DUI: Still a huge problem

[Dattebayo]

Well I'm glad that you believe that having a drink and getting in a car no matter how many you've had is the same as killing a human or at least planning their death. Because it clearly is the same thing.

There's middle ground on every other type of drug except this one, why are we splitting the way we do things anyway?

[Oatmealman]

i also have never had a drink and driven.I will never either unless someone else is driving and if they're driving they can't drink.

[alms24sebring]

IDK why people still do it. I still know a few people that do it. Whether its only 1 drink or 12, people I know still get into cars and drive.

Totally not cool. That ish kills people.

[nissangirl74]

Act like most of you haven't had two beers and gotten in the car after dinner before...

It's the same thing, are you prepared to lose your license forever or go to jail just because you forgot you had two beers?

If, after having only two beers, you forgot you had two beers, then you are too drunk to drive.

[Razi]

[Dattebayo]

Totally not cool. That ish kills people.

That's just the thing, now isn't it? It kills, but it kills with such inaccuracy and popular infrequency that it can hardly be considered anything like a gun, yet we treat it as such and often fully bring down the law on anyone who is caught doing it.

Hey, I fully agree that said person who is waaay to drunk to drive and the cops get him with a .15, etc, gets what he gets. But there is such a gray area that seems to be ignored around here that it makes me wonder if logic is even a factor in law anymore. Make sure to bring the pitch forks and the torches to the next court hearing on that guy who had his lunch a little wet and decided to drive home.

[Jesda]

Hey, I fully agree that said person who is waaay to drunk to drive and the cops get him with a .15, etc, gets what he gets. But there is such a gray area that seems to be ignored around here that it makes me wonder if logic is even a factor in law anymore. Make sure to bring the pitch forks and the torches to the next court hearing on that guy who had his lunch a little wet and decided to drive home.

And this is why I disfavor legislative control of sentencing. Situations are different and offenders are different.

[Bubba1]

And this is why I disfavor legislative control of sentencing. Situations are different and offenders are different.

Since situations and offenders differ, why not simply take those variations out of the equation and reduce the legal limit of blood-alcohol content to .0001?

[Jesda]

And this is why I disfavor legislative control of sentencing. Situations are different and offenders are different.

Since situations and offenders differ, why not simply take those variations out of the equation and reduce the legal limit of blood-alcohol content to .0001?

Because the point is to use reasonable and flexible sentencing guidelines.

MADD makes noise.
Idiot in the state assembly says "MINIMUM 5 YEARS IN JAIL FOR .08. LOOK AT ME I AM A PROTECTOR OF SOCIETY"
Judge is like "sorry bro, you're getting buttraped for 5 years because of three glasses of merlot"

Those guidelines get tighter and tighter as jails become more full of non-violent offenders. It takes away a judge's ability to consider if someone is a repeat offender, a drag on society, etc. It burdens police-level law enforcement as well.



I guess if you put everyone in jail, you might solve the crime problem, unless you count prison crime.

[Bubba1]

Because the point is to use reasonable and flexible sentencing guidelines.

MADD makes noise.
Idiot in the state assembly says "MINIMUM 5 YEARS IN JAIL FOR .08. LOOK AT ME I AM A PROTECTOR OF SOCIETY"
Judge is like "sorry bro, you're getting buttraped for 5 years because of three glasses of merlot"

Those guidelines get tighter and tighter as jails become more full of non-violent offenders. It takes away a judge's ability to consider if someone is a repeat offender, a drag on society, etc. It burdens police-level law enforcement as well.



I guess if you put everyone in jail, you might solve the crime problem, unless you count prison crime.

I think we're talking two slightly different issues. You're focusing on the punishment side, I' was suggesting greatly simplifying the standards for being cited for DUI, which is unique for everyone. As far as punishment, I agree, incarceration is not the answer and has not been much of a deterrant . But nailing drunk drivers hard in the wallet by drastically increasing the fines/surcharges for DUI has reduced the numbers in recent years. Perhaps the financial penalties don't go far enough. Perhaps vehicle forfeiture might be a better next step plus revocation of other rights would reduce the numbers even more.

Regarding M.A.D.D., I have no issue with them, and don't understand the hate toward them. The mother of one of my close friends in high school founded the local chapter in my home town, after her oldest son, (my friend's brother) was killed by a drunk driver. There may be a few overbearing zealots in their ranks but their message is a still good one.

