DUI: Still a huge problem

[nissangirl74]

This article is a short read but it does make you ponder the problem of people driving under the influence and why so many people still do it, despite the well known consequences (including death). 11,000 people died last year of DUI related injuries. In 1980, 25,000 people died from DUI related injuries. Do these numbers surprise you? Why or why not? Why do you think there is still an abundance of people who DUI? What do you think would be an effective deterrent?

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/10 ... ly-for-men

[frapjap]

Why do you think there is still an abundance of people who DUI? What do you think would be an effective deterrent?

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/10 ... ly-for-men

Castration.

I kid, I kid. I don't believe there is any trouble with the law. It has solid punishments, most folks just won't feel the sting of it or the consequences until it happens to them. I had a friend declare bankruptcy because of a DUI. No car, no ride turned into no job, turned into eviction, impacted his credit. He's just now getting it back together 6 years later.

Not saying that I haven't done it before, but now that there is so much more to lose, a cab or hotel is cheaper than a dui.

[BusyBadger]

Bex, you're almost psychic...I heard about this on the radio one morning and was going to post it.

Thought you might want to know about what you left behind.

[sbird1]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPl7MHThE0k[/youtube]

[DJ_B_Easy]

What do you think would be an effective deterrent?

Mandatory jail time for first time offenders, and obviously every offense after that. I have a "friend" that has had THREE in the past 2.5 years or so. Most recent occurence was about 2 months ago...while his license was still suspended from the previous offense. I dont know how he is doing it, but he hasnt been locked up yet. I assume he is buying his way out, his family is somewhat wealthy. I think a few months in the can would straighten him right out, but since he apparently will never see that he just keeps doing it.

[Jesda]

[Jesda]

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

[Oatmealman]

definatley agree with mandatory jail the first time.My girlfriends brother was killed by a drunk driver and the ***hole that killed him only got 6 months in jail(3 if on goodbehavior),and 6 months on probation

[Bubba1]

Is the rumor true that Kelly Clarkson's bumper sticker reads "Warning, I brake for all-you-can-eat buffets"?

[Jesda]

Is the rumor true that Kelly Clarkson's bumper sticker reads "Warning, I brake for all-you-can-eat buffets"?

On a ramp upon seeing a Waffle House billboard:

[Jesda]

Society's approach to the problem has had mixed results. Like any widespread government effort at shaping society, it comes with unintended consequences. Innocent people are incarcerated and their lives are unnecessarily ruined. Shaming has been more effective than extended imprisonment, and far cheaper.

Those who continue to drink and drive dangerously are typically hardcore alcoholics, people whose behaviors are uninfluenced by threats of jail, heavy fines, or public humiliation. Additional consequences eventually produce diminishing results.

[Encryptshun]

Society's approach to the problem has had mixed results. Like any widespread government effort at shaping society, it comes with unintended consequences. Innocent people are incarcerated and their lives are unnecessarily ruined.

Our legal system is fallible, yes. Because it involves people and people are fallible.

Shaming has been more effective than extended imprisonment, and far cheaper.

I wish you'd cite your source here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've got statistics you can provide. Even so, you mean to tell me that "shame" is an effective deterrent? Should we do the same for murder? Theft? Fraud? Maybe I'm not thinking of shame the same way you are.

Those who continue to drink and drive dangerously are typically hardcore alcoholics, people whose behaviors are uninfluenced by threats of jail, heavy fines, or public humiliation. Additional consequences eventually produce diminishing results.

Again, please cite your sources. "Typcially" is a pretty broad word, and at any rate if someone has displayed a continued unwillingness to abide by the laws of a society and shows a willfull disregard for the lives of others, removing them from society is the ONLY way to effectively deal with the situation.

[Dattebayo]

Yep. It's stupid how someone can drink two wine coolers and get a year in jail threatened because they stepped into a car afterward.

That isn't hurting anyone and the punishment isn't going to teach anything, it's just $$$ in the pocket of some lawyer.

[Encryptshun]

I've known plenty of people who are visibly impaired after two wine coolers. They could absolutely hurt someone if they drove, and losing their license and/or spending a night in jail is likely something they would think about the next time they have a similar choice to make.

Why is this even a debate? Zero tolerance.

[AppleBonker]

A lot of people watch auto racing purely to see accidents. There should be something akin to "drunk Nascar". Guaranteed to be accidents. Test BAC before races to determine what "class" the driver should enter. This would have to make money.

[DJ_B_Easy]

A lot of people watch auto racing purely to see accidents. There should be something akin to "drunk Nascar". Guaranteed to be accidents. Test BAC before races to determine what "class" the driver should enter. This would have to make money.

