Think drunk driving is a victimless crime?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
2,766
Likes
1,154
Location
South Central MA
What we're really talking about is impaired driving and reckless driving. Take alcohol out of the equation and we have a few things that we can base on facts:

- At a given speed, accounting for variables such as road conditions, vehicle type/weight, etc, it takes a certain distance to stop.
- A "normal" reaction time is related to road design and the speed limit (although most of our interstates are really designed to be safe at much higher speeds).
- Everybody should be within a measure of that reaction time *at all times* while driving. Old people, this means you. Drunk people, this means you. If you can't react in time you should lose your right to drive.
- Aside from that, there are other indicators of reckless driving that may not have direct victims. Wrong way driving, swerving lanes or inability to stay in a lane, blowing through red lights, etc.

There are a ton of problems with the current implementation of the laws. They screw over some people who have done the equivalent of a rolling-stop at a stop sign, and they let off the jackass with 13 convictions. There's one judge I think in Plymouth county that lets off 95% of people - so these things aren't being uniformly enforced. No, I do not support checkpoints.
 

flintoid

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
5,496
Likes
2,440
Location
your tight sphincter
Making it a felony may not be the answer... my objective is to keep hazards off the road, not neccessarily ruin peoples lives. Our legal system should be set up to keep us safe and protect civil liberties. Not punish people just to punish them (as is usually the case).

It is a slippery slope undoubtedly (and I am arguing ONLY my beliefs wrt to OUI in this thread, not all legal policy)... but then thats how we got here in the first place... the law of the land from day 1 has been ballooning... you could consider the commerce clause (and some flat out wrong scotus decisions) to be the tipping point. Granted a lot of these laws are passed at the state level anyway...

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
This is refreshing to read at least. I am glad that you value people's rights in such a way.

The question with the current law then is how to improve it (so it doesn't ruin people's shit). And then you must ask- will it still be as effective for preventing crime while being so that it doesn't take away the rights of people? This question isn't simply answered, in my opinion.

And this, naturally, leads me to this question- would you rather have a law enforced that is inherently "flawed" in this manner, or would you rather have no law (of this nature) at all?
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,790
Likes
2,972
Location
Green Eggs and...
This is refreshing to read at least. I am glad that you value people's rights in such a way.

The question with the current law then is how to improve it (so it doesn't ruin people's shit). And then you must ask- will it still be as effective for preventing crime while being so that it doesn't take away the rights of people? This question isn't simply answered, in my opinion.

And this, naturally, leads me to this question- would you rather have a law enforced that is inherently "flawed" in this manner, or would you rather have no law (of this nature) at all?
Id rather see the law fixed. Period. To include both determination of guilt, punishment, etc.

On that note... off to bed. Its been fun.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 

rkwjunior

NES Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
2,655
Likes
346
A good friend of mine was killed by a DD this past new year's eve, why didn't the laws protect him?
This is elementary. Because either they gave the DD a slap on the wrist if he was a repeat offender, or he wasn't "afraid" to drink and drive. You need to scare people. If someone intentionally, or knowingly puts others in danger and causes someones death, they should die too, or at the very least be put away for life. "Scare tactics".
What happens when your kid does something bad and you let them get away with it (slap on the wrist)??? They keep doing it until you do something (more severe penalty) about it, and when you finally do, they stop.

If there weren't DD laws, DD deaths and accidents would naturally be worse. They don't make laws to "cure" a problem, they are deterrents. I guarantee many of us chose not to break a law or two at one point in their lives knowing the possible consequences. And no, it doesn't work on everybody, some people are a lost cause, therefore they should be taken care of "appropriately." Now before you attack me about how laws work, keep reading.

Now, "gun" control is a joke and does NOT work, It should be called "criminal" control. if they actually put criminals away or actually gave them what they "deserve" (sometimes death), there would be less criminals on the street WITH guns, and less, what politicians call, "Gun crime". It's not the gun, or the booze, its the people. People need to be scared into being civil and criminals are given to many rights.

