kids. So you go home to get it and crash fortyfive minutes from home. You will have no constitutional rights under DUI precedent.
What does crashing on your way home from shopping have to do with DUI?
Quote:
**I am not saying take away DUI laws but give us rights convict us on crimes commited not prejudice.**
Until they change the law (likely not going to happen), a crime is committed when a person drives with a BAC of .08 or greater, or when they drive impaired. That is not "prejudice", that is the law.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Ok Carl, You convinced me to move to CA. You seem to have rights that CT. does not. I have no arrest other than my DUI or other DMV tickets. But if you look at my credit report I am a "SERIOUS DRUG OFFENDER" Mutilble DUI and drug convictions. Thanks to CT.DMV and I can't fight it thats how they do it? A friend of mine lost his license due to racing on bike they did not list the suspention the same way as my DUI? Its a fact if excons can't find work or help they need they will commit same or other crimes. Convict us don't condem us.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
But if you look at my credit report I am a "SERIOUS DRUG OFFENDER" Mutilble DUI and drug convictions.
I have never seen this info on a credit report. How it gets there is beyond me. Of course, that may be because Criminal Offender Records in CA are largely confidential, and I doubt the credit companies have the time or resources to hunt down every publicly available court record in the state.
Quote:
Convict us don't condem us.
Maybe you should come out here. I know plenty of convicted persons that have jobs. Heck, there are even a few cops with DUIs in their past. It isn't a life killer out here.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
DUI laws make sense, but not the ones we have now. Breathalizers are not accurate at all and can vary greatly depending on all kinds of factors. If you just ate some bread for example you can have a .04. Add one or two beers to that and you are over the limit. Everybody metabolizes alcohol differently. People who are diabetic can show lethal levels of alcohol on breathalizers. Breathalizers also have a 20% margin of error. The only reason we use these peices of junk to arrest people is because we know that if someone's poor they won't be able to afford a lawyer. The best DUI lawyers win 99% of their cases because they just point out to the jury that the methods used to arrest people for DUI are completely flawed. Unfortunately a lot of people cannot afford the 10,000 dollar or so fee these lawyers charge and they get sent to jail because public defenders don't know anything about the complexities of DUI law. Because the breathalizers don't work and are a fraud, and field sobriety tests are designed for people to fail, the only solution is to videotape everyone accused of DUI. Then the jury can watch the tape and decide if the person was impaired. Of course this will never happen because then we would have less DUi convictions and therefore less money.
Sad. http://www.duiblog.com/
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Ok, I'm in.
Quote:
Quoting tech72
If you were to buy a gun, drive somewhere with intent to shoot someone, but changed your mind, is that a crime?
Yes that does sound like a crime. It sounds like the gun would of been brought illegaly. Because there is less chance of someone wanting to know who the killer is by using bullet prints. Unless the person filled the barrel of his gun to change the prints which is also illegal. It would seem like he had the gun already loaded and in view, causing another crime. I bet he's glad he wasn't DUI because he probably would not of changed his mind. If a cop pulled him over he would of been arrested for the previous crimes. If all the previous was legal imagine how many more murders we would have.
The same thing with DUI. There have been a lot of deaths cause of DUI. A lot of people get away with it because no officers noticed anything strange. Maybe a DUI driver made it for 2 years without geetting a ticket. Imagine he gets a ticket his 3rd year. What does he have to complain about, he got away with it 2 previous years. If 100% of drivers would stop DUI I see no complaints because there would be no victims or arrest dealing with DUI, so everyone is happy on both sides.
Yes, accidents do happen dealing with cell phones. That is why Detroit's new law is to ban holding a cell phone while driving. Several other cities have this law too.
I'm looking at everything fair. These laws are not happening because the states want to be mean. They are occuring because we are asking for safer streets (are we asking for too much?)
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Guilty Or Not Guilty
Ok, I'm in.
I'm looking at everything fair. These laws are not happening because the states want to be mean. They are occuring because we are asking for safer streets (are we asking for too much?)
Do you know the statistic that even M.A.D.D admits to? The repeat offenders are becoming more and they are unemployed up to 88%. I have put in alot of job application and have seen it on many of them. Don't applie if you have a DUI. You see it on cartoons and other reg TV,movies. Why is your DAD drinking? Because he lost his job!
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
If they are unemployed it is because of other issues that may, or may not, be related to his alcohol consumption.
I know of plenty of employed people with DUI records. Those I know with DUI convictions that are unemployed either have a spotty job history to begin with, or have been struggling with drugs and/or alcohol for years. The alcohol problem often occurs long before DUI arrest. Those who have been responsible and productive tend to remain that way even after a DUI. And since most jobs do not require a clean driving record, it is very often a non-issue anyway.
Do you have a cite and a context for this 88% of DUI drivers are unemployed statistic?
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
I have no arrest other than my DUI or other DMV tickets. But if you look at my credit report I am a "SERIOUS DRUG OFFENDER" Mutilble DUI and drug convictions. Thanks to CT.DMV and I can't fight it thats how they do it?
Here it does mention criminal records can not show up on credit reports: http://www.equifax.com/universal/fcra.shtml
This one also reads it in the last paragraph: http://www.experian.com/credit_repor...it_report.html
Check out this one: http://www.experian.com/ask_max/max110205c.html
Here is more info on how to get a free credit report: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/...reereports.htm
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
This manual seems good for those with DUI on their record: http://www.duiprocess.com/?hop=duicom
One of the pages reads: "The truth is that drunk driving conviction will remain on your criminal record indefinitely. It will remain there forever for employers, credit bureaus, and government agencies to see unless YOU do something to change it." I don't know if they are serious or just want to make money.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Guilty Or Not Guilty
This manual seems good for those with DUI on their record:
http://www.duiprocess.com/?hop=duicom
One of the pages reads: "
The truth is that drunk driving conviction will remain on your criminal record indefinitely. It will remain there forever for employers, credit bureaus, and government agencies to see unless YOU do something to change it." I don't know if they are serious or just want to make money.
In some states - like mine - a person's state criminal offender record is not publicly accessible. An employer who requires a DMV printout might find it there (if within 7 years), but they won't find it out from the CORI records.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Guilty Or Not Guilty
Did you you read that is a Federal law and State laws differ like CT. I got my copy
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
I have put in alot of job application and have seen it on many of them. Don't applie if you have a DUI.
Well Unemployable, I have been putting some pieces together. Since it is so hard for you to get a job. And since you stopped drinking. Why don't you get your own business together. One good one is to try and be a motivational speaker. Travel to high schools and try and prevent what happened to you. Another one is a director of a nonprofit organization. The organization can be a group of people trying to correct the DMV. A third one is a politician. And mention you will stand to help correct the DMV. Maybe ther is a different type of business you perfer.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting Unemployable?
Did you you read that is a Federal law and State laws differ like CT. I got my copy
Specifically, what does it say on the credit report? How is it worded, and what credit reporting company is the report from?
The "big three" have to adhere to federal guidelines, and I do not think the states can provide FEWER restrictions than federal law on this matter.
I can see if you had a judgement leveled against you for some reason, or even a failure to pay a fine, but I can't see that they would just tack on to your credit report: "Convicted of DUI" or anything like that.
I could be wrong, but I have never heard of such a thing.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Yes, there should be laws against DUI's, but the punishments nowadays don't fit the crime in my opinion.
I had a DUI out of state a couple years ago, and recieved 1yr unsupervised probation, 6 alcohol classes (clean drug/alcohol tests, and was labeled a "social drinker) , no license suspension, and fines around $600. I wish now that I had been punished a little more severely. I had the impression that this was not that serious of an offense.
I recieved DUI #2 a little over a month ago. I'm now going to lose my license for a year, lose my job, my house, my car, etc. I will be put in jail for between 5 and 30 days, my insurance company will drop my policy, I will be required to attend alcohol classes for 6 weeks, I will be fined around $600, I will be required to have ignition interlock on my vehicle for 1yr after my suspension ($1000), I will not be allowed an occupational license, I will likely be put on probation for so long at so many $/week, criminal record (clean until now), etc, etc.
Do I think this punishment is fair. Definately not.
The statistics do not warrant this type of punishment. They say about 15-16,000 people die due to drunk driving every year in this country, but that is not true. This statistic is "alcohol related" traffic fatalities (changed a few years ago to make it sound much worse than it is), which does not discriminate between factors such as: a drunk walking into the street, drunk passengers in one of the cars in the accident, death of the drunk driver, or where the drunk driver didn't even cause the accident, etc. Most legitimate stats say the number is around 5,000 (some around 3,000).
Yeah, these "statistics" haven't changed in about 15 years, either, and they won't. So these laws aren't working, anyway. The reason is because there is no focus on rehabilitation, and there is very little done to prevent driving under the influence. Most people don't even know the laws until it's too late (I had a woman at work ask me why I was so depressed over "a stupid traffic ticket"), and many drivers are in fact alcoholics who are addicted to a "legal" drug. Everywhere else in society, you see "alcoholism is a disease". Not in drunk driving cases, though. I was watching a "police video" program on tv the other night where the narrator referred to a drunk driver as a "murderer with no concience". 99.999 percent of the time this isn't at all the case. It's regular people who made a mistake. These DUI charges are the only thing I have ever been arrested for or charged with. I have always busted my butt at jobs and at life in general. I do charity work, etc. I don't deserve to lose everything. I didn't cause a crash, didn't hurt anyone, etc. I didn't even feel drunk.
It's appauling to me that over 1.6 million people find themselves in the same boat as me every single year. I don't know anyone who has died due to a drunk driver, thank god, but I know about 20 who have had there lives screwed by a DUI.
I understand that MADD is a bunch of heartbroken people, but they are simply looking to destroy the lives of anyone they can. They want to base their hate on unclear statistics and they want to buy hateful punishments. They hurt, and want everone else to hurt, also.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
I HAVE known people killed by DUI drivers ... and I have known no one screwed by DUI laws. It's like saying you were screwed because of laws against shoplifting.
I also know people who have survided DUI convictions with year-long suspensions and did not lose their jobs and their houses because they lost their car. It is possible to live and work without a car to drive.
And it is possible to choose NOT to be DUI.
If you don't like DUI laws, you can tilt at windmills as part of one of the many groups of disgruntled drivers who are in the same boat as you and try to get the laws changed. Fortunately for the rest of us, the DUI lobby is not a sympathetic one.
As for the statistics, if the numbers have remained the same, while the population, miles driven, and vehicles on the road have all risemn, then the laws would seem to be working. Otherwise, one would assume that the number of DUI collisions woul dhave increased over the years as these other statistics have risen.
But, people choose to see in the stats whatever proves their own argument. I will continue to see the vision of the dying child in my arms and the drunk looming over my shoulder claiming HIS rights have been violated. And you can be lucky that I am not in charge of DUI laws as I would make the per se level .02.
- Carl
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
If lawmakers are so concerned with DUI killing people, why is it that most people don't know the DUI laws in their state. I can't believe how many people have no idea of the punishment. Don't you think that would help cut it down, before it's "too late"?
And as far as the stats, most will agree that the "alcohol related" change was made for MADD, and that when you look at the big picture, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
I work for a company of about 50,000. Our death rate is worse per employee than DUI death per driver, mostly due to bad safety practices of individuals. You don't see people getting thrown in jail and fined etc, etc, etc, for accidently shoring a ditch wrong, or swinging a boom over a truck cab or something. It's called an accident. Accidents happen. No exception here.
By your standards, shouldn't everyone who is caught speeding have the same thing done to them. How about running a red light? More people die in accidents because of this than DUI. Same as someone mentioned before about cell phones. Happens all the time. Not paying attention, same thing. I say throw everyone in this country in jail, that will solve all our problems.
CDWJAVA, have you ever driven faster than the posted limit? Ever just not been paying attention? Ever had an at-fault accident? If you ever killed someone by getting in an accident of any sort, how can you honestly say that you are any better than that guy you speak of.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
I HAVE known people killed by DUI drivers ... and I have known no one screwed by DUI laws. It's like saying you were screwed because of laws against shoplifting.
- Carl
Shoplifting? Compare DUI to arm robbery with a loaded gun. And then tell me the punishment fits the crime.
-
Re: Should There Be Laws Against DUI?
Quote:
Quoting kilgore
If lawmakers are so concerned with DUI killing people, why is it that most people don't know the DUI laws in their state.
Why is that the fault of the lawmakers? And show me a person that does not know DUI is a crime?
Do you know the penalties for a first offense for driving unlicensed? How about for driving on the wrong side of the road? I bet there are a lot of laws you don't know the penalty for, but you know are against the rules of the road.
Quote:
And as far as the stats, most will agree that the "alcohol related" change was made for MADD, and that when you look at the big picture, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
If "most" agreed with that sentiment, the punishments would not be what they are. The common sentiment is usually that we are far too easy. And when comapred to DUIs of other industrialized nations, we ARE too easy.
Quote:
You don't see people getting thrown in jail and fined etc, etc, etc, for accidently shoring a ditch wrong, or swinging a boom over a truck cab or something. It's called an accident.
But I bet there is a policy against coming to work after drinking, isn't there? Why? Because being impaired increases the chance of injury or death. Common sense says that when your perceptions and judgement are impaired, any activity you undertake is at greater risk of failure (unless the activity is puking - in which case greater impairment probably improves the odds).
Quote:
By your standards, shouldn't everyone who is caught speeding have the same thing done to them. How about running a red light? More people die in accidents because of this than DUI.
That depends on the state you live in, I suppose. If you want to advocate greater penalties for red light running, I'm behind ya!
But the law is as it is now. It is a ridiculous argument to say that because one dangerous act is treated less harshly than another that the other should be diminished.
Quote:
Same as someone mentioned before about cell phones. Happens all the time. Not paying attention, same thing. I say throw everyone in this country in jail, that will solve all our problems.
And, at least in my state, cell phones as a cause of collisions has yet to even make it on the radar screen.
Quote:
CDWJAVA, have you ever driven faster than the posted limit? Ever just not been paying attention? Ever had an at-fault accident?
Let's see ... yes, yes, and no.
So?
Quote:
If you ever killed someone by getting in an accident of any sort, how can you honestly say that you are any better than that guy you speak of.
Because I will not have increased the odds of a collision by driving impaired. While the results are the same, when someone drinks or does drugs and drives they willingly and knowingly increase the likelihood that they will get into a collision, and they are a far greater and persistent danger on the road than the guy who flips the radio station for a moment.
- Carl