[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Drunk Drivers (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/20/2005 8:51:24 AM EDT
|
Iowa is one of the first states to pass laws allowing the eviction of "convicted sex offenders". My city has started to enforce the laws, and within the next few months, no sex offenders will be allowed to live within the city. Advocates of this law hopes it will eventually encompass the entire state. (I personally don't agree with this) MY question: WHY stop with sex offenders. Aren't drunk drivers a bigger threat? Why not force anyone convicted of a DUI to move out of your neighborhood? I'm a 34 year old male. Few sex offenders I pass on the street are a threat to me. But EVERY drunk driver is. And how about drug dealers? Deport their ass. What say you? |
|
I think DUI first offence should be a year of hard labor and when not on the work crew, they are in solitary with no tv, no books and no time keeping devices, watch, click, calendar etc. I hate drunks and drunk drivers even more. I also hate those that defends drunk drivers. If you cant party responsibly, you should not party ever. If the punishment was severe enough, I dont think evictem them would be necesary. After a stint like that on the first offence, I think the rate of repeat offeenders would drop drastically. |
Great reply. Speaks volumes of our system. If the punnishment was severe enough, MOST crimes wouldn't occur in the first place. |
And cellphones. Don't forget cellphones. Anyone driving while talking on a cellphone will have their left hand cut off. With only one hand, they will be unable to talk on the phone and everyone will be safer. 
|
When you have children, see how secure you feel with them living in your neighborhood. Better yet, if you believe a Sex Offender has paid his debt and been rehabilitated. Use him as a babysitter for your children. |
We should torture them first - publicly - so that everyone knows not to disobey authority. |
Good idea. Put it on TV so everyone can see. Let the police officers carry out the summary executions right when they are suspected of a crime also, so no need for judges, lawyers, or anyone else in the CJ field. |
Well, after your parents or significant other gets hit/killed by a drunk driver, see how you feel about the drunk getting a slap on the wrist and their license handed back. I've not seen statistics, but I'd bet there are more drunk drivers than "sex offenders".
You are correct in your assumption I have no kids. However, I probably wouldn't let any man babysit my children regardless of their past. |
I'm all for that. A couple of years ago, a friend of mine (20 yrs old) and her soon-to-be-announced fiance (21 yrs old) were leaving CHURCH on a wednesday night when a damn kid came barreling down a side street at 70mph, pounded into their car to the point where there was no passenger side, and walked away with a slap on the wrist. They couldn't walk away....they were buried a few days later. They don't even think the kid saw their car because there were no skid marks on the road. For the kicker, the 18-yr-old had just gotten his license back 5 days before after losing it for his previous DUI. He didn't even do jail time. He did community service and I think he had to pay something like $10,000. How can you say that two young lives are only worth $10,000 total?? |
+1! The reason SO MANY re-offend (regardless the crime involved) is because the Punishment is a hand smack (not even a SLAP) and a finger-wagging, "now, don't you do that again, or else!" (next time you get 2 days!)
Yup. Dad's last truck was TOTALED by a drunk driver, I THINK she was 24, had NO license, had had HER car "impounded" so she was driving her PARENTS car - and she had ZERO insurance, she was (they figured) doing 75MPH in a 25MPH Zone. She didn't get SHIT. She has NO JOB (big surprise there) and couldn't pay shit if she DID. Mommy and daddy bailed her sorry ass out of jail (initially). IMO, after SO MANY offences, the gov't should be able to put a TATTOO on the FACE so that it ID's them as a DUI REPEAT (and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat) offender, and bars that SERVE them get SHUT DOWN, PERIOD, owners/bartenders get on a LIST so that if THEY repeat, THEY get a permant mark to signify THEY cannot hold a bartender's job or in the case of owners, repeat offenses get them to where they cannot own in whole or part ANY "bar" or other establishment/business that sells alcohol. (I know they'd (repeat DUI offenders) would get it SOMEHOW - but at least this would HELP.) And I have so LITTLE "sympathy" for DUIers that I don't CARE if the tattoo "ruins their life" How many lives have THEY "ruined"? (But I'd have to say that only DUIs that resulted in personal OR property damage. If an officer "just gets lucky"... well, no harm, no foul, current law suffices... for NOW. But I've had 2 friends and 3 aquaintances killed or harmed by drunk drivers - all of the DUIers were SERIOUS P.O.S. If you're gonna be a drunk - BE a drunk, but do it at HOME (and typing on Arfcom) (or some other similarly harmless activity) 
|
I have no problem with folks on cell phones. To think folks on cell phones are as dangerous as drunks is above retarded. TO use that defence makes me think one is defending DUI. Ther eare folks that can drive and use cell phones and some that cant. No one can drive drunk and be safe. I pity anyone who will defend that. I dont think DUIs should be kicked out of their neighborhoods, I dont think anyone should be evicted because of past crimes. I just think that the punishment should fit the crime and be an actual deterrent for the second offence. Sure the first one is hard to stop, but if after serving some seriously harsh and long and drawn out time, the second offence is less likely. I dont think convicted sex offenders should be evicted because I personally dont think they should have been let out in the first place. Many of those creeps get special protection in prison nowadays and they have their now little ares just for them. We wouldnt want to endanger them now. |
Well, the studies that show just that must be retarded. |
That's all I want to. I am fully in support of REASONABLE drunk driving laws. If you think that everyone who blow a .08 should be in jail for a year, however, then I pity you for having no concept of the principle of justice. There are a lot of more serious crimes, such as assault, theft, etc... that don't get a year in prison. Some kid who screws up because of youth and inexperience does not deserve to get butt-pounded by homie for a year. Now, if he is going 75 in a neighborhood, drunk off his ass and kills someone, then he should do time, but for reckless homicide and not just drunk driving. The whole problem I have with drunk driving laws is they are driven by politics and emotion, moreso than most laws in my opinion. We have far too many of these laws. Someone experiences a tragedy and we have to "make it never happen again." Well that's unreasonable. Life involves risk and the law cannot eliminate every risk. When the scientists originally set the drunk driving laws, I believe that they were .15 IIRC. Since that time MADD has pushed its zero tolerance policies, and driven the standard lower and lower due to SOLELY to their political influence. What needs to happen is that the scientists need to set the laws again, and the standard should be at what point does drinking create an inordinate risk beyond the everyday risk of cellphones, radios, or driving on 2 hours sleep. Saying that "all drunk drivers" should get a year of time is the kind of crap that is leading to the criminalization of absolutely everything. Soon you won't be able to walk out your front door without committing some kind of crime. 
|
Don't forget Mythbusters. |
I'd be comfortable seeing drunk drivers getting manslaugher for "accidently" killing someone while driveing under the influence. |
I thought we were already there. However, walking out the door won't kill a family. I've got no experience with experiencing a KNOWN BAC. Our local radio station did the whole WKRP stunt, and drank beer while a local police dept. measured their BAC. (it might have been a fake stunt, but it sounded real) The concensus was that while each went to 0.08, they all felt the effects differently. The concensus was also that ALL of them felt they were pretty impared. They all claimed to feel too drunk to drive. |
And that has been the law going all the way back to the English common law that predates our Republic. Not many people understand this, but if you engage in negligent/reckless behavior and someone dies you can go to jail for homicide/manslaughter (depending on the facts). Drunk driving laws didn't change this one bit. What they did was punish being drunk regardless of whether anyone was hurt or not. |
There are lots of things that could potentially kill a family - guns, power tools, poisons, boats, planes, etc.... The question is at what point does it become an inordinate risk. This is why I would like to see the scientists handle it. This seems to me to be a question that just begs for empirical analysis. |
| I guess some would think it ok for one to set up a target range and use your house as a backstop? As long as no one gets hurt there is no crime or danger right? Gues it woudl be fine too if the local range had happy hour and folks were allowed openly booze it up? As long as no one gets hurt why the worry right? |
|
Alcohol is a curse upon humanity. I suspect the world would be a better place if alcohol were never "discovered". We know the penalties for murder, rape, robbery.... In Virginia, DWI is a violent crime. Alcohol is the proverbial "Pandora's Box". The cat is out of the bag. Kill that pussy(cat). P.S. I think it would be beneficial if more publicity were given to the (stiffer) penalties for DWI. P.S.S..... 40% of traffic related fatalities are alcohol-related. WHAT accounts for the other 60%? Can we chop off someone's head for being just plain stupid? "You cause a wreck/fatality, you die." |
Did you even read my comments before you created that strawman? All I want is for the drunk driving laws to be based upon science and reason and not emotion and politics. I have no problem with malum prohibitum laws as long as they are reasonable. But your example does provide an interesting comparison. Part of what makes a law just is its ability to be understood and comprehended by the citizenry. Any idiot above the age of 12 knows not to use a house as a backstop. Drunk driving laws, however, are now based upon BAC, and not many people know what drinking does to their BAC. Do you know how many drinks it takes to put you over .08? In every situation? Do you know where the line between responsible drinking and reckless behavior is? |
Be careful what you wish for. I suspect yours would be first to go. 
|
|
I live next to a registered sex offender. I would trust him to babysit my kids (If I had any). The guy was 18 and convicted of indecent liberties with a minor. The minor he was convicted of having indecent liberties with is now his wife of 16 years. They are trying to get the court expunged so he can get off the registered sex offender list. I realize this may be an exception rather than a rule. Now as far as drunk drivers, electrocute 'em. My wife has actually run into two of them. They have made left turns in front of her. Fortunatley she has never been seriously hurt. |
I respect your caution against unreasonable punishments. Seriously, so sorry abotu teh strawman, it was a hasty response and not usually my style. (like I have style  )I guess the BAC can be tricky but what gets them pulled over in the first place? Anything that a responsible person can take care of before getting pulled over? Most are pulled over for driving like a drunk or just driving like an idiot. I personally think if one drives like an idiot and happens to blow over the limit for while driving like an idiot, then its just deserts. Drunk driving can be prevented as its a choice. Driving like an idiot seems to be hereditary with some folks. Mix the two and people die. Responsible drinking means only drinking if you know you are not going to be behind a wheel. Anything else is NOT common sense or logical. To most people responsible driking means drinking until they are buzzed and wait a while, maybe an hour, then stand there and contemplate if they should drive or not. If one has to contemplate, they shouldnt even bother. If the BAC is BS and untrustorthy then the sobriety test and video of testing should be put before a jury and let them decide before final charges are pressed. If they peson looks drunk in the test and fails it, and the drunk defender claims the guy is naturally tipsy, use the BAC to bolster it. So sad too bad for the few who are naturally tipsy and had half a beer hours ago. They shoudnt be on the road , drinking or not. |
Maybe they should be educating themselves before they start drinking. That information has been put out there for so long now, its their fault if they don't know it. |
If I have a glass of wine with dinner I shouldn't drive home? Should I not drive if I haven't gotten eight hours of sleep the night before? Should I not drive with the radio on? Should we mandate that no one may drive more than 4 hours at a time? There are a lot of factors that can potentially inhibit one's ability to drive. The question is at what point to they become an inordinate risk. Let the scientists figure this one out and use that data to set the appropriate limits. |
But BAC is problematic because it depends on so many factors including; (1) metabolism of the individual; (2) time between drinks; (3) amount of food in ones stomach; (4) reaction of alcohol to other drugs/chemicals/viruses, etc.... All of those "charts" which people put out are only guesstimates, and they don't serve as a defense to DUI. The only way to know for sure would be to take a breathalizer before you got in the car each time like they do to repeat offenders. I suspect that this will be the nanny-state's next great idea.
|
There will be no definitive answer as to some sort of dividing line where you absolutely cannot be driving when discussing driving in general and not just specifically DUI. In the meantime, there are many many sections of the Vehicle and Traffic lawin every state that more or less address some of the problem areas that your post brings up about peoples driving behavior.If you are really interested on a debate about various driving behaviors and the laws of various states, I suggest that you drop in at the forum at www.carandriver.com and contribute in their driving and the law section. |
The charts you mention may not be difinitive; at the same time, if you are drinking so much that you might be borderline DUI, you shouldn't be driving in the first place and taking the chance that you might be over the limit. One beer or glass of wine with dinner isn't going to put you over the line; you start talking about consuming 4, 5 beers, yeah, you should start to be worried and think about getting home some other way. |
The difference is those laws haven't become politicised and they are generally reasonable. You get pulled over and you are talking on the cell, and unless you are in NYC you are likely to get a "be careful with that" or "don't do that again." If you are pulled over because you are talking on the cell while running people off the road, you will get cited for something. Alcohol used to be like this until MADD went all puritanical. in the 70s if you were drinking responsibly and said "yes sir, no sir" to the cops and didn't seem inhibited you were usually o.k. If you staggered out of the car and pissed yourself while talking to the cop, you got thrown in the slammer. If we went back to the old standard I'd be happy as a pig in slop. |
What you have said is entirely reasonable. I just want the law to recognize that - which it can't do with mandatory punishments. You are a little over - i.e. you guessed that you could handle five but you can only handle four - you should get a warning, or a small fine, or something like that. You say "F*ck it all" and drink two bottles of the Captain, then maybe you pay a big fine, or even do some time. What I object to is the MADD types who say "No one should ever drink alcohol because of what happened to my baby." While I sympathize with their plight, that is not how you formulate just laws for a society. |
If you have to guess where your limit is, you've had too much to drink. Like I said, one glass isn't going to put you over the limit. If you are guessing, you are wrong. Call a cab. I don't know what you expect the law to do; there has to be a definitive limit somewhere, and no matter where you set it, some Joe somewhere would be whining that he was just a little over according to your theory. So the big guy gets more leeway on hitting that limit. Oh well. |
The law deals with situations like this all the time without mandatory limits/punishments. We have a whole section of the law - tort law - who's basic standard is what a "reasonable man" would do. The way I see it, we either create better lines based upon empiricism, or we go back to the old "tell it to the judge/jury." Neither system would be perfect but both would be preferable to the current system.
|
|
I have "heard", and there is something "supposedly" even in print..... ....There is evidently a Fairfax County Judge that is throwing out all DWI cases coming before him! Any corroboration here? Is this not, if anything else, a shining example of "legislating from the bench" ?!?! Liberal "bastage"! |
So how do you propose that your plan would work for DWI. Its already pretty simple; you have more than one or two drinks in a night, hand the keys over. I don't see how you can get much simpler than that. Its the ones who aren't bright enough to figure that out who complain how unfair the current BAC limits are. |
Quite simple, you do either one of two things. (1) Set BAC limits higher. If you let the scientists set the BAC limits, I suspect that they would go higher to .1 or maybe even .15. When they were first set by the scientists, they were at .15. At that level, you are clearly drunk and incapable of driving and it should be pretty obvious that this is the case; or (2) Go back to the old system of testimony without relying on BAC. Thus, when the cop sees a suspicious car, he notes what he sees (or ideally, starts the dash cam) and tells the jury a whole array of physical signs of intoxication such as erratic driving, failure to stay in the lane, violation of traffic laws, slurred speach, an inability to balance, etc.... and tells the jury. Its pretty obvious to tell when someone is really intoxicated. Neither system would be without doubt, but would be more equitable than the current system. |
|
well I am going to get flamed heavily for this of course... but i know some people who can drive perfectly fine, well over the legal limit.... one guy ( a truck driver) can drive a 18speed dumptruck just fine well past 2 or 3 beers... so id trust him jsut fine in a standard 5 speed... |
Trouble is, you are setting the bar too high if you raise the impairment level to .15 As for point number two, you DO realize that all of that ALREADY is part of the testimony offered, right? After all, the officer is going to have to describe why they stopped the vehicle and what they observed during the stop. You make it sound like the only testimony offered is " I stopped the car, they blew .19 on the Datamaster. End of story" |
I don't know what the proper level is, which is why I want it set based upon empirical data. It may be .15, but I would guess it would be lower, between .1 and .15.
Usually yes. However, the way the law is written now you can be convicted in most states based solely upon BAC. The DA can simply say "I submit exhibit A, which indicates that suspect tc556guy blew a .08. I rest my case" and get a conviction. Now, unless he is a complete goober he is almost certain to present more evidence to ensure a conviction. But the fact remains that BAC alone can sink you. My problem is that BAC is so hard to understand for the average citizen because it is so dependent on numerous variables. Its reasonable to expect that someone who shows physical signs of impairment should know not to get into the car. If you aren't able to set a BAC at a level where everyone "knows" when they shouldn't get in the car, then do away with it entirely and go back to physical signs of impairment which are readily observable. A basic principle of a just law is that the citizen must be able to tell when they are about to committ a serious crime. |
|
What I don't understand, is if a person is a sex offender and can't be trusted to live in a neighborhood with children or women or anyone around that they might rape/molest/etc. then why the hell are they not in jail? Why do we even need to worry about passing laws making it illegal for a sex offender to live in the city? They should be in prison to begin with, otherwise they should be as free as anyone else. I'm not trying to defend sex offenders in the least. Most of them should be locked away. There are a few however, who were just a typical teenage boy who had sex with a consenting 17yo girl and are now marked for life. They shouldn't be locked away for life, and they shouldn't have stupid laws passed that bar them from living where they want. |