It's all a very easy problem to solve, whats fair is fair, you kill someone, you die to, why should you continue to live??? But now a days that would be cruel and Politically incorrect. If they put severe DD offenders or murderers etc.etc to do death at the drop of a hat, people would be petrified to steel a candy bar. How many people would keep texting while driving if they made it a death penalty for killing someone while texting and driving?? I could careless about a hundred dollar fine if i get caught texting while driving, but knowing the consequences if i kill someone, i would never pick up the phone. These suggestions may sound crazy and ridiculous but these criminals or selfish drunk drivers need to be "scared", everything else is a slap on the wrist, until then, there will be constant repeat offenders of gun crimes and DD deaths.
 
Last edited:

Super99Z

NES Member
Rating - 50%
1   1   0
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
4,169
Likes
3,055
Location
South Shore
Im not an expert on this tipic and as I mentioned the standard by which intoxication is measured may need to be looked at.

Human intoxication WITH OUI laws is responsible for approximately 10k of 40k traffic fatalities a year... from the CDC. Also, having been drunk, I know that I would be a hazard on the road if driving. As a biology student, I understand how alcohol effects human physiology.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
So is the CDC saying I am 3 times more likely to kill someone when I am driving sober?

This is elementary. Because either they gave the DD a slap on the wrist if he was a repeat offender, or he wasn't "afraid" to drink and drive. You need to scare people. If someone intentionally, or knowingly puts others in danger and causes someones death, they should die too, or at the very least be put away for life. "Scare tactics".
What happens when your kid does something bad and you let them get away with it (slap on the wrist)??? They keep doing it until you do something (more severe penalty) about it, and when you finally do, they stop.

If there weren't DD laws, DD deaths and accidents would naturally be worse.
It was a she that killed him and she is a white collar executive at a big corporation. So far I haven't seen a single idea in here that would have saved him. The funny thing about these threads is the proDD laws group don't realize we are already in your world with these laws that save people, yet here we are, still having families in pain after losing loved ones. The laws didn't save him and they don't make me feel safe. So now what?
 

fencer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
11,110
Likes
7,075
Location
Southeastern Mass
If you guys agree that it's a problem, how would you solve the problem?
Auto pilot. It is closer than you think.

" Ding, ding.... impaired operator detected- auto drive engaged, please state your destination"

" Ding, ding - auto drive could not find the location of thatbitchwhobrokemyfart" "Please state an alternate destination"
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
13,560
Likes
2,333
Location
Land of The Sheep - Home of The Grave
Hey I know, let's all press for a new law: Universal Safe Driving Standard Law. Let's make it so any activity deemed reckless by law enforcement result in a one year loss of license for your first offense. Drift over the center line while plugging in your iPod? Busted. Swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting a dog? Busted. Roll through a stop sign? Busted. Work a long day, driving fatigued and hit the rumble strips? Busted. Blast through that yellow light right as it turns red? Busted. Let's start arresting, fining and jailing everyone who drives 'recklessly' - because after all, they 'might' have hurt someone... Makes perfect sense right? Right? There there now - don't we all feel safer with a law? [thinking]
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,250
Likes
164
Location
Berkley, MA
It's absolutely a problem, just not one that laws can stop. A big part of the problem with this country is the idea that because a problem exists the only solution is to get government involved.
QFT

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to xtry51 again.
 

PATRON

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 99%
94   1   1
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
4,635
Likes
1,677
As a driving instructor,and a person that was hit twice by a drunk driver once with my kids in the car.I think drunk drivers should be shot,but then again I have no use for drunks.The only way to stop this is to give anyone who is found driving OUI 5 years in jail,and I am talking first timers.You will see how fast AA classes get filled.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
5,452
Likes
1,686
He had 13 and was still driving, because people who think that drunk driving laws are bullshit sat on the jury. He obviously had enough money to hire the lawyer that knows how to pick them.
Yes, surely jurors are the problem here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
8,675
Likes
963
Location
New Bedford
I have no issue with punishing people for drunk driving, even if you dont kill someone this time, the next time you do it, you may. However i dont think there should be a set limit, as people have said, different levels affect different people.
I also dont think a DUI should affect any other legal status of that person. How does driving drunk show you arent a good gun owner? IMO the 2 are completely separate and one should not depend on the other. Afterall does a gun charge negate your drivers license? NO so why should a driving charge negate your Gun Rights.
 