Sounds like something the Jackass crew would do...

[rc1honda]

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

I am kinda on this side of the debate. Driving drunk is terrible and has been the cause of tragedy in many people's lives. But on the same note, how many of here have a had a drink at a wedding, or birthday party or family cookout and drove home?

Granted while not drunk we could still be labeled intoxicated and get a DUI. Increase the fine ok. But mandatory jail time and a felony for person who blew a .09 is kinda ridiculous and nothing more the a revenue generating tool.

I can't work in my field if I have a felony on my record. 2 beers can ruin my entire lively hood without ever really being drunk.

It does some down to choice. I can choose not to have those 2 beers. But, really throwing everyone in jail who blew a little over is to harsh. And it will not stop the really dangerous people who drive every weekend having taken 10 jager bombs and 7 beers. Those people i think are the real threat.

Maybe have the punishments change for limits of intoxication. .08-.1 fine, school and misdemeanor. Anything over .1 jail and felony and larger fine.

[Jesda]

Zero tolerance.

Two words that define all bad policies.

[MinisterofDOOM]

My approach to wrongdoing and crime has always been different than that of society or government in general. In my mind, it's a twofold thing.

1: Ensuring it does not happen again.
2: Ensuring that people feel the consequences are not worth the risk of being caught.

So you do it like this:
First offense: lost license. Forever.
Second offense (which would obviously be driving without a license): Incarceration.
Successive offenses: Successively increased incarceration terms.

Once again: Draco had it right. No leniency. No bartering or variability in sentencing. No lawyer bargains. You lay down the consequences clearly, and you enforce them strictly.
People do it anyway because they feel they won't get caught, or if they do they will weasel their way out of it. Humans EXCEL at pretending it won't really happen to them. But when EVERY SINGLE OFFENDER faces the same strict consequences, you break that mindset. People will be afraid to drive drunk. And that's what you need to do. Make them afraid to do it. Because if their judgement was not already in question, the law wouldn't be needed in the first place. So you need to circumvent their judgement and offer them a clear situation: you drive drunk, you will regret it.

It is not worth the cost. Argue whatever you want about legal falicy and corruption and innocents falsely accused. None of that changes the fact that one dipsh@t making a bad decision can ruin lives. It can't be permitted. It's not like we're denying people liberties or human rights here. We're telling them to stay off the road when they're drunk. It's not rocket surgery. It's not a moral debate. Lives are at risk for something silly. It's not acceptable.

[Jesda]

First offense: lost license. Forever.
Second offense (which would obviously be driving without a license): Incarceration.
Successive offenses: Successively increased incarceration terms.

It is not worth the cost. Argue whatever you want about legal falicy and corruption and innocents falsely accused. None of that changes the fact that one dipsh@t making a bad decision can ruin lives. It can't be permitted. It's not like we're denying people liberties or human rights here. We're telling them to stay off the road when they're drunk. It's not rocket surgery. It's not a moral debate. Lives are at risk for something silly. It's not acceptable.

Life doesn't work that way. The legal system doesn't work that way. The end result of what you propose will NOT happen as evidenced by three decades of such trends in prosecution. You can increase a sentence from 30 days to 60, 60 days to 120, and the result is still the same. Destructive behaviors are seldom influenced by the threat of punishment, as evidenced by capital punishment (another thread, another day).

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.

Community correction methods are favorable, and that's the path routinely taken to correct the actions of drunk drivers. Unfortunately, groups like MADDcow have called for across-the-board imprisonment of ALL DUI offenders, not just first-timers or innocent people who may have had one too many glasses of wine. They are, unfortunately, too dim to think in shades of gray and distinguish different types of offenders, so they've successfully lobbied politically-sensitive pandering lawmakers [who want to show the electorate that they "care"] to intervene.

War on drugs.
War on drunk driving.
War on terror.
Whatever.

It's a cluster. The founder of MADD quit the group because it went from being a well-intending organization to a bunch of bat-s*** nazis with no regard for the constitution.

You can effectively use the law for retributive justice, but you cannot, however, eliminate or control human behavior simply by making something illegal.

[Oatmealman]

im in the same boat as MOD,make it so anyone who has the thought of drunk driving s*** their pants.I don't give a damn if you had one to many glasses of wine,you should know the limit and respect it.People are killing other people because of their stupidity and willingness to drive drunk.
There should be laws against stupid people breeding and being able to live but america is to p**** to put its foot down and take out the morons.

[TurboSauce]

In all honesty It's not only a problem in the U.S. Just tonight I was rear-ended by a drunkard in a white Ford. I saw him creepin on my A$$ for about a mile, but After a few close calls I just figured he was a tail-gater until we hit five mile per hour traffic, Bastard hit me twice. Thing is Just from how close he was following me, I knew i should have let him pass. But I Just never did.

[AZ89two4Tsx]

I don't believe there is any trouble with the law. It has solid punishments, most folks just won't feel the sting of it or the consequences until it happens to them.

^ This.

It's incredible how much a DUI can cost, especially here in Arizona.

When I was attending my 8-hour traffic school for a red-light-right-turn-rolled-stop thing, it was also a mandatory class for DUI offenders. They made us all list out our infractions/crimes and the total it costed us. Mind you, my ticket was about $230.

First time DUI (normal- BAC .08-.14): $6000-$7000 total after hiring a lawyer, fees, etc...
First time DUI (extreme- BAC .15+): $16000 after lawyer, fees, etc..

Not to mention your license is suspended and you get an ignition interlock device which is around $1000 alone. And that's just for a standard DUI. Extreme is automatic jail time and SERIOUS fines.

The cab ride ain't looking too expensive anymore.....

[Bubba1]

I agree with MoD about the strict penalties, but the incarceration part is very difficult to implement. Our prisons are already full. which would be more feasible? All of us pay more taxes to build/staff new prisons to house literally tens of thousands of new prisoners that get convicted annually of DUI or do you hit DUI'ers in the wallet hard to make them think twice about doing it again?

Many states have already begun making DUI laws much more expensive in recent years for those that insist on testing them (of course most learn how expensive they've become AFTER they get caught. The shrinking numbers indicate that the tougher laws are moving us in the right direction.

IMHO there is no one thing that will completely eliminate DUI. Death Penalties do not seem to stop people from committing murder. Alcoholic beverages have strong ties to so many peoples lives, plus combine that with our society obsessed with cars, make DUI's seem inevitable. Think about it, a passed out drunk woman is the only chance in hell Nala has in ever getting laid. But there are many things that could be done to reduce the numbers more including:

1. Taverns, restuarants, winemakers, beverage makers may hate it, but perhaps it's time to make a law to reduce the legal blood alcohol level to .0001 , like it is in Iceland where DUI is rare. Right now how much alcohol consumed makes one legally drunk varies in every situation, which leads many people believe they can drink more than they should. Let's remove the guesswork all together. IF you drink anything and get behind the wheel, you risk catastrophic penalties. I kinda doubt anyone in Congress wanting to get re-elected would vote for that law.

2. make all DUI convictions a felony instead of misdeamor. This way, you end up on probation and if you're stupid enough to get caught again, then your problems really escalate. In addition to the monetary penalties, you lose some other rights, like not being able to vote or hold public office. But don't fret, as a felon, you can still make millions in Philly if you are a scrambling quarterback).

3. standardize federal sentencing guidelines based on some of the toughest states plans. Lengthy Loss of license, big $ fines, insurance surcharges, registration surcharges, mandatory AA counseling, community service, for first timers. Get caught again, perhaps buh-bye car.
Just make it simple, easy to understand, and painful to the wallet to make you think twice about doing it. Unfortunately, there's too much disparity in DUI laws between states.

4. Eliminate legal loopholes. With so many lawyers plea bargaining including those silly "work exception" driver licenses, and judges looking to clear their dockets, many DUI charges seem get reduced to non-moving violations resulting in slap on the wrist. Thus incentive for the violator to resume the same old behavior.

Interesting topic.

[DJ_B_Easy]

My point was that this degenerate "friend" I know has multiple DUIs, gets bailed out everytime (in full, not just saying jail), and continues to do it. What if the next time he does it he murders your daughter or another loved one? Will you feel the same then?

My brother was nearly killed by a drunk driver when I was 13. Thank someone he is still alive and well but that s*** f*** you up for life. He despises driving now. And the kid that hit him...suspension for 6, no jail, court case fell through. Another "friend" from high school ruined my brothers life for a good night.

[95zenki man]

I blame these people

nico-s-official-beer-thread-t533208.html

[Dattebayo]

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?

[Bubba1]

I bet we could we stop people from drinking and driving if the punishment was to "narfel the garthok..."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqOUYuqb ... re=related[/youtube]

[MinisterofDOOM]

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

No, I haven't. Thanks for double-checking though.

[BusyBadger]

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

No, I haven't. Thanks for double-checking though.

He's got a short memory, we went over this on the Ryan Dunn thread a while back. Greg, Bubba and I all said the same thing as you just did. I'll say the same thing I said in that thread too: People often find it hard to believe that others don't have the same weaknesses that they do.