This is a response to a man named Glen who had received 3 DUIs over the course of 20 years. He asked if his 10+ years of driving suspension was too tough and I wanted to make this perfectly clear so we all know what we are dealing with regarding these alcohol unusually cruel mental punishments as well as physical restrictions:
It sounds like your life has been ruined as a result of MADD and the witch hunt in America. These people have nothing better to do with their time yet there are starving people wars all over the world. The statistics have all been manipulated and the damage from the actual laws is much worse than what they are trying to prevent. It is my opinion that the amount of time and stigma associated with your ~7 years and miscellaneous trauma inducing alcohol programs is equivilant to many years in jail. Subjecting mass amounts of population to these kinds of vindictive mob punishments does more damage to our culture and individual lives than the few casualties of actual drinking and driving. The stigma associated with it is also worse than the crime. A good person can suddenly become an outcast and you are now branded as having a drinking problem and the government forces you to go to religious worship (AA) meetings. This is a perversion of what God is supposed to be about as well forgiveness. We don't call everyone who has a child a nymphomaniac just like getting 2 DUIs could mean you only ever drank on 2 occasions. Everything about DUIs smells of a lynch mobbing witch hunt where everyone is at risk. The founder of MADD has a DUI. Anyone can get a DUI yet people like to believe that they are some how better than the victims of DUI laws. We need to repeal these draconian laws and concentrate on the real problem, that driving in general is very dangerous and if we had better public transportation and safer cars we would have less problems. We should not attack human nature and especially people who like to drink who are often times the people who have the courage to move society forward. We should focus rather on the infrastructure we have built which is unsafe for ordinary activity.
More people die of drowsy driving, but it would be silly to say that we all have sleeping problems. It is just easy for people to pick on alcohol especially for people who have no occasion to celebrate. Should we give in to those people and make the world less happy or should we just make cars safer OR option number 3 deal with it and stop seeking vengeance.
Unfair DUI Laws
Printable View
-
11-18-2009, 04:27 PMworldnickUnfair DUI Laws
-
11-18-2009, 05:07 PMzedexRe: Unfair DUI Laws
Is that you, BE??
Had to add that. Seriously, I wouldn't say its a witch hunt. DUI is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with more harshly.
If you don't think so, consider this:
A young man who is out with some friends gets T-boned by a car. The man driving is killed, one passenger is in a coma for four months and has to learn to walk and feed himself again. The other passenger is unharmed, yet shaken to the point he cannot get into another car.
The dead man's two brother's saw the crash. They were only 40 feet away. Not far away, but close enough to watch the cars flip after the violent crash. The brothers-- not in the car, but 40 ft away get cuts from the flying glass.
The guy that hit the car was drunk. Not snot slinging slobbering drunk, but drunk enough to lose control of his car at 70mph and hit a parked car. He is not hurt at all. His BAC is 50% more than legal limit.
Imagine the pain of one brother as he has to call their mother telling her of this and her pain as she hears that her youngest son is dead. The police are there, so is the ambulances. The entire road is shut down for hours.
At the hospital, families congregate. A large group of people appear from nowhere. The dead man's family are all there. No one can believe this has happened. The father is stunned as it is officially announced the man did not survive. The mother screams in agony. People who had nothing to do with the crash or the families start crying as they can see and perhaps feel the pain of the family.
The funeral is sad. Family from hundreds of miles appear. Friends of the man are there, some unknown to the family. The mother still cannot grasp the concept that her son won't be coming through the door anymore.
The dead man's death was unremarkable throughout the rest of the country, but for two counties, it was a major event. Businesses shut down for the day in his honor. He was only 19 and made that great of an impact.
The drunk man's trial begins and it is only then it is discovered by the family that the drunk man had killed someone less than a year earlier in another state while DUI. A technicality got him off the hook. It is also learned that the man had several previous arrests and convictions for DUI. But, the courts took it easy on him because he had a problem and needed help, not jail.
Imagine that happeneing to a family member of yours. Imagine that because of a screwup on the investigating police's part, the drunk walks again after killing your family member.
See, you have to imagine that. I don't. I was one of the brothers that saw the crash. It was my mother whose tears still fall when my little brother's name is mentioned. I was a pallbearer at my brother's funeral. I buried my mother's son, my brother and my best friend because of people like you.
I watched that piece of shit drunk walk out of that courtroom.
Drive drunk if you like. But, don't ever let me catch you. Its not a threat. Its a promise -
03-19-2010, 11:49 AMCrimeboss1966Re: Unfair DUI Laws
And your saying what? This could not have possably happened if the guy had been sober? I hear you but also think you and anyone else that thinks this only happens when people are drinking is an idiot.
-
03-19-2010, 12:05 PMcdwjavaRe: Unfair DUI Laws
No one has opined that such tragedies happen ONLY when someone is impaired, but since approximately one third of all fatal and serious injury collisions involve impaired drivers, the relationship between DUI and disaster is quite strong. It is also easily preventable, and unlike brief driver lapses that might last seconds, an impaired driver is so impaired for the entire length of his time behind the wheel that night (or even day).
-
03-19-2010, 06:28 PMsouperdaveRe: Unfair DUI LawsYou are QUITE mistaken!Quote:
Quoting worldnick
The "life" was "ruined" by a decision to drink and then drive!
SELF IMPOSED!
Here, let me get all those damn trees out the way so that you can see the forests. -
03-19-2010, 08:53 PMashman165Re: Unfair DUI LawsYeah, depriving someone of their privilege (alas, it's not a right commanded from on high subject only to the prerogative of the divine to grant or revoke) to drive for showing that the presumption they're capable of handling the attendant responsibilities of driving with some degree of mature thinking was faulty is really "cruel" and manifestly "unusual". Hell, until you mentioned this possibility, I hadn't once ever heard of anyone, anywhere losing the "right" to drive for violating the social contract impliedly agreed to when accepting the license in the first instance. /sarcasmQuote:
Quoting worldnick
Are you writing this while drunk? "with their time yet there are starving people wars all over the world."? The hell does that even mean? I mean, I recognize all of the words and it looks like it's English. But not so much.Quote:
It sounds like your life has been ruined as a result of MADD and the witch hunt in America. These people have nothing better to do with their time yet there are starving people wars all over the world.
We don't get nearly enough conspiracy whack-jobs around here these days. Do stick around. Incidentally, I'm glad that you're reasonable enough to agree that there is measurable damage inflicted specifically because of the drunken drivers. It's a (small) step in the right direction.Quote:
The statistics have all been manipulated and the damage from the actual laws is much worse than what they are trying to prevent.
It is my opinion that the time you spent in school was a waste of money. The difference between our opinions? Mine is at least reasonable in that it takes account of evidence presented; it isn't just something I decided to make up and believe.Quote:
[It is my opinion that the amount of time and stigma associated with your ~7 years and miscellaneous trauma inducing alcohol programs is equivilant to many years in jail.
No, we punish them individually. There is, of course, a very easy way to stop these punishments, but some people just can't drink and then not drive. Alas, some people are just thick.Quote:
Subjecting mass amounts of population to these kinds of vindictive mob punishments does more damage to our culture and individual lives than the few casualties of actual drinking and driving.
No, I think it's fairly congruent with the run of the mill DUI. Tell someone you had a dui a few years ago and people will forgive you provided you aren't still driving drunk. But the stigma attached to it is nowhere near where it should be for the reason we have the laws against it in the first place: asshats like that kill people. Every year. Innocent people. Kids, fathers, mothers, police officers and a whole litany of other classes you could care to name. When you undertake an action which has a likelihood of causing the death of another through no fault of said other, you should bear a stigma. And never should a day go by that those who did the killing but lived through it should have the slightest of ease with the situation. It is inexcusably horrific conduct which attacks our morality at its core. It kills people not on noble ideological grounds like "self defense" or, a fight against genocide; it erases from history the grand perhaps of tomorrow's society for no loftier a reason than perverse selfishness.Quote:
The stigma associated with it is also worse than the crime. A good person can suddenly become an outcast and you are now branded as having a drinking problem and the government forces you to go to religious worship (AA) meetings.
The stigma is the least of the problems people situated like this have to worry after.
Even if I accepted anyone's god as being extant, I'd still offer you up the following phrase: not being a god myself, I'm perfectly entitled to hold the contemptible among us in contempt; I'm perfectly entitled to hold a grudge against them for their actions and to offer up as an attendant consequence of their action the horrid inconvenience of having to use the bus.Quote:
This is a perversion of what God is supposed to be about as well forgiveness.
No, much like we don't call everyone who has a drink an alcoholic, or everyone uses a sick-day a malingerer. You see, we have more specified words which paint a truer representation of a person who has a child: a parent.Quote:
We don't call everyone who has a child a nymphomaniac just like getting 2 DUIs could mean you only ever drank on 2 occasions.
Yeah, and the way we catch them is fishy too. It's totally rigged; consider, the police were arresting every drunk driver in that particular crash. I guess that's profiling, huh?Quote:
Everything about DUIs smells of a lynch mobbing witch hunt where everyone is at risk.
which is compounded in danger exponentially when one has a driver who no longer has the mental agency remaining to mitigate the risk.Quote:
The founder of MADD has a DUI. Anyone can get a DUI yet people like to believe that they are some how better than the victims of DUI laws. We need to repeal these draconian laws and concentrate on the real problem, that driving in general is very dangerous
So too would it be the case if we have no drunk drivers. But these needn't be exclusive concepts.Quote:
and if we had better public transportation and safer cars we would have less problems.
It is not the prevailing case that an essential nature of the human condition is to kill people out of selfishness. Humans are generally quite locally altruistic.Quote:
We should not attack human nature and especially people who like to drink who are often times the people who have the courage to move society forward.
If it is the case that it's unsafe for ordinary activity, then a fortiori it is the case that it's manifestly unsafe to a greater degree when you add to the ordinary risk an agent incapable of appropriately responding.Quote:
We should focus rather on the infrastructure we have built which is unsafe for ordinary activity.
Sometimes in life, I'm sorry to say, it's helpful when one argues a position that the facts of the matter support one's position. Your claim is demonstrably untrue. I'll take 2005 since several organizations were then studying this very topic: in 2005 at least 1,550 deaths were proximately caused by drowsy driving. In a completely unrelated study, since these data are collected every year, 16,885 deaths were proximately caused by drunk drivers. Even if we argue a 50% margin of error in the drowsy driving statistics collected, you are still wrong by about an entire order of magnitude. This is not a trivial error.Quote:
More people die of drowsy driving, but it would be silly to say that we all have sleeping problems.
But all of that is immaterial because your diatribe here fails to take into account one minor point: governments are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. So, it isn't the either or proposition you've painted it as being. We are fully capable of working to reduce drowsy driving and drunken driving, simultaneously. At the same time we work towards that reduction, we also work towards lowering murders committed, rates of murders committed, rapes committed, burglaries, insurance fraud, while still having time left over to enforce food safety regulations, tax code requirements and an entire host of other things. It isn't as though there's one guy in the government whose job it is to do all of these one at a time.
I like option four: when the children can't behave themselves, they need a timeout.Quote:
It is just easy for people to pick on alcohol especially for people who have no occasion to celebrate. Should we give in to those people and make the world less happy or should we just make cars safer OR option number 3 deal with it and stop seeking vengeance.
Edit: wow, I just responded to the OP, which I see now was written late last year. In light of that, um, new guy who responded with the nonsensical question/claim: don't be so willfully daft.
Zedex, you have my deepest sympathies. -
03-20-2010, 01:09 PMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI Laws
ill give the OP some points. You had a few very few, im not sure if you even know why though lol. the person who said his brother was t boned that's really sad :( and i take that into consideration in a debate forum but ethically i will not hear of it if in the chamber of law makers or the court or the jury itself. That's now how I would like laws coming to be.
You said that drowsiness was less stigmatized and i agree. But as the saying goes (i've only heard Dr. Phil say it but still) "you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior." So you essentially tried to pass the buck, paint a better light on a very dark situation, and then try to actually imply that law enforcement was only able to make one arrest on one charge at a time! Watching the news, Cops, anything should show you people are arrested on multiple offenses every minute of every day.
NOW I AGREE that there is a hypocritical and witch hunting component to some of the seam of the anti DUI movement. I think that is kinda wrong in he same sense of the syn tax. However that doesn't negate the facts which have been shown time and time again that a drunk driver can't drive or do a lot right. Even if you are the exception to the rule, which you could very well be, the laws are based o those studies. If your over the limit and you can prove in some type of test you are still not impaired I'll give you a high five and reserve any preaching against you. LIKE i said some people can drink more and not be. DUI charge (based on strict standards) or not ill accept that w/o condemnation.
As far as the punishment for drowsiness you had no point because those people can still face negligence charges, etc ad prison time, and they can double or triple up on those charges, they might even be felonies in some places. Its a plethora of legal problems awaiting sleepy head too man...
I agree that there is a valid debate here. I have ALWAYS felt that was only because driving drunk isn't seen as malicious. We take a "s/he diddn't mean to though" stance and that complicates it. Intent is also used every day to effect sentencing.
Another valid pint you brought up w/o knowing was the public transit issue. Were I live we haven't had cabs since the late '90s and ever ever a bus. Maybe in the doo wop era or sumthin but i never seen em. I think a huge problem is if a person who is drunk decides that they can't drive they still have a lot of dilemmas. Some people no another forum where saying if you get drunk you can't even hop in ur back seat and sleep it off even if its not running and the keys are a mile away. You can't walk home drunk because thats a PI and mandatory 12 or 48 hours. You cant try to get creative and ride a bike. i saw a guy on cops get a DUI on a bike, although it could've just been calif law. Roller skates might also be effected!!! And sometimes your in places where you might not be able to stay or it might not be safe and cabs are really expensive or sumtimes not in service. So I think that compounds the choice to try to drive. The police kinda corner you on that one.
I aint a drinker and laugh at the people who get wasted but if anyone with a "you should had drunk period" response attacks the OP on the above point I'll back him there!
I don't agree with emotional arguements even though thats tear jerking what the guy said about his bro but i think the science is just there and you have not much of a defense OP. im not a finger wagger but if a drunk t boned me id have to swerve on him (see urban dictionary term) IF and ONLY IF I was even still alive... -
03-20-2010, 01:29 PMcdwjavaRe: Unfair DUI LawsSome states have made that sufficient for DUI ... not mine, however.Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
Again, laws vary by state, but most require more than having simply consumed alcohol they also require some measure of disruptive behavior or inebriation to the point of not being able to care for one's self. Just having pounded back a few is not enough in most states.Quote:
You can't walk home drunk because thats a PI and mandatory 12 or 48 hours.
In CA we have a law specificlly geared towards driving a bicycle while impaired (CVC 21200.5), and if on skates, you might get popped for public intoxication if sufficiently unable to care for yourself or others.Quote:
You cant try to get creative and ride a bike. i saw a guy on cops get a DUI on a bike, although it could've just been calif law. Roller skates might also be effected!!!
All that aside, impaired drivers are the single greatest cause of fatal collisions in my state and, I believe, nationwide as well. They may be the cause of only about 10-15% of property damage only collisions, but fatal and serious injury collisions put them at between 30-36% depending on which numbers you use, and for what state. Off the top of my head I believe the 2008 numbers for CA were 35.7% of fatals, and 12% of non-injury collisions were caused by impaired drivers.
I have no sympathy for impaired drivers. And I do believe emotional arguments DO have a place in the passage of legislation. The human element cannot be ignored when trying to prevent crime and establishing law. Absent the human element we are left with cold, statistical reasoning. What then? We evaluate the financial cost to society and to the victim? If not for the emotional impact of crimes, we are left with other criteria which could very well result in violent criminals suffering lesser penalties ... which, in the case of most vehicular manslaughter cases involving DUI drivers, is already horrendously low.
There is a place for the emotional impact. Unfortunately, too few legislators have actually seen it. -
03-20-2010, 01:46 PMcyjeffRe: Unfair DUI Laws
There are places for draconian law.
Anyplace where an individual commits an act that puts the common populace in danger is such a place.
Getting behind the controls of a 2 ton bullet and then piloting it at speed with anything less that total sobriety is cause for worry and danger.
To say that all driving is dangerous is accurate. To then say that those that decide that driving is not dangerous enough and so must be performed with a self induced handicap are NOT to be punished is stupid.
I would feel the exact same way if you were demanding to drive while blindfolded. -
03-20-2010, 04:05 PMashman165Re: Unfair DUI LawsEmotions have a place in our legislative process, provided they're appropriately tempered by reason. For instance, you can argue for a position exclusively upon the fact that charged emotions are present and thus a law should be passed. This law, should of course, fail in all cases. However, you rather miss the point. Zedex, while having a very moving story isn't arguing that because he felt some emotional impact from event x that event x is necessarily wrong. He's arguing that he felt emotional distress because his brother was killed by a person whose conduct failed to meet some arbitrary minimum standard of acceptable behavior we've decided among ourselves over the years to codify. But even if he weren't at all emotionally distressed by the death of his brother, his argument that DUI laws should remain still carries the same force: that we should proscribe conduct which has a high likelihood of killing another.Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
This is how a society works; we only remain solvent when people are prohibited from taking the lives of others in the society just because. The argument to adduce from Zedex's story is that doing away with the punishment for the killing of his brother sends a message: our society is perfectly fine with anyone killing another for a good reason, a bad reason, or no specific reason at all. If that be the case, then there's no reason to think any of us should be able to walk around without being killed, just because someone feels like it.
A society with this kind of social contract cannot long endure.
Where's the hypocrisy? The laws applies to all people equally: no one is exempted from the requirements of the law. You might argue that there are some individual cases in which individual police officers are hypocritical, but that is wholly irrelevant to whether the law is such. And what's wrong in having so-called witch hunts against conduct which actually harms others? Would you argue that ruthlessly tracking down rapists, murderers and bank robbers is a "witch hunt"?Quote:
NOW I AGREE that there is a hypocritical and witch hunting component to some of the seam of the anti DUI movement.
There hasn't yet been a case made, or an argument submitted which has any trappings of a valid debate. That some people don't want to be restricted from going out and harming people on a whim is in no other context ever been a sufficient condition to argue that there is a valid debate. Any argument which starts off with a necessary condition that any citizen be given the right to go around doing whatever they want irrespective of the harm it will cause others is on its face not a valid argument, nor one which requires the slightest consideration. Or, if you want to argue the case is otherwise, then I suppose your opposition is freely entitled to accept your position and then kill you. It's a logical non-starter as far as arguments go.Quote:
I agree that there is a valid debate here.
Congratulations on discovering the different category of offenses: those people specifically intend to do with explicit aim to cause harm, and those which don't have as an element any consideration of intent to do a specifically harmful act. Crimes of negligence don't generally have as an element an intent to do harm; they only have a requirement the conduct is to a person of reasonable intelligence likely to cause harm.Quote:
I have ALWAYS felt that was only because driving drunk isn't seen as malicious. We take a "s/he diddn't mean to though" stance and that complicates it. Intent is also used every day to effect sentencing.
There is no valid point to be found anywhere in that position. It is not a valid point to claim that x should be able to potentially kill y because x wants to go somewhere and get drunk but didn't want to arrange transportation back home. If one can't make such an arrangements to go get back home after going out drinking, then one has to forgo that night's drinking. This is what responsibility is all about, you see. You are arguing that a person's willful irresponsibility is a point cutting in their favor for allowing their conduct in the first case. This is, by any description of an argument one wants to adopt, profoundly stupid.Quote:
Another valid pint you brought up w/o knowing was the public transit issue.
And? You act as though there's some claimable right to go out drinking while not having to worry after any potential consequence. If one can't arrange transportation, one should stay home. Or go out and not get drunk.Quote:
Were I live we haven't had cabs since the late '90s and ever ever a bus. Maybe in the doo wop era or sumthin but i never seen em. I think a huge problem is if a person who is drunk decides that they can't drive they still have a lot of dilemmas. Some people no another forum where saying if you get drunk you can't even hop in ur back seat and sleep it off even if its not running and the keys are a mile away.
Ok, I'm convinced. The police have cornered people who a.) want to go out, b.) want to drink, c.) want to go home, d.) don't want to arrange for a.), b.) and c.) in a responsible manner. Or, maybe it's the case that the duty of responsibility lies somewhere with the person who wants to do a.), b.) and c.). That they choose d.) isn't a valid claim against the police.Quote:
You can't walk home drunk because thats a PI and mandatory 12 or 48 hours. You cant try to get creative and ride a bike. i saw a guy on cops get a DUI on a bike, although it could've just been calif law. Roller skates might also be effected!!! And sometimes your in places where you might not be able to stay or it might not be safe and cabs are really expensive or sumtimes not in service. So I think that compounds the choice to try to drive. The police kinda corner you on that one.
The emotional argument, as you seem to gleefully not understand, isn't the argument that the conduct in question should be illegal. The emotional story told, on the other hand, indicates that drunk drivers are a particular threat, that the conduct does do harm, and that after the event takes place the harm doesn't end there. OP was arguing essentially that outlawing drunk driving, thus punishing those who choose to do it is a worse crime against the community than the drunken drivers themselves are. That's the thrust of Zedex's response here, which started out with drunk driving is a serious problem and needs to dealt with more harshly. Then he told a story of his personal experience with the outfall of drunken driving, after which he argues about the killing of a person being inexcusable. He didn't claim "my feelings have been hurt, thus it should be illegal." He claimed that, in essential form, "my feelings are hurt, someone was killed by the negligence of another, and thus we should punish the conduct." So, his argument is rooted on the death of another with the story of his loss to add personal flavor.Quote:
I don't agree with emotional arguements even though thats tear jerking what the guy said about his bro but i think the science is just there and you have not much of a defense OP. im not a finger wagger but if a drunk t boned me id have to swerve on him (see urban dictionary term) IF and ONLY IF I was even still alive...
-
03-20-2010, 06:20 PMBubba JimmyRe: Unfair DUI Laws
Nobody wants to have drunk drivers on the road. We have to do everything in our societal power to prevent that. However, when the government meets out excessively punitive penalties, like a ten year suspension of driving privileges, all they are doing is encouraging people to drive without a license. It is not practical to live in the modern world without driving. People will sacrifice to obey their punishment for six months, maybe a year. Maybe two. Ten years is simply piling on with no real tangible beneift other than to make someone further criminal. I think other steps should be considered that might actually have a chance at being effective.
-
03-20-2010, 06:38 PMcyjeffRe: Unfair DUI LawsOkay... let's look at that statement.Quote:
Quoting Bubba Jimmy
What is the alternative? The death penalty?
Such as what?Quote:
It is not practical to live in the modern world without driving. People will sacrifice to obey their punishment for six months, maybe a year. Maybe two. Ten years is simply piling on with no real tangible beneift other than to make someone further criminal. I think other steps should be considered that might actually have a chance at being effective.
-
03-20-2010, 07:14 PMsouperdaveRe: Unfair DUI LawsI'd give this a 9.5 on the ridiculously ludicrous scale!:eek:Quote:
Quoting Bubba Jimmy
Sooooooo, in your estimation, laws "make someone further criminal" by the punishment/penalty that is ajudicated? You need to get a vise-grip on reality. Last I checked, breaking a law is a choice that one makes!
Bottom line, if one does not drink and drive then consequences are effectively eliminated. PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
I'm relatively certain that if a valid debate was actually taking place you would have no idea of how to participate.Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
-
03-20-2010, 07:56 PMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI Laws|-|ell, I guess we are having like 51 debates here or like 60 if your countin commonwealths and territories :/Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
in these parts a wobble will do. at one point the cops had tried to pull me over for walking near the edge of the drainage part of the road and then tried to say he "smelled alcohol" on me when he had passed with his windows up 3 whole lanes away!Quote:
most require more than having simply consumed alcohol they also require some measure of disruptive behavior or inebriation to the point of not being able to care for one's self. Just having pounded back a few is not enough in most states
if you can't walk on a line or throw your leg up in the air like liborachi around here they are taking you away. This happens to people trying to get home, not causing trouble at all. come on man.. But hey you said it yourself, we got 50 states and 50 laws.
Yeah and the bike law is overkill. I Think the law is also just listed as dui.. So anyone seeing oes record wouldn't come withen a mile of being able to put things in context which i don't think is fair either. YOU SEEM TO NOT UNDERSTAND I have a huge issue with drunks driving. I am down with more serious punishments. even when its a friend if you got a DUI I will give you a huge piece of my mind. I just feel like in some regards once you reach the point where you have drank so much that you know its time to put the keys away and you try through alternate means to journey home, there is still an effort from law enforcement to try to get an alchohol related collar. What do you mean care for yourself or others? The problem with laws being vague is they are open to interpretation by thousands of difference officers in thousands of different situations. my definition of caring for ones self is not falling over drunk and not wobbling into traffic...Quote:
In CA we have a law specificlly geared towards driving a bicycle while impaired (CVC 21200.5), and if on skates, you might get popped for public intoxication if sufficiently unable to care for yourself or others.
All that aside, impaired drivers are the single greatest cause of fatal collisions in my state and, I believe, nationwide as well.
LOGIC and mutual respect for civil rights and human rights are what laws need to be based on.. What your alluding to isn't even needed. DUIs lead to outlawism or increase its risk. The DUI law is to prevent yo from committing a plethora of other things such as homicide, assault, reckless driving, property damage, etc. No one needs an emotional argument when you have a pandora's box argument firm in place.Quote:
I have no sympathy for impaired drivers. And I do believe emotional arguments DO have a place in the passage of legislation. The human element cannot be ignored when trying to prevent crime and establishing law. Absent the human element we are left with cold, statistical reasoning.
I didn't say that at all, all i was saying is the end results effect on his brother i.e. his demise was the only thing that should had held relevance to a law maker or even a judge not the massive emotional and psychological devastation caused by witnessing said event and even the residual effects on the victim's family to even take care of itself properly. We have already established that the breking of some laws are worser then others. I think the level system can also take the place of emotional dribble directed at law makers, judges, and juries.Quote:
zedex, while having a very moving story isn't arguing that because he felt some emotional impact from event x that event x is necessarily wrong. He's arguing that he felt emotional distress because his brother was killed by a person whose conduct failed to meet some arbitrary minimum standard of acceptable behavior we've decided among ourselves over the years to codify.
Thats not true either. regardless of justifications whenever a life is taking you have 3 possible charges, murder, manslaughter, and homicide. A court of law determines if your killing was 1 of those 3 or simply not a law broken at all.Quote:
our society is perfectly fine with anyone killing another for a good reason, a bad reason, or no specific reason at all. If that be the case, then there's no reason to think any of us should be able to walk around without being killed, just because someone feels like it.
a witch hunt is fundamentally unjustifiable. iTS from the same realm as mob rule or even prison politics.. i wasn't saying the laws but those who worked tirelesly to have it past. If there is a perception of hypocracy by association that is enough to undermine the law period. OP said the madd leader had a dui, maybe religious zealots who break other religious lawsQuote:
Where's the hypocrisy? The laws applies to all people equally: no one is exempted from the requirements of the law. You might argue that there are some individual cases in which individual police officers are hypocritical, but that is wholly irrelevant to whether the law is such.
AND SEE you keep going back to responsibility like your scolding your kids or something. Your engaging in finger wagging. Heres the problem though, alternative transportation IS NOT law and all and all responsibility IS NOT law. Based on your logic I could charge a man with destruction of federal property and rail road property or w/e because his truck stopped on the track. bUT wait why did he stop? Because he ran out of gas but thought he could still make it into town. But why is he wrong? because he wasnt responsible (there that word is again) enough to walk a gas jug to the station or arrange a ride to get there.Quote:
There is no valid point to be found anywhere in that position. It is not a valid point to claim that x should be able to potentially kill y because x wants to go somewhere and get drunk but didn't want to arrange transportation back home. If one can't make such an arrangements to go get back home after going out drinking, then one has to forgo that night's drinking. This is what responsibility is all about, you see. You are arguing that a person's willful irresponsibility is a point cutting in their favor for allowing their conduct in the first case. This is, by any description of an argument one wants to adopt, profoundly stupid.
OOH OOH heres another one based on your logic. WE charge a woman with negligent homicide and child neglect. Why? becase shes got two kids in the back,one is starved and the other froze to death. How is she nresponsible though? Because she wouldn't fix that head gasket which lead to her head over heating which led to the car stopping in the middle of no where during a snowstorm, oh and also she wasn't responsible (that damn word again) to fix the folding roof on her convertable...
Look here, things happen. Sometimes no one back at the crib wants to answer their phone at 2 or 3, you know thats last calls time right? Some people don't know until they are at their doors, hey I can't do this. Some times you just can't get a hold of anyone, maybe your to far out. This is compounded when yor a female. what would you tell yor daughter, "hey if yo can't reach me, don't drive drunk just jumpin to the car with some guy, its okay as long as hes nice and sober."
*sigh..* thats like comparing a suicide mission to a banzai charge..Quote:
those people specifically intend to do with explicit aim to cause harm, and those which don't have as an element any consideration of intent to do a specifically harmful act. Crimes of negligence don't generally have as an element an intent to do harm; they only have a requirement the conduct is to a person of reasonable intelligence likely to cause harm.
Here is the problem with your argument, driving under the influence is not a vehicular homicide, it is an act that brings you closer to committing a v.h. However just driving under any circumstances could leadto the death of others via your auto. A statistic was brought up saying DUIers made up 3 percent ofsome acts involving road deaths, injuries, and property damage. The problem though with you usingthe fact that its been proving that diving drunk leads to impairment and thus the obvious disasters, and that science was known tothe driver before he drank is this: the majority of drunk drivers are NOT pulled over and the majority do not kill. How do I know this? Most DUIers or even those convicted of V.H. will tell you they have droven many other times w/o incident. Not justifying anything, just taking into consideration what they take into consideration to offset the science.
Theres nothing stated thats illegal. We saw what happen when they tried prohibition so thats a no go. The law doesn't mandate transportation so thats a no go. And the law doesn't mandate being responsible when only your own health is effected. If the law doesn't mandate so and so is it not by default a right your entitled to?!Quote:
And? You act as though there's some claimable right to go out drinking while not having to worry after any potential consequence. If one can't arrange transportation, one should stay home. Or go out and not get drunk.
the consequence you speak of is within the context of my scenarios just an attempt by law enforcement to recatch the small fish that slipped through the fishnet. If a person has actually made it to their backseat and has curled up under a blanket in a safe and locked vehicle instad of staying in a dangerous place or trying to drive home I'd pat them on the back not throw them in the klink. If its legal to walk into the bar let it be legal to walk out.
Without sounding to paranoid we must ask our selves when the thin line between enforcing justice and meeting that precious collar quota has been crossed. No bobble headed,wobble legged wino has ever put me in dangerous and never will, this I know.. -
03-20-2010, 07:58 PMashman165Re: Unfair DUI LawsOne of hasn't been reading this thread I'd suggest.Quote:
Quoting Bubba Jimmy
No, we don't do everything in our power; we temper what we can do with such concerns as mercy, propriety and respect with a coloring of hope.Quote:
We have to do everything in our societal power to prevent that.
Drivers who make a mistake and get caught driving drunk aren't given such penalties. We take into account in our legal system factors you seem to ignore altogether. You know, we proportion the punishment to the crime done while taking full account of the idea of having reformed some wayward conduct and that recidivists do exist and require a sterner hand than people who learn their lesson.Quote:
However, when the government meets out excessively punitive penalties, like a ten year suspension of driving privileges, all they are doing is encouraging people to drive without a license.
One would think those who choose to drive under the influence would have the foresight necessary to understand that their livelihoods may be negatively influenced by a drunken driving arrest and conviction. Alas, it's almost hard to imagine those who think it's acceptable to drive drunk might not consider the long-term negative effect of doing so. It's less practical for the society to let those who would do it harm to continue enjoying the privileges the rest of us - those who take care to exercise them wisely - enjoy.Quote:
It is not practical to live in the modern world without driving.
All they need do is stop driving drunk before they get to this period; in my state, such sentences aren't meted out until one's fifth conviction for dui. I think that's a bit late in the chain to take serious action; alas, the society seems to have more compassion for this than do I.Quote:
People will sacrifice to obey their punishment for six months, maybe a year. Maybe two. Ten years is simply piling on with no real tangible beneift other than to make someone further criminal.
I think long periods in jail would serve as quite effective in at least preventing future recurrence of the same crime by the same person with any degree of regularity. Losing the privilege to possess a license is a very, very lenient course of action.Quote:
I think other steps should be considered that might actually have a chance at being effective.
Um, you use the term Commonwealth as though it has any distinction in how we classify the geographic area in our laws; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is no less a state for this conversation.Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
Given your track record with the concept, please do not attempt to invoke logic as though it is at all supporting anything you've here advocated. There is no human or civil right which demands that one be allowed to recklessly endanger the rights of others.Quote:
LOGIC and mutual respect for civil rights and human rights are what laws need to be based on..
Says you. Any for no other reason that you say it. This is hardly persuasive.Quote:
What your alluding to isn't even needed.
Breaking the law does indeed to outlawism [sic]. However, when the law is justified, that it makes outlaws of people who refuse to conform to the specified legal restraints is in the "duh" category. The law saying that driving drunk carries with it the possibility of fines, imprisonment and the revocation of one's license has no possible effect on whether the proscribed conduct is harmful. It surely cannot increase the danger of the underlying conduct; any such suggestion that it can is manifestly illogical.Quote:
DUIs lead to outlawism or increase its risk.
Not really. Driving while impaired is itself in the category of reckless driving, but it isn't the whole of the predicate into which it falls and is thus not able to effect the whole of the predicate. Nor does it purport to stop homicide in general, nor vehicular homicide in particular. It seeks to stop collisions which result from the inability of drivers to prevent them due to impairment. You really need to parcel up predicates and subjects with some care lest your assertions remains so apparently vacuous.Quote:
The DUI law is to prevent yo from committing a plethora of other things such as homicide, assault, reckless driving, property damage, etc.
So long as argument is proportioned, relevant and not fallacious, why would you categorically disallow it? I mean, you know, other than to avoid dealing with the fact that real people are effected by it?Quote:
No one needs an emotional argument when you have a pandora's box argument firm in place.
So, in a conversation about enacting legislation to reduce the harm caused to the citizenry, you're arguing that only harm you want to be included in the discussion is fair game. It's hardly surprising that in such conversations, people will want to take account of all of the harm caused by incidents than only some of the harm caused. While it's not a necessary condition for the law to be justified, it's not as though taking account of all of the harm of an event is somehow inappropriate.Quote:
I didn't say that at all, all i was saying is the end results effect on his brother i.e. his demise was the only thing that should had held relevance to a law maker or even a judge not the massive emotional and psychological devastation caused by witnessing said event and even the residual effects on the victim's family to even take care of itself properly.
I think you haven't had a coherent thought on this topic at all. The legal system is written by these people, in part because of emotion (a necessary byproduct of human interaction) and in part because of reason (a necessity we impose our civil institutions, by design). The two can happily occupy the same space so long each is apportioned wisely.Quote:
We have already established that the breking of some laws are worser then others. I think the level system can also take the place of emotional dribble directed at law makers, judges, and juries.
We also grade other crimes; consider that we routinely place restrictions upon conduct which is likely to result in the death or injury of others. In this case, we're dealing with the underlying conduct - we separately deal with murders, homicides and manslaughter.Quote:
Thats not true either. regardless of justifications whenever a life is taking you have 3 possible charges, murder, manslaughter, and homicide. A court of law determines if your killing was 1 of those 3 or simply not a law broken at all.
You might as well argue that people are free to walk around randomly shooting into occupied buildings because only occasionally will the bullet hit a person, thus we need only deal with the situations in which a person is struck. After all, it's silly to argue that just prohibiting the underlying conduct which gives rise to the likelihood that one will be struck by a bullet is wasteful since we can just already punish someone should a killing occur. Your argument is entirely fatuous.
Only if the subject of the hunt is fundamentally allowed. The witch hunting of people who are actually harming society is an appropriate use of our collective resources. But this isn't really a witch hunt; we aren't going into people's homes to flesh out if they've ever before driven drunk. No, we catch them in the process of doing it.Quote:
a witch hunt is fundamentally unjustifiable.
Again, your assertion that it's hypocritical is baseless. Moreover, it's far from the case that these laws are considered hypocritical by any considerable proportion of the population. If your method of presenting the case is any indication of the mental firepower being brought to bear on the issue is indicative of anything, it's that this will never be the perception of the populous. There is no force to the argument, as you've so elegantly demonstrated.Quote:
If there is a perception of hypocracy by association that is enough to undermine the law period.
This is really emblematic of your inability to think this through. I suppose it's fortunate for the rest of us that the actual reality in which we live has in it laws which are designed to keep the actual blameless people from being blamed. Ran out of gas is a far cry different than got drunk and ran over someone.Quote:
Based on your logic I could charge a man with destruction of federal property and rail road property or w/e because his truck stopped on the track. bUT wait why did he stop? Because he ran out of gas but thought he could still make it into town. But why is he wrong? because he wasnt responsible (there that word is again) enough to walk a gas jug to the station or arrange a ride to get there.
I'm beginning to think we're being trolled here.Quote:
OOH OOH heres another one based on your logic. WE charge a woman with negligent homicide and child neglect. Why? becase shes got two kids in the back,one is starved and the other froze to death. How is she nresponsible though? Because she wouldn't fix that head gasket which lead to her head over heating which led to the car stopping in the middle of no where during a snowstorm, oh and also she wasn't responsible (that damn word again) to fix the folding roof on her convertable...
Yeah, I suppose it's too much to ask of adults to make plans for the future to avoid problems in the future instead of just, you know, trying to un**** the past because of their poor decisions. The responsible ones among us are quite capable of going out for drinks and making it home all without having drive drunk. In events when it's not possible to go out drinking and have transportation, the responsible thing is to not drink when you go out.Quote:
Look here, things happen. Sometimes no one back at the crib wants to answer their phone at 2 or 3, you know thats last calls time right? Some people don't know until they are at their doors, hey I can't do this. Some times you just can't get a hold of anyone, maybe your to far out.
Or, I can tell them what I already tell them: they are responsible for their own actions and must take account of those actions. They are responsible for planning ahead and a failure to do so on their part is not an excuse for anything. Fortunately, my kids are fairly adept at acting responsibly; I suppose there is something to whole parenting bit.Quote:
This is compounded when yor a female. what would you tell yor daughter, "hey if yo can't reach me, don't drive drunk just jumpin to the car with some guy, its okay as long as hes nice and sober."
Here's the problem with your argument: it's being made by a complete idiot. You fail at every opportunity to make reasonable analogues. This is not good. You are now arguing that event x has with it some chance of danger; therefore, it's acceptable to knowingly compound the danger of event x because the harm could still result anyway. To argue with your logic is to say that it's possible that skydiving can result in death; therefore, I don't need to use a parachute.Quote:
Here is the problem with your argument, driving under the influence is not a vehicular homicide, it is an act that brings you closer to committing a v.h. However just driving under any circumstances could leadto the death of others via your auto.
Only in your imagination.Quote:
A statistic was brought up saying DUIers made up 3 percent
To assess the risk of an activity, we needn't consider whether some randomly selected third person will know of the risk. The risk, in other words, isn't contingent by a drunk driver's knowledge of science. To suggest that his knowledge of science would somehow alter the risk of a collision is profoundly stupid.Quote:
and that science was known tothe driver before he drank is this
Therefore, we should encourage people to drive drunk. I'm convinced.Quote:
the majority of drunk drivers are NOT pulled over and the majority do not kill.
At some point, you're going to have to learn the difference between science and maths; that alcohol impairs one's cognitive functions is scientific fact; the probability of an event occurring is mathematical.Quote:
How do I know this? Most DUIers or even those convicted of V.H. will tell you they have droven many other times w/o incident. Not justifying anything, just taking into consideration what they take into consideration to offset the science.
The law does, on the other hand, restrict your dangerous conduct which can cause harm of others. Incidentally, there are laws in each state where the state can take action against a person who is going to cause only himself harm. So, you're neither logically, nor factually correct - again.Quote:
Theres nothing stated thats illegal. We saw what happen when they tried prohibition so thats a no go. The law doesn't mandate transportation so thats a no go. And the law doesn't mandate being responsible when only your own health is effected. If the law doesn't mandate so and so is it not by default a right your entitled to?!
What you know that is correct, on the other hand, I would imagine doesn't stress the volume of the average thimble.Quote:
Without sounding to paranoid we must ask our selves when the thin line between enforcing justice and meeting that precious collar quota has been crossed. No bobble headed,wobble legged wino has ever put me in dangerous and never will, this I know..
-
03-20-2010, 10:47 PMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI LawsNo its just your logic strictly applied. I mean the guy in the trunk had a gas jug at home and his car was already misfiring. He knew what probably would had happen. Hell even if he didn't he had the jug option.Quote:
This is really emblematic of your inability to think this through. I suppose it's fortunate for the rest of us that the actual reality in which we live has in it laws which are designed to keep the actual blameless people from being blamed. Ran out of gas is a far cry different than got drunk and ran over someone.
internet terms from an internet warrior..Quote:
I'm beginning to think we're being trolled here.
okay mister clairvoyant poster where the hell will you be at when your ride just know shows? How about when the cabs running late but the bar is closing? I've seen PIs given in a bar PARKING LOT. What if your money doesn't get you home or the cab wont leave the county limits? Fighting of DUIs is one thing but raining on a dudes parade, I think that's your hobby.. Pathetic..Quote:
Or, I can tell them what I already tell them: they are responsible for their own actions and must take account of those actions. They are responsible for planning ahead and a failure to do so on their part is not an excuse for anything. Fortunately, my kids are fairly adept at acting responsibly; I suppose there is something to whole parenting bit.
No I think the problem is its being read by a nitwit who doesn't have the ability to see other perspectives determine why people may defend the indefensible. Your last analogy there is a tad off. It would be more like you saying to one of the few people who has actually survived a fall without a chute (and in this example multiple times I guess) that they are going to kill themselves the next time around because others did in unrelated incidents..Quote:
Here's the problem with your argument: it's being made by a complete idiot. You fail at every opportunity to make reasonable analogues. This is not good. You are now arguing that event x has with it some chance of danger; therefore, it's acceptable to knowingly compound the danger of event x because the harm could still result anyway. To argue with your logic is to say that it's possible that skydiving can result in death; therefore, I don't need to use a parachute.
January 1942: Russian Lieutenant I. M. Chisov flew his Ilyushin 4 on a bitter cold day in January 1942. He was attacked by 12 German Messerschmitts. Chisov bailed out at 21,980 ft. because he thought that was his best survival option. He free fell to escape the German fire. His plan was to open at 1000 ft. He lost consciousness during his freefall. He landed on a steep ravine with 3 ft. of snow and plowed through the snow until coming to rest at the bottom. He awoke 20 minutes later. He 'only' had a concussion of his spine and a fractured pelvis. He recovered quickly and was back on duty as a flight instructor 3.5 months later.
"March 23, 1944: Nick Alkemade of the Royal Air Force survived a chuteless jump. He was a tail gunner in an AVRO Lancaster bomber. While returning from a bombing mission the aircraft was attacked by German Junkers JU-88. Alkemade was trapped in the turret after the bomber caught fire. His parachute was in the cabin area. Alkemade jumped from the aircraft, preferring a quick death to being burned. He fell from 18,000 ft, all the while thinking of his ultimate death. He relaxed his body and fell in a slightly head down position.
His next recollection was looking up at the stars through some pine trees. He could not believe he was okay. He moved each arm and leg and soon realized he was not even hurt badly. Completely grateful of being alive he smoked a cigarette, before even getting up. He thought about what had just happened to him. He realized that the pine trees, with their pliable branches, slowly reduced his descent rate to one that was survivable. In addition, the soft snow cover reduced the landing forces even more. He finally stood up. His leg was sprained and would not support his weight. A short time later, the Germans captured Alkemade. The Gestapo did not believe his story of jumping without a parachute. They thought he was a spy. Finally, after inspecting the parachute harness and finding the burned parachute at the crash site they believe him. Alkemade died on Jun. 22, 1987."
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=114684 plus even more no chute tales..
Or perhaps its like telling a guy who has survived three lightning strikes already that hes endangering himself by standing in an open field during a storm.
Eitherway none of these arguments are for my sake I don't drink.. :wallbang:got that?!
I meant 30 percent or w/e the **** he said earlier. He gave a statistic. It wasn't good and I agreed with ita numbers.Quote:
Only in your imagination.
Its kind of a numbers trick though from some stand point. Its like saying for example half the prison population is Black. Okay but that doesn't mean that have the Black population is imprisoned. But its a refle to read that and thencome to that conclusion. The number of DUI offenses uncaught is going to be used to cut down on your statistic showing the damage they cause.
The DUI offenders next method of defense is going to be to say your statistics depict a minority withen the "DUI offender community" itself.. wake up Zorro and come to terms with this..
My point is of the DUI arrests ON FILE I'd say the amount of uncaught DUIs is probably 4 to 8 times the amount listed. Now who and who alone is privy to the overall amount of DUIs and not just the statistics? DUHDADUH, the offender!! So obviously he ways he successful rides against the unsuccessful ones. Stop trying to be a little witty smart *** and g****** listen!:mad:
I think the science pretty much shows what we al agree upon here. I've seen the test, I even did them with the police at school, I knocked a lot of cones over. I think the science is definitive. I think it can't be refuted.Quote:
To assess the risk of an activity, we needn't consider whether some randomly selected third person will know of the risk. The risk, in other words, isn't contingent by a drunk driver's knowledge of science. To suggest that his knowledge of science would somehow alter the risk of a collision is profoundly stupid.
Didn't say that, didn't say that at all. I am just saying to attack DUI offenses is essentially the same as attacking the offender themselves. I am merely telling you what they think so maybe you can understand why they THINK they even have grounds to defend their action(s). These aren't my opinions you sharp tongued moron, I embrace the strait edge life style and am quite proud.Quote:
Therefore, we should encourage people to drive drunk. I'm convinced.
Whatinthe bloody hell do you mean by "you're?!" I have never droven drunk in my life nor do I even get hammered. I understand everything I am just telling you if you've droven 9 times drunk w/o killing someone, made it home safely, its gonna seem less unreasonable and thus less malicious or negligent to say on the 10th ride home "hey I can make it." THIS IS NOT MY CONCLUSION that is there's. Don't preach to me, I am only trying to tell you whatthey say to themselves to make them feel better about doing the stupid thing they do, driving hammered or buzzed.Quote:
At some point, you're going to have to learn the difference between science and maths; that alcohol impairs one's cognitive functions is scientific fact; the probability of an event occurring is mathematical.
yeah but duhdaduh walking down a street crooked and i zig zag formation doesn't constitute incompetence or extreme depression.. Doesn't mean criteria, your not even in context here.Quote:
Incidentally, there are laws in each state where the state can take action against a person who is going to cause only himself harm. So, you're neither logically, nor factually correct - again.
yeah well, you can kick rocks too...Quote:
What you know that is correct, on the other hand, I would imagine doesn't stress the volume of the average thimble.
-
03-21-2010, 02:50 AMashman165Re: Unfair DUI LawsWe don't get separate systems of logic; a claim is either logical or it is not. Your claim, as it happens, is not logically congruent. In the case you are making, you are dealing with a situation commonly understood by most of us: eventually, our car will run out of fuel if the supply isn't replenished. The rub though is that instrumentation in most cars isn't sufficiently advanced to indicate whereabouts we'll be when that happens. Sure, we can get close - with a few miles, but that's nowhere near the level of precision your claim would require to make the man knowingly responsible for the destruction of property (assuming a train hit his truck).Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
Now, if his instrumentation were such that it could tell him "you'll run out of gas and coast to a halt on this set of train tracks", you could have a reasonable argument that the outcome was foreseeable enough to hold the man blameworthy. However, I needn't consider that as a practical matter because that isn't the case we could possibly face in today's world.
Now, the reason the analogy falls completely on its face is because there is nothing about driving drunk which is remotely similar. No one just happens to wind up driving drunk. The driver makes an affirmative decision to do so. He makes an affirmative decision to imbibe. There is no happenstance to it; it is all done intentionally. Not even the potential consequence is similar.