ColdDayInHell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
23,459
Likes
4,710
Location
North Shore
It was a she that killed him and she is a white collar executive at a big corporation. So far I haven't seen a single idea in here that would have saved him. The funny thing about these threads is the proDD laws group don't realize we are already in your world with these laws that save people, yet here we are, still having families in pain after losing loved ones. The laws didn't save him and they don't make me feel safe. So now what?
He's a troll. Constantly spewing shit that makes absolutely no sense. Yes! More laws! It will solve everything and cushion my ignorant ass in bed every night. [rolleyes]

On that note... off to bed. Its been fun.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2


Your best post yet.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
13,560
Likes
2,333
Location
Land of The Sheep - Home of The Grave
He had 13 and was still driving, because people who think that drunk driving laws are bullshit sat on the jury. He obviously had enough money to hire the lawyer that knows how to pick them.
No - he had 13 DUI's because he was a drunk. For hitting me, he received 2 years in jail - got out in 18 months for attending the Howard Street program. Three days after release, he hit a phone pole in Great Barrington - number 14. He did not hit me, or the pole because of lax drunk driving laws - he hit the pole, (and later a dirt nap), because he was a drunk... All the laws in the world didn't change a thing. Like I said - let's pull your license for tailgating, or drifting over the center line while playing thigh glide with Mary Jane Rotten Crotch. You might hurt someone...
 

falcon123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
5,883
Likes
1,619
Location
Central Mass
It's absolutely a problem, just not one that laws can stop. A big part of the problem with this country is the idea that because a problem exists the only solution is to get government involved.

Laws are not there to prevent anything. They're there to punish after the fact.
 

falcon123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
5,883
Likes
1,619
Location
Central Mass
Running into things when you're drunk is a problem. I guarantee that a lot of people are dangerous well before they're at the legal limit, and conversely, I am one of those people who can function very well at .10 bac, this is a fact, proven scientifically. Why should I lose my license if I get pulled over for a tail light out and the cop smells alcohol, breathalyzes me, and I blow a .10? Meanwhile, the sober guy, texting away, runs into a minivan, and injures several people, and he has no license ramifications.


Sent from my phone....which isn't really a phone anymore, it's a computer on my pocket

How about all the old timer that shouldn't be driving? They're just as bad as drunk drivers but no one wants to mess with them because they vote.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
8,718
Likes
5,509
Location
Berkshires
Cause getting ****ed in the courts is much better.

And again, I treat driving on the road intoxicated as endangering the lives of others significantly. Which I believe should be a criminal act. Person X is willfully engaged in a behavior that unneccesarily endangers the lives of others. I am of the belief that it is within the scope of law enforcement to effect that.

We seem to disagree on whether or not that constitutes a crime. I believe it does. I understand that you do not and I see where you are coming from, but I simply do noy agree.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
DUI is not necessarily intoxicated. The .08 BAC limit was higher in the past. NY wants to lower the BAC limit to .05 making it impossible for some people to stop for one or two beers on the way home without being criminals.

DUI laws are a huge moneymaker for law enforcement and lawyers and the BAC is so low that the po po set up roadblocks to catch .08 drivers since many of those drivers would not show signs of erratic driving if they were followed in a car by the police.