[Encryptshun]

You don't get a DUI because you drank two beers or three glasses of merlot. You get a DUI because you have enough alcohol in your blood stream to render you incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely. So either figure out a way of preventing it from happening in the first place (which puts us on the slippery slope of violation of individual choice and freedoms), or put consequences in place that are scary enough to make people not want to do it. The problem with the latter is you have to make good on the threat or people won't be scared anymore.

There will always be people who are incapable of excercising adequate judgement and, in so doing, put the lives of others at stake. Those people, if they cannot be rehabilitated, should be put where their actions cannot then impinge on the rights of the rest.

I'm also against jail-time for a great many types of non-violent offenses. But the only thing that makes driving drunk a non-violent offense is luck.

[Jesda]

There may be a few overbearing zealots in their ranks but their message is a still good one.

It isn't their "ranks" its their whole agenda.

They've attempted to censor video games.
They want to continue raising the drinking age.
They favor higher taxes on alcohol (wtf?)

In other words, they want to control society in a far more extensive, more dangerous way than "increasing awareness" of drunk driving hazards.


They're bunch of stupid cows and I'd like to tip every one of them over.

[Jesda]

You don't get a DUI because you drank two beers or three glasses of merlot.

That's simply not true. Look at the thousands of arrests involving 2-3 drinks with food. And by drinks I dont mean three shots of patron. I mean light beers. Thousands of innocent people are tangled up in the legal system, their careers devastated, thousands of dollars wasted, while courts become backlogged with s***.

[Encryptshun]

Show me where those people were arrested for DUI and did not meet the minimum blood alcohol content level for getting a DUI and I'll, in those cases, fully support the innocence of these people. But I'll argue with anyone who uses the fallibility of our legal system as evidence for why we shouldn't punish people for breaking the law.

[PalmerWMD]

DUI prosecutions are a huge moneymaker for lawyers, for states, for tow operators, and for municipalities. Make of that what you will.

I agree with Jesda.
In a country of nearly a third of a billion people where nearly all adults drive many miles each year 11k death a year due to DUI does not an epidemic make.

Our society is so safe that we are going after "threats" on the margins and get emotionalized about them:
- drunk drivers
- Child abductions
- child molestesting priests
- food scares
- school shootings

etc etc.


Part of the problem is the human brain is not really set up to evalaute risk in a modern society.
Since we are designed for small gorup hunter gatherer society of up to 100 individuals our brains consider anything they see (TV footage) or hear about form a trusted person (in a modern society the newsanchor or talk show host can fill that role) a real statistically relevant threat.

Why ?

because if they could see it or hear about it in a 100 indivdual group it IS a real threat they need to prepare against..
If you hear from your cousin a wild animal ran off with her child, it IS a survival trait to be sacred about it...

But our brains simply arent ready to discount those inputs even though in a modern society (TV etc) they really do not represent a signifant risk.

[Jesda]

Show me where those people were arrested for DUI and did not meet the minimum blood alcohol content level for getting a DUI and I'll, in those cases, fully support the innocence of these people. But I'll argue with anyone who uses the fallibility of our legal system as evidence for why we shouldn't punish people for breaking the law.

I didn't advocate an absence of punishment. I'm talking about draconian laws and sentencing standards implemented by legislatures in response to political correctness and misguided public paranoia.

There's a difference between setting people straight for their errors and ruining them. You cannot apply the same or similar standards to first-time offenders who have had a few too many as you would with sloppy drunks who plow into lawns and run over children.

See this funnel:

Extremist groups want the person who blows .081 to go straight to the bottom. Differentiation and common sense be damned.

Fortunately, in most cases, suitable compromises are achieved and no one has to step foot in a court room. This is less likely to be the case as lawmakers intervene.

[Encryptshun]

And my point is that whether the person is a first-time offender or is a habitual recidivant, that minivan full of kids going home from a soccer game gets just as dead no matter who plows into their vehicle at 60mph.

Fear of the punishment needs to be a deterrant. We can do a better job of marketing it, and we should, but if people believe "Oh well, I've never been caught, so as a first-time offender they'll go easy on me" it's less likely to say them toward NOT engaging in the behavior as it otherwise might.

[Jesda]

And my point is that whether the person is a first-time offender or is a habitual recidivant, that minivan full of kids going home from a soccer game gets just as dead no matter who plows into their vehicle at 60mph.

Fear of the punishment needs to be a deterrant. We can do a better job of marketing it, and we should, but if people believe "Oh well, I've never been caught, so as a first-time offender they'll go easy on me" it's less likely to say them toward NOT engaging in the behavior as it otherwise might.

Someone who is pulled over for .09 is NOT necessarily going to kill anyone, and if they're pulled over and blow over the limit, they should be handled DIFFERENTLY than a repeat offender who plows into a playground after a fifth of vodka. Because I anticipate a counter argument: no, not everyone is pulled over because of erratic driving. A burned out tail light or missing front plate is an excuse to initially pull someone over and examine them more closely, especially on Friday or Saturday nights.

Likewise, threatening someone or brandishing a weapon at them is NOT the same as killing them! That's why the punishments are handled differently.

This is the irrationality of the public that I'm referring to. There are shades of gray that the legal system is designed to handle. Lawmakers and the frightened public want to turn it into an on/off switch and destroy the protections intended to keep [otherwise] decent or reformable people out of jail. Then, when the prisons are full, people have the gall to get upset when offenders are paroled or released early.


Deterrence (control of behavior through legal threats) is not a valid argument. You may further deter an already law-abiding citizen from breaking the law (which means the impact on crime statistics will be minimal), but someone who isn't concerned about consequences or legal ramifications is still likely to break the law. Your contention is that someone who is inclined to break the law and endanger the public will suddenly lose their propensity for criminal behavior. That doesn't happen. That simply is not logical.

Like gun control, laws don't have the widespread ability to do anything to prevent law breakers from breaking them! Its the nature of criminal behavior.

The legal system is more effective at applying justice in a retributive form after the fact than it is at controlling society to produce specific behavioral outcomes.

It is illegal to:
Murder
Rape
Download kiddie p0rn
Smoke crack
Falsify accounting records
Cook meth
Abuse children


Yet, somehow, it all happens anyway. Why? Because the law is able to catch those in the act, but it can't control the thoughts and actions of irresponsible people. Irresponsible people are inherently inclined to disregard the law.




FYI, Kelly Clarkson's new album is out today.

[Oatmealman]

death,anyone who gets a dui gets the chair.rids the problem of over crowdedjails,and weeds out the gene pool of the morons that are ok with drinking and getting behind the wheel.Im joking but god i wish it was possible.

[Jesda]

death,anyone who gets a dui gets the chair.rids the problem of over crowdedjails,and weeds out the gene pool of the morons that are ok with drinking and getting behind the wheel.Im joking but god i wish it was possible.

Cool.

Kelly Clarkson has a new album out.

[szh]

death,anyone who gets a dui gets the chair.rids the problem of over crowdedjails,and weeds out the gene pool of the morons that are ok with drinking and getting behind the wheel.Im joking but god i wish it was possible.

There is a famous Larry Niven short story (sci-fi ... so in the future, of course) where a young person is on trial and the penalty for his third offense is death if found guilty.

Why? Society wants his organs. Since not enough organs are available, penalties for even the most minor of infractions is death so the organs can be harvested.

What was his offense? Speeding.

I absolutely don't condone DUI in the slightest. So, I still want penalties to apply when a DUI driver is found guilty - particularly after a second or third offence - and they must be appropriate penalties to prevent/eliminate further violations.

But, frankly, I don't know what the right penalty is for DUI for first, second and third (or more) offenses - to prevent recurrences. We hear the cases where a DUI driver kills other people, and we want to react to that with extreme force. This is natural. The eye for an eye moral values in action.

But what is the actual rate at which this problem occurs? I don't know this factoid ... maybe I would be angrier if deaths (of others) due to DUI driers were a more commonplace event.

For the moment, regardless of the fact that I don't drink - let alone drive and drive - and would not ever be receive a DUI for that excellent reason, I can't up get the outrage to demand penalties that might be more appropriate for rape and murder and child sex abuse criminals. But, maybe I am wrong about that ...

Z

[C-Kwik]

First offense: lost license. Forever.

Ultimately, the only purpose that will serve is to overload our court systems with DUI cases in which defendants are pleading not guilty. It might indeed deter some people, but the reality is that people drink and drive. And most are just a bad decision from people who are otherwise harmless to society. Most don't end up back in court for a DUI. That said, if you back them into a corner with something as significant as taking away their license and I can guarantee you more of our tax money will have to be spent trying to prosecute these people. Moreover, lower income folk will likely use the public defenders. Guess who foots the bill for that? Is it worth our tax dollars to have to go through this to invoke a relatively harsh penalty on a bunch of people that probably won't ever be in court for a DUI again? My state uses progressively harsher penalties for repeat offenders. I suspect most, if not all, other states do likewise. It makes sense to handle it this way. And most states ended up doing so because it does...

[C-Kwik]

For the moment, regardless of the fact that I don't drink - let alone drive and drive

Haha...

[Bubba1]

But what is the actual rate at which this problem occurs? I don't know this factoid ... maybe I would be angrier if deaths (of others) due to DUI driers were a more commonplace event.

For the moment, regardless of the fact that I don't drink - let alone drive and drive - and would not ever be receive a DUI for that excellent reason, I can't up get the outrage to demand penalties that might be more appropriate for rape and murder and child sex abuse criminals. But, maybe I am wrong about that ...

Z

Z, it's more commonplace than you think. Here are a few quick US stats for you:

-In 2009, 10,839 people died in drunk driving crashes, that's one every 50 minutes.

-one in three people will be involved in an alcohol related crash in their lifetime.

-every minute of every day, at least one person is injured or killed as a result of an alcohol related crash.

- 50-75% convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.

- Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teens, and 1 out of 3 of those crashes is alcohol related. that's more deaths than all teen illicit drug deaths....combined.

Many states have enacted tougher drunk driving laws this past year, primarily with big fines/surcharges. I understand 2011 has trended better but the numbers are still big.

[idahotuner]

I got a dui last dec, and i learned from my mistake, after the time and money and stress it cost me. but i was like you guys always refusing to drive and being the guy at the party taking peoples keys away. But one night i was drinking with my budys in a town an hr away, their gfs came home and kicked us out because it was their birthday and the chicks were bishez, we werent even drinking any more getting ready to pass out for the night.

so we went out and sat in my truck for a good 45 mins, but it was below freezing and no sleeping bags and didnt want to sit there all night with the truck running, i called every one in my contacts list to come pick me up to see if i could stay with them, but nothing so finally i was like f*** it man, we cant sit here all night, thats where i went wrong.

ended up basically just pulling out of the parking lot and onto the street before we got pulled over. one in the morning and a friday night go figure huh.

for me if had been drinking hard a it would have been easy no driving probably cause i would have been completely passed out before the girls got there, but i had just been drinking a beer here and a beer there all day long, it will sneak up on you. now if i have more then 2 drinks its a no go at all, and really only would drive on two drinks if they were with dinner. so i wouldnt go out and pound two AMF's on an empty stomach and drive.

but ended up selling parts off my car as self punishment to pay for fines and a lawyer. and idaho is an even easier state to deal with vs washington. so i dont think lawsare to soft or to harsh i think they are just about right, enough to teach you a lesson, nothing hurts worse then a bite in the wallet.

[szh]

For the moment, regardless of the fact that I don't drink - let alone drive and drive

Haha...

Oops.

Z

[szh]

But what is the actual rate at which this problem occurs? I don't know this factoid ... maybe I would be angrier if deaths (of others) due to DUI driers were a more commonplace event.

For the moment, regardless of the fact that I don't drink - let alone drive and drive - and would not ever be receive a DUI for that excellent reason, I can't up get the outrage to demand penalties that might be more appropriate for rape and murder and child sex abuse criminals. But, maybe I am wrong about that ...

Z

Z, it's more commonplace than you think. Here are a few quick US stats for you:

-In 2009, 10,839 people died in drunk driving crashes, that's one every 50 minutes.

-one in three people will be involved in an alcohol related crash in their lifetime.

-every minute of every day, at least one person is injured or killed as a result of an alcohol related crash.

- 50-75% convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.

- Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teens, and 1 out of 3 of those crashes is alcohol related. that's more deaths than all teen illicit drug deaths....combined.

Many states have enacted tougher drunk driving laws this past year, primarily with big fines/surcharges. I understand 2011 has trended better but the numbers are still big.

Interesting info. Thanks!

Also, remember that I used the phrase "of others" too. So ... how many of those 10,839 people were "killed themselves only" situations? If all/most, I might say "good example of natural selection".

However, if the percentages of non-drunk people being killed are high, then this might be way more concerning for sure - and justify enacting even stricter laws. Particular ones that are properly enforceable - from your factoids above, it appears that most drunk drivers will "repeat offense" in a heartbeat.

Z

[audtatious]

I will gladly surf drunk but will NOT get behind the wheel of a real car

[PalmerWMD]

First offense: lost license. Forever.

.....
Over the last 20-30 years, the trend in criminal justice has been to take power away from judges and juries, those who have the ability to evaluate cases and situations and apply appropriate punishments. Legislators have intervened by standardizing and mandating minimum sentences. The result is a massive (and expensive!) US prison population filled with non-violent offenders. Its a real problem that comes as a result of draconian sentencing policies created as a result of 'soccer mom' paranoia.

.
.

Jesda took the words right out of my mouth.