Presumably somewhere close to where I'd be when my ride shows up. Fortunately, my friends are all reasonably responsible thus I've never had to contend with this. Even if it weren't the case, the irresponsibility of my ride to do what s/he said s/he'd do doesn't grant to me permission to decide to place others into mortal danger.Quote:
okay mister clairvoyant poster where the hell will you be at when your ride just know shows?
Because the cab is running late, it naturally follows I'm entitled to jeopardize other people's lives unnecessarily. I see now.Quote:
How about when the cabs running late but the bar is closing?
Your point? It's wholly immaterial that this may have occurred somewhere; you are still not entitled to risk other people's lives by driving drunk.Quote:
I've seen PIs given in a bar PARKING LOT.
Then I guess in this situation I'm naturally entitled to decide for other people how great a risk I may pose to their safety because my ability to plan ahead is so severely limited.Quote:
What if your money doesn't get you home or the cab wont leave the county limits?
It's nothing compared to the show stopper one experiences when one drives headlong into an oncoming car.Quote:
Fighting of DUIs is one thing but raining on a dudes parade, I think that's your hobby.. Pathetic..
This makes no sense; defend the indefensible? I have done no such thing. Indeed, I care passionately about everyone having a strong advocate for his position in a court of law. But we aren't here discussing particular instances of criminal trials; we're discussing the law which is not at all indefensible. That I point out your claims here are mentally deficient doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing your perspective.Quote:
No I think the problem is its being read by a nitwit who doesn't have the ability to see other perspectives determine why people may defend the indefensible.
No, not really. Take any random event which has a probability of death built into doing as a product of simply doing it. Then add to that probability some other greater probability of making the death more likely and you'll have an apt analogy. In this case, I chose skydiving, which has a source of probability for death even if one is as careful as one can be while doing it. Add to that probability the greater probability that not using a parachute brings to the table and you're in a situation in which you've increased the likelihood of death. It's still possible to jump out without a parachute and live to tell the tale as people have done it.Quote:
Your last analogy there is a tad off. It would be more like you saying to one of the few people who has actually survived a fall without a chute (and in this example multiple times I guess) that they are going to kill themselves the next time around because others did in unrelated incidents..
It's possible to drive drunk and live to tell the tale as people have done it. The one thing lacking in either case is good decision-making, though. Your little copy and paste jobs do nothing to disturb to the force of my argument earlier. It was as much the case then as now that one can jump out of a plane without a parachute and live to tell the tale; no one would ever argue that it's a smart thing to do.
The analogy I drew for you is that it's entirely possible for people to drive drunk and live. It's entirely possible to drive drunk without any incident at all; that makes one fortunate, not smart.
It's not a trick of numbers of at all. It is a numerical fact of reality that drunk drivers account for more fatal crashes than any other source. Saying half of a subset of a population is x in no way can imply that half of the population from which the subset is taken is x. Saying, on the other hand, that some percentage of event x is caused by phenomenon y implies that other instances of x can happen because of a reason which is ~y. The corollary there is that it isn't the case that y must cause x, only that it does, and it does so with that percentage of frequency.Quote:
I meant 30 percent or w/e the **** he said earlier. He gave a statistic. It wasn't good and I agreed with ita numbers.
Its kind of a numbers trick though from some stand point. Its like saying for example half the prison population is Black.
In other words, driving drunk is a sufficient condition to vehicular homicide, but it isn't a necessary condition. To the extent that the condition is sufficient, 30 some odd percent of vehicular homicides are caused by it. Since fully a third of all fatal crashes are directly attributable to drunk drivers, it should be of no large surprise that the issue warrants careful attention.
No, it won't serve that function at all. No one has argued that driving drunk necessarily results in a collision, which in turn must be fatal. The argument is that drunk driving increases the probability of a.) being in a crash in the first instance, and b.) creating conditions such that the collision will result in a fatality, or serious injury.Quote:
Okay but that doesn't mean that have the Black population is imprisoned. But its a refle to read that and thencome to that conclusion. The number of DUI offenses uncaught is going to be used to cut down on your statistic showing the damage they cause.
Let's say that it is. Big deal? You still have an otherwise statistically insignificant minority of people who are directly responsible for the largest source of fatal collisions. That they're a small number of drivers makes it even more obvious what the inherent risk of the activity is: you know, a very, very, very small subset of driving population is directly to blame for the single largest cause of all fatal collisions.Quote:
My point is of the DUI arrests ON FILE I'd say the amount of uncaught DUIs is probably 4 to 8 times the amount listed.
-
03-21-2010, 06:21 AMcyjeffRe: Unfair DUI Laws
Goody.
Another series of thousand word posts with nebulous connections to law and righteous passion.
What say we live in reality for a moment... not what SHOULD happen.
If you drive while impaired and are caught, there are penalties accessed.
Is there anyone that does not believe the penalties are severe? No? Good.
Severe does not mean wrong. Going to prison for life without the possibility for parole is severe... there are, however, crimes that warrant that penalty.
If, after two or three DUI's, you haven't figured out that your next DUI buys you a bicycle as a primary mode of transportation, you are too stupid to be driving...
In a way, the penalties for the first and second DUI are brought into question... maybe... just maybe... if they had been MORE severe, the criminal wouldn't have had a second, third, etc...
Anyway... the thought is that if someone is not willing to change their behavior even after suffering growing penalties FOR THE SAME BEHAVIOR, we have to remove them from a position to do the rest of us harm.
Punishing them no longer has any effect... so we have to take them out of play. -
03-21-2010, 10:09 AMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI Lawsthe guys been on E/the block for awhile and his fuel pump was already sucking air bubbles. He knew he wasn't making his destination...Quote:
We don't get separate systems of logic; a claim is either logical or it is not. Your claim, as it happens, is not logically congruent. In the case you are making, you are dealing with a situation commonly understood by most of us: eventually, our car will run out of fuel if the supply isn't replenished.
Well things happen. I have had many incidents through out my life where back up failed and the back up for my back up failed and etc. Its been known to happen you know.Quote:
Presumably somewhere close to where I'd be when my ride shows up. Fortunately, my friends are all reasonably responsible thus I've never had to contend with this. Even if it weren't the case, the irresponsibility of my ride to do what s/he said s/he'd do doesn't grant to me permission to decide to place others into mortal danger.
I 100 no 1,000,000,000,000 PERCENT AGREE WITH WHAT YOUR SAYING! It does NOT give you the right to drive in that state.
Agan thought it goes back to a classic problem. Within any lawful or civilized society there are laws and regulations. But the problem has alwys been that without enforcement a sizeable amount of the community would not obey said laws simply on the behest of themselves. That iswhy law enforcement is needed.
I am not trying to be the johnnie cochran for drunkards. But me and you and whoever else is in danger have to come to terms with the fact that the moron t boning the life out of a minivan full of kids was alone when he determined if he was gonna put the key in. No one was there and no one was able to stop him. So him breaking the law or his lack of caring in regards to the law and its consequence is a moot point. The only thing that truly matters to us is if we are going to get hit or not. Or anyone else for that matter.
We have to provide an incentive for these people to when its just them and the car to think, "well if I do this I can stay safe, not be dangerous, and not get a heinous charge on my record."
There are so many offenses that get under the nose of the cops. In my city I have a friend pushing all types of drungs form his house. He faces directly the police dept.! You got people with kidnapped girls in their trunks passing police road blocks, them stopping to help people with no license (that was me I will admit that) without even asking about their license or name. They miss A LOT and we have to try to offset that by getting in the drunks head a little.
Man the police miss things so bad and horrible it keeps me up at night sometimes. They can't be everywhere and YOU know this. :(
And if you think I am soft on crime you don't know who your talking o. I am so down with the chopping block its not even funny.
I am not the least bit caving in to the DUI offender crowd I am just saying as I always have is that for those who ARE drunk yet choose not to drive give them a doggone break! When people see them giving up their keys but not getting others charges from officers angry that they couldn't get that DUI collar it sets a positive precedence and others wil follow suit. We can prevent casualties this way.
NO I AM NOT SAYING THIS, I am saying who the hell are the cops or maybe in this scenario i should say "your boys" to swoop in and take advantage of an interim period of limbo between the pub door closing and the cabbie arriving?:confused:Quote:
Because the cab is running late, it naturally follows I'm entitled to jeopardize other people's lives unnecessarily. I see now.
no no no, read what I am writing! I am saying you don't understand why if someone has done something wrong, in thiscase DUI, why they would still feel like they had grounds to defend themselves. These grounds to defend themselves are a major component in that last minute choice to turn the ignition, not always but a lot.Quote:
This makes no sense; defend the indefensible? I have done no such thing. Indeed, I care passionately about everyone having a strong advocate for his position in a court of law. But we aren't here discussing particular instances of criminal trials;
uh who you talkin' 'bout willis?Quote:
Another series of thousand word posts with nebulous connections to law and righteous passion.
Heres the problem, I couldn't tell you how many profiles ie seen on AMW or ock Up or some CourtTV show showing how some guy got a stiff sentence did an unbearable amount of years in the klink, got released, stayed cool for a year or two and then went right bck to doing the same ol' crimes from them young boy days... Even when you in prison for the long haul and you miss so many years or decades of your life you still aren't reformed. How many people have fallen victim to paroles a short time upon release from long sentences. Just ask Jaycee Duggard..Quote:
In a way, the penalties for the first and second DUI are brought into question... maybe... just maybe... if they had been MORE severe, the criminal wouldn't have had a second, third, etc...
And the penalties your looking for I just don't think we will see bhttp://www.expertlaw.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=404647eing made a reality. As far as being forced to ride a bike I think if they aren't al up on the local police radar they will simply drive regardless. I saw a guy once on one of spike tv's dash cam shows where a guy had been driving on a license suspended since 1969! I just think its naïve for you to even think penalties are gonna get that stiff on something a lot of (idiotic) people are too hasty to forgive and forget about.
Heres the problem though and especially at the moment, when the jails got to to clear beds and cut costs DUI offenders will always be apart of those inmates who just get bounced out of prison or jail. They have and probably always wil be apart of that petty criminal stampede that gets cut loose when the budget can't be adjusted to keep everyone. Then one?Quote:
Anyway... the thought is that if someone is not willing to change their behavior even after suffering growing penalties FOR THE SAME BEHAVIOR, we have to remove them from a position to do the rest of us harm.
Punishing them no longer has any effect... so we have to take them out of play.
__________________
-
03-21-2010, 05:41 PMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI Laws
then what i mean..
-
03-22-2010, 07:58 PMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsAnd believe me- there are members of the public that would like to see that happen to drunk drivers and parking ticket scofflaws. I'm sure they would also like to send people to jail for not wearing seat belts.Quote:
Quoting cyjeff
Drunk driving DOES have a societal cost- but the punishment should be in proportion to the crime. Otherwise, as Athens experienced with Draco, we'll still have drunk drivers, but we will have drunken car-chases to boot. If someone is going to lose his or her license for 10 years and go to jail for a few, getting charged with eluding the police and hitting a few cars suddenly doesn't sound all that bad.
Whether or not you believe drunk drivers DESERVE to be drawn and quartered or not, the question is whether it is pragmatic for society to do so. At some point, increasing punishments on a certain unfavorable class of people is gonna become unpragmatic economically and maybe (I'm a banker, not a lawyer) legally, too.
Again, most people repeatedly do things that cause other people harm. Let's apply this standard to shoelaces, seatbelts, and running on public sidewalks.Quote:
If, after two or three DUI's, you haven't figured out that your next DUI buys you a bicycle as a primary mode of transportation, you are too stupid to be driving...
In a way, the penalties for the first and second DUI are brought into question... maybe... just maybe... if they had been MORE severe, the criminal wouldn't have had a second, third, etc...
Anyway... the thought is that if someone is not willing to change their behavior even after suffering growing penalties FOR THE SAME BEHAVIOR, we have to remove them from a position to do the rest of us harm.
Our states spend an average of $50K/year to incarcerate people and many are running billion dollar deficits. Maybe we can start paying for it by raising your taxes.Quote:
Punishing them no longer has any effect... so we have to take them out of play.
Taking drunk drivers "out of play" is a great idea in theory but costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
My view is that the punishment for drunk driving is just fine where it is. It doesn't need to be increased further. In 2008, we had 11700 drunk driving deaths; this is a reduction of 50% from 1981 and barely accounts for 1/4 of all traffic fatalities; another reduction from levels in the 1980s when it was 50%.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF (1981-2007 numbers)
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-dri...tatistics.html (2008 numbers)
The question is, what is the ultimate cost-benefit of sending a motorist to jail for two years for drunk driving? It costs us $100K to put them in jail for two years. For that cost, we could train two or three nurses or feed hundreds of starving children in Africa. How many lives would that save? Wouldn't it be better to invest our resources there rather than on putting people who *might* kill someone by their own stupidity in prison for a few years?
Maybe the part of the MADD crowd that I find really irrational is that they want drunk driving to result in a professional license suspension. I am not sure what drunk driving has to do with cutting hair, doing electrical work, or practicing as a doctor or how it helps the economy and society at large to force people to move to less productive lines of work. -
03-22-2010, 09:15 PMashman165Re: Unfair DUI LawsYour point? When it becomes the case that we're jailing people for those, then you'll have a point.Quote:
Quoting GoIllini
How is it not proportioned, mildly so? If we're truly to proportion to punish people for what they've done, I guess we'll have kill everyone who kills another in a drunk driving collision. We don't only proportion crimes based on offense, but we also temper that with mercy and the hope of reforming the errant conduct.Quote:
Drunk driving DOES have a societal cost- but the punishment should be in proportion to the crime.
Yeah, because of all the drunks interviewed after a car chase, this has been what comes up over and over: based on the probability of conviction, and the extent of the punishment, I figured the felony charge of eluding was an acceptable risk for escaping a drunk driving charge (gross misdemeanor in my state). As it happens, drunk people aren't the most reflective people one can happen across, which is precariously why they make bad drivers.Quote:
Otherwise, as Athens experienced with Draco, we'll still have drunk drivers, but we will have drunken car-chases to boot. If someone is going to lose his or her license for 10 years and go to jail for a few, getting charged with eluding the police and hitting a few cars suddenly doesn't sound all that bad.
Or the corollary question: is it pragmatic to let the conduct go on unmolested? In this case, no.Quote:
Whether or not you believe drunk drivers DESERVE to be drawn and quartered or not, the question is whether it is pragmatic for society to do so.
I'm not sure that you can make an argument that drunk drivers are a class of people. Even if you can make the argument that they are, it's a meaningless distinction - a grouping for no other reason than group. It's helpful as a label to discuss people whose conduct is described by the label, but beyond that, you're just making up groups for the sake of calling them a class. It's like creating a class of people whose eyes are different colors, have light hair and enjoy Frosted Flakes. Sure, you draw that class, but it has no value other than to discuss those people and make a class into which they can be situated.Quote:
At some point, increasing punishments on a certain unfavorable class of people is gonna become unpragmatic economically and maybe (I'm a banker, not a lawyer) legally, too.
Since when has criminal law been an economically feasible idea? We routinely "waste" money in our judicial system because it's mandated by our system. We have mostly all agreed that there exists some set of rules by which our society will be governed, one of which is that everyone is entitled to a fair(ish) trial even if it's at everyone else's expense.
So, in a strictly financial outlook, we often operate the legal system at a loss.
So much for your argument about proportioning punishment to crime (which is now apparently morphed into "harm".) When shoelaces begin to cause the deaths of a third of people who wear shoes, you'll have an argument. When running on public sidewalks causes the deaths of a third of all people who die on sidewalks, you'll have an argument. You get the point (one hopes).Quote:
Again, most people repeatedly do things that cause other people harm. Let's apply this standard to shoelaces, seatbelts, and running on public sidewalks.
I'd rather pay higher taxes to have a prison system capable of holding those who've demonstrated their unwillingness to respect that everyone else is just as entitled to not get killed as they are than to, you know, get killed.Quote:
Our states spend an average of $50K/year to incarcerate people and many are running billion dollar deficits. Maybe we can start paying for it by raising your taxes.
Besides which is the case with these supposed 10 year sentences for DUI brought up here: please name one person who has been sentenced to a 10 year sentence for driving while impaired/under the influence as the exclusive conviction.
So? Letting them go around unchecked killing people has a cost too. Also, you seem to forget that for every crash they cause (indeed for all crashes caused), there's a financial component to that too: it takes just as much money to pay police to investigate a freak collision as it does a drunk driving one. It takes just as much money to fund a trial for someone who commits vehicular homicide as it does for one who commits manslaughter. But hey, I guess if it costs money to stop people from capriciously killing their friends and neighbors, then we should let the conduct continue.Quote:
Taking drunk drivers "out of play" is a great idea in theory but costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So, you're arguing that year after year when states increase their focus on drunk drivers, spending considerable sums of money to retard the practice has had a measurable effect in reducing the number and percentages of drunk driver caused fatal collisions. I agree. It's curious that since states started moving towards the .08, down from .10, per se limit, that also had a measurable effect.Quote:
My view is that the punishment for drunk driving is just fine where it is. It doesn't need to be increased further. In 2008, we had 11700 drunk driving deaths; this is a reduction of 50% from 1981 and barely accounts for 1/4 of all traffic fatalities; another reduction from levels in the 1980s when it was 50%.
Also important factors: vehicle safety regulations, crush design of cars, and overall reduction in severity of collision by better traffic engineering.
Why is it an either or proposition? We are currently working towards feeding starving children, and we incentivize taking up a major in a health-related field (of which nursing is only one general field) all while still being able to put a serious dent in the number of "potential" deaths from drunk driving. Also of note: we're doing more than those three things simultaneously; it's almost like we have a sufficiently large population of resources to draw from in order to do that.Quote:
The question is, what is the ultimate cost-benefit of sending a motorist to jail for two years for drunk driving? It costs us $100K to put them in jail for two years. For that cost, we could train two or three nurses or feed hundreds of starving children in Africa. How many lives would that save? Wouldn't it be better to invest our resources there rather than on putting people who *might* kill someone by their own stupidity in prison for a few years?
Also consider the education benefits passed by the Congress on Sunday's vote for health care and education reform.
Do you have a link which suggests MADD has advocated for a law requiring the termination of, say, one's journeyman card as an electrician for having been convicted of a dui? What about a hair stylist's license being revoked for the same?Quote:
Maybe the part of the MADD crowd that I find really irrational is that they want drunk driving to result in a professional license suspension. I am not sure what drunk driving has to do with cutting hair, doing electrical work, or practicing as a doctor or how it helps the economy and society at large to force people to move to less productive lines of work.
-
03-23-2010, 08:56 AMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsHow is a mandatory longer-term jail sentence for a non-violent crime merciful?Quote:
Quoting ashman165
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.Quote:
Yeah, because of all the drunks interviewed after a car chase, this has been what comes up over and over: based on the probability of conviction, and the extent of the punishment, I figured the felony charge of eluding was an acceptable risk for escaping a drunk driving charge (gross misdemeanor in my state). As it happens, drunk people aren't the most reflective people one can happen across, which is precariously why they make bad drivers.
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.Quote:
Or the corollary question: is it pragmatic to let the conduct go on unmolested? In this case, no.
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.
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.Quote:
Since when has criminal law been an economically feasible idea? We routinely "waste" money in our judicial system because it's mandated by our system. We have mostly all agreed that there exists some set of rules by which our society will be governed, one of which is that everyone is entitled to a fair(ish) trial even if it's at everyone else's expense.
Exactly. In fact, we always will. The problem is that if we operate the legal system at too much of a loss today, there is a risk that we might not be able to afford to even operate the legal system in twenty years. CC: California.Quote:
So, in a strictly financial outlook, we often operate the legal system at a loss.
Running on sidewalks probably cause the injury of 1/3 of people who walk on sidewalks; why not punish it with jail time?Quote:
So much for your argument about proportioning punishment to crime (which is now apparently morphed into "harm".) When shoelaces begin to cause the deaths of a third of people who wear shoes, you'll have an argument. When running on public sidewalks causes the deaths of a third of all people who die on sidewalks, you'll have an argument. You get the point (one hopes).
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.
Well, again, many states are approaching their peaks on the Laffer curve when it comes to state taxes. New York State recently raised taxes and I know a number of wealthy individuals, hedge funds, and smaller investment banks that have already left for Connecticut. I know that at least one major bank is considering a similar move to avoid taxes.Quote:
I'd rather pay higher taxes to have a prison system capable of holding those who've demonstrated their unwillingness to respect that everyone else is just as entitled to not get killed as they are than to, you know, get killed.
So California can ABSOLUTELY raise taxes. The problem is that revenues will decrease as people move to Oregon and Nevada and state governments will have even fewer resources to stop drunk driving. Sure, you can borrow money to pay for it, but some day, the piper will come calling (as is what is already starting to happen with California) and you will have even LESS money to stop drunk drivers- or worse- violent criminals that may pose a bigger threat to society- in the future.
Maybe a better approach would be to figure out the economic cost of an individual drunk driver and keep allocating money to keeping drunk drivers off the road until increasing funding for stopping drunk drivers by $1 decreases the cost to the state's economy by less than $1. Obviously, nobody would believe it's worth devoting an entire state's annual GDP to keeping ALL drunk drivers off the road; at some point, there is a trade-off where it makes more sense to devote money to fund other initiatives aimed at protecting the public or devoting money to enforcement 20-30 years down the line by not borrowing money or scaring taxpayers out of the state.
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.Quote:
So? Letting them go around unchecked killing people has a cost too. Also, you seem to forget that for every crash they cause (indeed for all crashes caused), there's a financial component to that too: it takes just as much money to pay police to investigate a freak collision as it does a drunk driving one. It takes just as much money to fund a trial for someone who commits vehicular homicide as it does for one who commits manslaughter. But hey, I guess if it costs money to stop people from capriciously killing their friends and neighbors, then we should let the conduct continue.
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.Quote:
So, you're arguing that year after year when states increase their focus on drunk drivers, spending considerable sums of money to retard the practice has had a measurable effect in reducing the number and percentages of drunk driver caused fatal collisions. I agree. It's curious that since states started moving towards the .08, down from .10, per se limit, that also had a measurable effect.
It costs the same amount of money to keep a convicted murderer in jail as it does to keep a drunk driver in jail. Which would you rather keep in jail for an extra month?
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?
This ultimately comes down to a very fundamental law of economics; there is a certain set of limited resources that we have to work with. In order for us to spend $100K cracking down on drunk drivers, that $100K needs to come from taxes (which will force rich people out of the state and weaken the state's ability to collect taxes in the future), borrowing (which only delays the problem), or other spending designed to protect the public and save lives.Quote:
Why is it an either or proposition?
So pick one: borrow (definitely not feasible if you live in CA; not advisable if you live in NY or many states), tax (not feasible if you live in CA or NY; they've hit their Laffer peaks at the state level), or cut other spending. YES, it definitely becomes an either/or proposition at some point and 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.
Like anybody who works in finance would right now, I chuckled when I read that. California is being forced to release people from its prisons right now- and pay its debts in IOUs- because it can barely afford to keep its legal system going. The state's on the verge of collapse (and NY is a few years behind), and you are claiming that it makes sense for states to save lives by doing everything. That would be wonderful in principal; in reality, we can't afford it.Quote:
We are currently working towards feeding starving children, and we incentivize taking up a major in a health-related field (of which nursing is only one general field) all while still being able to put a serious dent in the number of "potential" deaths from drunk driving. Also of note: we're doing more than those three things simultaneously; it's almost like we have a sufficiently large population of resources to draw from in order to do that.
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.
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.Quote:
Do you have a link which suggests MADD has advocated for a law requiring the termination of, say, one's journeyman card as an electrician for having been convicted of a dui? What about a hair stylist's license being revoked for the same?
-
03-23-2010, 10:27 AMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI LawsSomething I learned in jail was the amount the government givesthem to take care of us and the bare minimum which they always use to take car of us left them with a financial surplus.Quote:
So, in a strictly financial outlook, we often operate the legal system at a loss
isn't it non violent in the same sense that conspiracy to commit murder or attempted murder are if the former efforts come up so grossly short that no harm was done? Those still receive stiff terms on the rock..Quote:
How is a mandatory longer-term jail sentence for a non-violent crime merciful?
I think in many areas foot patrols and cars just stationed for awhile would ease the anxiety of certain communities. Also a tough issue like this shines light on a rarely talked about issue. When are local police departments going to embrace alternative energy and how much money can be saved if so? Being blue lighted by a Prius doesn't sound to bad these days. I think most departments could do a little better then the Crown Vic.Quote:
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.
Maybe a way could be found to make DUI offenders a "taxed class" or maybe there transportation could be taken away with the only option being government transportation that costs in excess of operational costs? Perhaps a kind of parole for DUI offenders and a program to keep them under the microscope could prevent us from having to put tem in prison for the long haul but still allowing oversight. They wouldn't be cut from the government leash it would simply be longer.Quote:
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.
-
03-23-2010, 10:57 AMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsIt's non-violent in the same sense that attempted conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter is non-violent in that drunk driving is not a deliberate plot to injure someone else. It's stupid and irresponsible- and the punishment should reflect that- but it's not actually violent unless the crime leads to someone else's injury.Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
Do you think street racing is a violent crime? What about reckless driving? How about faster speeding tickets? They're all in the same class in that they put other people at risk, but I had thought the line between violent crime and non-violent crime was injuring someone else or having the specific intent of injuring someone else vs. not doing or having that.
Then they would simply leave the state- or even if they were on parole and had to stay, they wouldn't be able to repay society that much since you've taken away their professional license. A state that takes this approach to the extreme may eventually need to build a huge wall in order to keep people from escaping to West Germany- err, Canada or MexicoQuote:
Maybe a way could be found to make DUI offenders a "taxed class" or maybe there transportation could be taken away with the only option being government transportation that costs in excess of operational costs? Perhaps a kind of parole for DUI offenders and a program to keep them under the microscope could prevent us from having to put tem in prison for the long haul but still allowing oversight. They wouldn't be cut from the government leash it would simply be longer.
Giving someone who doesn't REALLY deserve a felony conviction destroys A LOT of value. I know it makes sense to a lot of people to keep increasing punishments for everything, but it does have an economic and social cost- in the extreme, it moves us more in the direction of the society we spent the entire cold war fighting. -
03-23-2010, 11:13 AMcbgRe: Unfair DUI Laws
So, who decides who REALLY deserves a felony conviction? I don't have any problem with charging someone who deliberately engages in an action that can result in someone else's death, with a felony.
-
03-23-2010, 11:36 AMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsMost people don't have a problem with that. In some states, it's called statutory murder if someone else dies while you're committing a crime.Quote:
Quoting cbg
In many states, simple drunk driving is becoming a felony in some cases. IMHO, that's a little extreme.
A felony carries certain implications about your moral ability in all areas of life. IMHO, driving home drunk shows that you're stupid or irresponsible; it doesn't mean that you're bad at cutting hair or unfit to practice medicine. If you disagree, can you please explain how repeated drunk driving implies that someone is a menace to society if they are working as a hair stylist? -
03-23-2010, 11:39 AMcdwjavaRe: Unfair DUI LawsWhat state has that as a first time DUI penalty?Quote:
Quoting GoIllini
Maybe after SEVERAL DUI offenses, or one that involves an injury collision, but simply driving DUI being a felony? Please provide the name of that state - I'm curious to know what state takes DUI that seriously. Now, I know that in many other countries, prison is an option for a first DUI, but in the US? -
03-23-2010, 11:50 AMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsI believe New York makes aggravated (BAC over .18) DWI on a suspended license a felony even for a first time offense.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
Yes. In NY, a 30-day prison sentence is an option. You've got a great point that many of the more authoritarian countries abroad do take MANY non-violent infractions extremely seriously, and well, NY is considered to offer its citizens the narrowest set of freedoms in the country. It seems to fit the bill that it would have the harshest punishments for non-violent crimes.Quote:
Maybe after SEVERAL DUI offenses, or one that involves an injury collision, but simply driving DUI being a felony? Please provide the name of that state - I'm curious to know what state takes DUI that seriously. Now, I know that in many other countries, prison is an option for a first DUI, but in the US?
We are free to be like a number of countries abroad that give their citizens fewer freedoms and harsher punishments. But that hasn't worked that well for the US in the past. -
03-23-2010, 11:53 AMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI LawsStreet racing on a deserted highway or interstate not so much. In downtown, a neighborhood street, school zone, one way road, perhaps I'd be comfortable with those charges. As far as reckless, a lot of acts can lead to a reckless driving citation, it depends. If your drifting down the always crowded skid row and you knock down ten homeless people like pens in a bowling lane I'll gladly support a felony conviction and a stiff sentence. There are some areas and locales were its just not reasonable to assume you can break traffic laws w/o incident.Quote:
Quoting GoIllini
bah, that type of exodus would be a benefit to a country with no legal grounds to institute any type of exile. A better example would be the Cubans Castro had leaving the island in 1980 then the folks trying to leave the GDR..I think you could push the disciplinary limits to the limits on a misdemeanor. I am not asking for a felony, but something tat is like one but not clearly one. A hybrid offense class.Quote:
Then they would simply leave the state- or even if they were on parole and had to stay, they wouldn't be able to repay society that much since you've taken away their professional license. A state that takes this approach to the extreme may eventually need to build a huge wall in order to keep people from escaping to West Germany- err, Canada or Mexico.
i know it does. there just needs to be more oversight and atleast a feeling of diligence. That might keep DUI offenders in check w/o having tosend them to some horrid penitentiary. I wish there was a Godwin's law for references to the Soviet Union :pQuote:
I know it makes sense to a lot of people to keep increasing punishments for everything, but it does have an economic cost- and it might eventually move us more in the direction of the kind of society that we spent the entire Cold War fighting.
-
03-23-2010, 11:59 AMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsEXACTLY. If you injure someone, then it becomes something more like a violent crime.Quote:
Quoting Another Demise
Well, again, most drunk drivers are a cross-section of society- but specifically include people who can afford both cars and alcohol. In other words, you're getting rid of middle-class people or richer. I'm sure the Bahamas would be thrilled to take them.Quote:
Bah, that type of exodus would be a benefit to a country with no legal grounds to institute any type of exile. A better example would be the Cubans Castro had leaving the island in 1980 then the folks trying to leave the GDR..I think you could push the disciplinary limits to the limits on a misdemeanor. I am not asking for a felony, but something tat is like one but not clearly one. A hybrid offense class.
The best solution is interlock devices for a decade or two after a DUI. That way, everyone's happy.Quote:
i know it does. there just needs to be more oversight and atleast a feeling of diligence. That might keep DUI offenders in check w/o having tosend them to some horrid penitentiary. I wish there was a Godwin's law for references to the Soviet Union :p
We live in a post 9/11 world; my view is that if someone time traveled here from 20 years ago, they would think the country was noticeably more authoritarian today. We're nowhere near where the Soviets were, but the fact is that we've probably got more controls, restrictions, and punishments in the name of public safety during peacetime than the country has had in at least a hundred years. Remember when speeding tickets were "only" $50-$100 and it was hard to get your license suspended or get ongoing punishments from the state unless you got three tickets in six months or you were doing at least 30 over? Remember when you could bring drinks on the airplane and walk through security with your shoes on?
This might be OK, but if we keep drifting in this direction for another 20 years, we're not going to get that much safer and we're going to lose a lot of freedoms in the process- like the ability to drive without looking over your shoulder all the time. -
03-23-2010, 12:31 PMcdwjavaRe: Unfair DUI LawsNot quite a simple first time DUI.Quote:
Quoting GoIllini
These are NOT authoritarian states ...Quote:
You've got a great point that many of the more authoritarian countries abroad do take MANY non-violent infractions extremely seriously, and well, NY is considered to offer its citizens the narrowest set of freedoms in the country. It seems to fit the bill that it would have the harshest punishments for non-violent crimes.
We are free to be like a number of countries abroad that give their citizens fewer freedoms and harsher punishments. But that hasn't worked that well for the US in the past.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...countries.html
Note the lower BAC levels, the higher penalties, and in some cases, higher ages to get driver's licenses. -
03-23-2010, 12:36 PMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsWell, again, most of these countries rank lower on indices of economic freedom and civil liberties than the United States does. Thus, by definition, they are more authoritarian. And many of the punishments I'm seeing here are a lot laxer than those in New York.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
If we want to slide towards fewer civil liberties and more government control, we can do that. But it hasn't worked well for the US in the past. -
03-23-2010, 12:46 PMcdwjavaRe: Unfair DUI LawsBut, they seem to have grasped the basic safety implications of impaired driving better than we have here in the US. In those countries they take driving a lot more seriously than we do. I understand that in Germany you cannot find cup holders built into cars due to a basic theory that drivers should be paying attention to their driving and not eating or drinking.Quote:
Quoting GoIllini
In any event, DUI offenses may cost a few people some money, but it is repeat offenders who tend to get hammered later on down the road ... which is as it should be. if they are not getting a clue, then maybe they need to be knocked upside the head ... or should we wait for them to kill someone? -
03-23-2010, 01:09 PMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsNot Italy or the Netherlands- those countries don't have jail time for first-time offenders and the fines are significantly lower.Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
Also, the question is how much do we want to prioritize safety and what do we want to trade in for it. I thought the roads were pretty safe 10 years ago, but today, I find myself looking over my shoulder more than I did back then- not for drunk or reckless drivers but for authorities who believe that 72 mph on an interstate with a 65 mph speed limit might be too fast. And then I cross my fingers I remembered to take my proof of inspection, proof of insurance, registration, and other certifications with me when I get in the car. I get to relax a whole lot more now that I have a brilliant lawyer, but the fact is that MOST people have to worry. It shouldn't have to be that way.
Increasing punishments for the sake of safety might not increase safety all that much- but it'll certainly make everyone look over their shoulders a whole lot more.
That's one of the nice things about America. When you get in a car, you don't need to plan ahead for 20-30 minutes and worry about every move you make on the road. We accept that life carries risks but it's more enjoyable if we have the opportunity to accept life-risks and all- without looking over our shoulders all the time. Sadly, that view is starting to change.Quote:
In those countries they take driving a lot more seriously than we do. I understand that in Germany you cannot find cup holders built into cars due to a basic theory that drivers should be paying attention to their driving and not eating or drinking.
Two problems here:Quote:
In any event, DUI offenses may cost a few people some money, but it is repeat offenders who tend to get hammered later on down the road ... which is as it should be. if they are not getting a clue, then maybe they need to be knocked upside the head ... or should we wait for them to kill someone?
1.) Your assumption that ALL drunk drivers kill people.
2.) Your view that public safety is the only legislative priority under the Lockean ethic that the country is built on (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness)- or even the Judeo-Christian ethics that the country may also be built on.
Studies have shown that drowsy drivers are more dangerous than drunk drivers, but drowsy driving isn't even a ticketable offense (unless you maybe have a CDL under certain circumstances). You can say the same thing about people who smoke, people who run on sidewalks, and soda manufacturers. Life in general is a threat to peoples' safety, and we need to figure out the right balance between giving people more freedoms and better opportunities to experience life and maximizing safety.
Bottom line is that drunk drivers should be penalized based on the negative externalities they bring onto society and no more. The current laws on drunk driving- at least in New York- are more than adequate in that regard. -
03-23-2010, 01:24 PMcdwjavaRe: Unfair DUI LawsWhere did I EVER make such a claim?? :confused:Quote:
Quoting GoIllini
Once again, where have I EVER made such a claim??Quote:
2.) Your view that public safety is the only priority under the Lockean ethic that the country is built on (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness).
Please post a link to this peer-reviewed study, I'd be fascinated to read it.Quote:
Studies have shown that drowsy drivers are more dangerous than drunk drivers, but drowsy driving isn't even a ticketable offense (unless you maybe have a CDL under certain circumstances).
Second, how do you objectively determine if the action you observed was caused by a drowsy driver or just bad driving? If a drowsy driver nods off and crosses the center line, the violation would be for that crossing of the centerline. By the time the officer stops that driver, he is almost assuredly appearing awake ... flashing lights behind you tends to do that.
Absent any objective test for "drowsy driving" directly criminalizing it is pretty much impossible. And in my state we do not even have a real distracted driver statute anyway ... wish we did, but we on't. That lady driving next to you putting on her makeup in the rearview mirror may not be breaking the law unless she crosses the line, hits someone, or speeds or impedes traffic.
No one is saying you cannot drink - just don't do it and drive. Or, more specifically, do not drive impaired. However, the safest way to avoid driving impaired is not to drive after consuming impairing medication or alcohol ...really, it is quite simple to avoid a DUI.Quote:
You can say the same thing about people who smoke, people who run on sidewalks, and soda manufacturers. Life in general is a threat to peoples' safety, and we need to figure out the right balance between giving people more freedoms and better opportunities to experience life and maximizing safety.
DUI drivers are punished based upon the risk they bring to the general public. Fortunately, DUI laws are not likely to relax in my lifetime. Unfortunately (IMHO), they are not likely to become more serious. In my state if you kill someone while intentionally driving DUI you are not likely to spend much time in jail at all - it is a rather forgiveable crime out here. The last two vehicular manslaughter cases with intentional DUI drivers (i.e. they were drunk, got into the car knowing they were impaired) I am personally aware of in my county resulted in sentences of up to three years with the suspects released on parole after about 18 months. I am sure that came as great comfort to the families of the dead (three people in these two instances). The law still treats such slayings as unfortunate accidents as opposed to intentionally dangerous negligent acts.Quote:
Bottom line is that drunk drivers should be penalized based on the negative externalities they bring onto society and no more. The current laws on drunk driving- at least in New York- are definitely adequate.
Pull a few bodies out of DUI crashes and maybe your opinion will turn. Have time for some stories? I got quite a few ... none of them pretty, and all of them quite haunting. -
03-23-2010, 01:46 PMGoIlliniRe: Unfair DUI LawsQuote:
Quoting cdwjava
Quote:
or should we wait for them to kill someone?
http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/Quote:
Please post a link to this peer-reviewed study, I'd be fascinated to read it.
See the Australian study- drowsy drivers are just as impaired as drunk drivers.
Exactly, but isn't it unfair to send one class of bad drivers to jail for a felony while another gets off scot-free?Quote:
Second, how do you objectively determine if the action you observed was caused by a drowsy driver or just bad driving? If a drowsy driver nods off and crosses the center line, the violation would be for that crossing of the centerline. By the time the officer stops that driver, he is almost assuredly appearing awake ... flashing lights behind you tends to do that.
If there were a way to catch distracted drivers, should all of them have their licenses suspended as well?Quote:
Absent any objective test for "drowsy driving" directly criminalizing it is pretty much impossible. And in my state we do not even have a real distracted driver statute anyway ... wish we did, but we on't. That lady driving next to you putting on her makeup in the rearview mirror may not be breaking the law unless she crosses the line, hits someone, or speeds or impedes traffic.
Absolutely. Most smart people under 30 follow that pretty stringently. But again, the kind of laws we have say who we are about society. And again, we could say the same thing about wearing seat belts, tying shoe-laces, and running on public sidewalks, but if we had the death penalty for running on a public sidewalk, saying "It's simple- don't run on the sidewalk" isn't a good excuse for bad policy. At some point (and I think we're starting to reach it in NY), laws become too draconian.Quote:
No one is saying you cannot drink - just don't do it and drive. Or, more specifically, do not drive impaired. However, the safest way to avoid driving impaired is not to drive after consuming impairing medication or alcohol ...really, it is quite simple to avoid a DUI.
I thought CA was extremely strict about drunk driving- moreso than NY. In any case, drunk driving should probably involve jail time after the first offense in five or ten years, but it shouldn't be a felony unless it involves someone else's serious injury or death.Quote:
DUI drivers are punished based upon the risk they bring to the general public. Fortunately, DUI laws are not likely to relax in my lifetime. Unfortunately (IMHO), they are not likely to become more serious. In my state if you kill someone while intentionally driving DUI you are not likely to spend much time in jail at all - it is a rather forgiveable crime out here.
It shouldn't be treated any differently than involuntary manslaughter- a negligent decision that resulted in someone else's death. I'm not sure how someone is treated by CA's laws if they fire a gun straight into the air and the bullet falls and kills someone, but I don't think drunk drivers who kill someone should be treated any more leniently or harshly than anyone else who does something stupid that kills someone.Quote:
The last two vehicular manslaughter cases with intentional DUI drivers (i.e. they were drunk, got into the car knowing they were impaired) I am personally aware of in my county resulted in sentences of up to three years with the suspects released on parole after about 18 months. I am sure that came as great comfort to the families of the dead (three people in these two instances). The law still treats such slayings as unfortunate accidents as opposed to intentionally dangerous negligent acts.
I work in finance; only statistics. The fact is that drunk driving is down 50% because states take it seriously. The problem is that we also have to take the other Lockean values besides life/safety seriously, too. And there are cheaper ways to save lives than taking drunk drivers off the road.Quote:
Pull a few bodies out of DUI crashes and maybe your opinion will turn. Have time for some stories? I got quite a few ... none of them pretty, and all of them quite haunting.
-
03-23-2010, 03:46 PMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI LawsI don't think this has anything to do with the old safety vs rights debate. That might be a scare tactic on your behalf. We are talking about DUIs lets not start with all the revolutionary era stances and debates...Quote:
We live in a post 9/11 world; my view is that if someone time traveled here from 20 years ago, they would think the country was noticeably more authoritarian today. We're nowhere near where the Soviets were, but the fact is that we've probably got more controls, restrictions, and punishments in the name of public safety during peacetime than the country has had in at least a hundred years. Remember when speeding tickets were "only" $50-$100 and it was hard to get your license suspended or get ongoing punishments from the state unless you got three tickets in six months or you were doing at least 30 over? Remember when you could bring drinks on the airplane and walk through security with your shoes on?
Lots of things were different. I think the phrase "back in the day" should be defined as referencing the freedoms always found early on. It always seems like in the majority of cases the past was was lax. I found the '90s lax, my uncle found the '70s lax, and so on.
I think 9/11 isn't used as an excuse to take rights I just think the overkill is some pathetic attempt to try to make up for the 3000 lost which it isn't. The laws in response have effected me. In 1987 or September 10, 2001 I wouldn't need the various items to show who i was just to get a license. That was wrong of the government.
Its true tickets were cheaper back then. Who is to say though that we shouldn't be greatful for a decades long honey moon period? How is speeding any less "wrong" then it was in 1910? Who is to say maybe the tickets you got in 1995 should had been as expensive as the ones you maybe got last year? You got a break o something you shouldn't had been doing under any circumstances.. Some laxness is based on the ignorance of the era. My science teacher would tell the classs how he and his friends would play with hazmat cannisters and discarded transformers thrown into a creek. We could NEVER do that today but 35 years ago yeah. Speeding is not recreational, its not a hobby, its not the rituals of some bizarre religion that mandates it biweekly.. Why are you trying to protect the right to break a at times reasonable law?
why is it always soo unspeakable and off limits to attack the middle class? Thats right they are the compass of patriotism they are "what its all about." Average joes facing time in the big house might send out a real message. too much "could never happen to us or members of our community" bs these days..Quote:
Well, again, most drunk drivers are a cross-section of society- but specifically include people who can afford both cars and alcohol. In other words, you're getting rid of middle-class people or richer. I'm sure the Bahamas would be thrilled to take them.
will you list well known historical examples please? Thank you.Quote:
If we want to slide towards fewer civil liberties and more government control, we can do that. But it hasn't worked well for the US in the past.
Well I bet they have cigarette lighters (yea i know they are outlets too), vanity mirrors on both sides, and ass trays. And most cars have a speedometer with numbers on it that are barely legal in any district in the world and the ability to go those speeds. I've gotten into worser situations trying to control the value tea my taurus's cup holder couldnt properly hold then trying to drink tea and drive..Quote:
I understand that in Germany you cannot find cup holders built into cars due to a basic theory that drivers should be paying attention to their driving and not eating or drinking.
what does that sentence mean? What does it matter if you pull an= drunk over ? If he hadn't hit anyone when you stopped him what did you prevent? He had went ten times before and you didn't even detect him. Your citation and arrest won't hurt him and he'll drive revoked or suspended. And how well are you gonna detect a DUI offender driving on a revoked if hes got a history of driving drunk and still not getting pulled over or noticed? Have you ever pulled over a man and tested him officer? Have you ever wondered if while you were having him count backwards if the cars passing you both by on the side of the road are drivin by drunks?! I think your loosing the battle, they are under the radar more times then not, they hit things and people and sometimes aren't ever identified or seen, and your tougher sentences after the fact don't bring lives back. Do you even have a card to play against them?Quote:
In any event, DUI offenses may cost a few people some money, but it is repeat offenders who tend to get hammered later on down the road ...
Compliance with a law is a pretty black and white issue. I speed, cut into the opposite lane, run red lights, I admit that.But if its a 65 you can't even go 66. Why put a speed limit up with a number on the sign if its only around that number? If the limit was 72 I suspect u might get a ticket for going 77 at some point. If it was 77 you might have gotten a ticket for going 86. I'm not condemning you for going 72, if I was a state trooper I PERSONALLY would give you a warning but come on man, you can't adhere to the law with 98% compliance. Now you on some Robin Hood/Buford Pusser s**t...Quote:
Also, the question is how much do we want to prioritize safety and what do we want to trade in for it. I thought the roads were pretty safe 10 years ago, but today, I find myself looking over my shoulder more than I did back then- not for drunk or reckless drivers but for authorities who believe that 72 mph on an interstate with a 65 mph speed limit might be too fast.
IF you got a 95 dollar ticket on that speeding offense and you only paid 94 dollars and 98 cents you could go to jail for that too..
that's habit vs happenstance. It's not like drunk driving is a form of recreation or a sport or popular hobby. Draconian punishments only effect those breaking the draconian law which prohibits a act with no legitimate purpose. How is disciplining the undisciplined a form of tyranny?Quote:
Life in general is a threat to peoples' safety, and we need to figure out the right balance between giving people more freedoms and better opportunities to experience life and maximizing safety.
lmao some people have veered off the road, came to a stop and continued snoozing. I wonder what options an officers has after coming upon this car with no witnesses and after the fact? Just a question Sarge.Quote:
By the time the officer stops that driver, he is almost assuredly appearing awake ... flashing lights behind you tends to do that.
depends on what is distracting them and what they and there car was doing at the time it was spotted.Quote:
If there were a way to catch distracted drivers, should all of them have their licenses suspended as well?
HOW MANY TIMES are you allowed to be stupid w/out malice though? Instead of shooting into the air how about trying to go deer hunting in the local park and shooting a jogger to death because the deer moved..?Quote:
It shouldn't be treated any differently than involuntary manslaughter- a negligent decision that resulted in someone else's death. I'm not sure how someone is treated by CA's laws if they fire a gun straight into the air and the bullet falls and kills someone, but I don't think drunk drivers who kill someone should be treated any more leniently or harshly than anyone else who does something stupid that kills someone.
It was stupid when young men deserted their posts, our government executed them...
Is your issue with the felony the fact that felony level discipline will be giving or the fact that the felon will result in one being a felon with the usual stigmas and social disadvantages?Quote:
In any case, drunk driving should probably involve jail time after the first offense in five or ten years, but it shouldn't be a felony unless it involves someone else's serious injury or death.
I think the DUI offenders are somewhere in between both classes. And 5 to 10 years DUI free? Since when did dumbasses only need to hold on to a lesson for only half a decade? -
03-23-2010, 05:37 PMBubba JimmyRe: Unfair DUI LawsWell, if you kill them then they won't drink and drive again, but if the goal is to prevent deaths...Quote:
Quoting cyjeff
Society is stupid to impose a penalty that nobody is going to abide by. All the self-rightous high horsemen aside, if you don't impose penalties that will be effective then it doesn't matter how "tough" you are on crime. Suspending licenses for ten years is just plain ignorant. All the "thinkers" here like to discuss issues like this in the abstract and are clueless as to how policies actually play out in the real world. Give people penalties that are comensurate with their offense, put them into treatment, require AA attendance, or what ever. But just banning them from driving for life does nothing, because they still drive.Quote:
Such as what?
-
03-23-2010, 07:47 PMAnother DemiseRe: Unfair DUI Laws
BUBBA HAS SPOKEN, ashman you just got pwn3d