And now NY wants to catch .05 drivers.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,136
Likes
8,252
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
I dont consider getting behind the wheel of a car intoxicated as innocence. I believe it is acting in wreckless disregard for human life, though not often maliciously. In my mind, it is the same as some yahoo randomly firing a gun into a populated area. Unfortunately it is not as obviously stupid, so many people do it. For some, the presence of a law is what stops them. Not because they are bad people, but because they are in denial of or ignorant of the risk which they pose to other people when driving under the influence.

As far as my opinion on trial and conviction, I take a liberty minded (vs utilitarian) approach and of course would rather see 10 guilty walk free than 1 innocent go to jail.

I felt it neccessary to point out that I have worked pretty hard at trying to improve civil liberties to the best of my abilities with my free time as a counter to you wishing I end up in jail/dead/ whatever for not being in lock step with your political views in a private conversation on a forum. Thats pretty ****in sad.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
My response to this position is you're arbitrarily choosing drinking as a "bad thing" that cause crashes, completely ignoring the fact that you are far more likely to be killed by a sober person doing nothing other than driving. So my question is why do you think there should be a law against OUI claiming it as some great danger to you, yet you support driving with sober people who have a much higher instance of both crashing and killing people?
 

falcon123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
5,883
Likes
1,619
Location
Central Mass
I'll give my NES classified as "statist" opinion as I always do in the DD threads. First, I think the manner by which they determine drunk or not drunk is incorrect.

Next, I fully support and believe in the enforcement of laws against the very act of being behind the wheel of a motor vehicle in an intoxicated state (of which we should come up with a less arbitrary standard of measure). I think one should lose their license for X amount of time for the first offense, and for good on the second offense. I think that driving on a license revoked from drunk driving in a case other than an emergency should be jail time.

These are just my thoughts, I do think the deterrent effect works for SOME. At 24 years old, having been drunk away from home a fair share of times, I can confidently say I have NEVER driven drunk. I don't see why it's so ****ing hard for other people not to do. I know plenty of people who no longer drive now as there licenses are suspended from driving... DRUNK, and hitting shit. So it works, these guys are off the road for 6 months to 2 years, and they are lucky all they hit were trees and parked cars. The other two guys I know who wrecked their cars drunk and were "let off" by the cops, both still drive drunk.

Anecdotal, I know... But I believe the laws work to SOME appreciable degree.

For those of you who are about to call me a statist and think you will do a good job explaining why... save your fingers. I've heard it, and I don't buy it. Agree to disagree.

Mike

This. The punishment for getting into an accident while drunk should be severe enough to make you think about it. Also as explained above, the method of determining what dd is should be revised. One size does not fit all. Technically, many of us have driven while drunk as described in the law even though we weren't actually drunk.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,136
Likes
8,252
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Laws are not there to prevent anything. They're there to punish after the fact.
Yes, but their purpose is supposed to be to punish you for infringing upon the freedom of others. Not just arbitrarily. I equate OUI/DUI laws with AWBs. Both do nothing to stop the majority of injuries and punish people for doing no harm to others. Both sets of laws apply to a minority set of cases that *MIGHT* lead to crime.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,136
Likes
8,252
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
This. The punishment for getting into an accident while drunk should be severe enough to make you think about it. Also as explained above, the method of determining what dd is should be revised. One size does not fit all. Technically, many of us have driven while drunk as described in the law even though we weren't actually drunk.
We already have those laws. They're called manslaughter, assault and destruction of property.

The problem is not a lack of harsh laws to punish people with, there's plants of those without OUI/DUI.
 

falcon123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
5,883
Likes
1,619
Location
Central Mass
People exist, money exists and there are laws against stealing it. The law stops most people from stealing it. Not all, but most.


It was a response to there's no way to do it. I propose a draconian law that might work and asked you why you think there are absolutely no way that there could ever be a way to stop it.

What's so confusing?

Let's imagine a little future fantasy: If there was a little pill that transformed alcohol into water and you could take that pill and it would make you instantly sober and was 100% safe, would you support a law that said if you've been drinking you must take that little pill before you drive?

No but I have no problem with the bar offering it to you before you leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom