They've shown they cannot be responsible enough to drive. There is no redemption for a crime like this and maybe it could dissuade people from driving drunk.
Where I live recently a drunk driver struck and killed a girl coming home from work. Because he fled the scene of the accident and sobered up before they got to him he is now being charged with a lesser crime and stands to face only about 5 years in jail. Its so ****ed up.
Killing someone from drunk driving should be life. It's not an accident, its not accidental manslaughter. It's premeditated murder. Premeditated. They decided to take the risk of killing someone when they got behind the wheel. Just because they happen to get pulled over by the cops before they kill someone, the intent was still there and they should never be able to drive again.
Why would anyone try to defend drunk drivers? Driving is a privilege, and anyone who drives drunk has shown they cannot be trusted enough to be allowed that privilege.
I'm not against harsher penalties for drunk driving, but I am against permanently revoking licenses after one offense.
Take this situation - Guy has a drink or two, feels perfectly fine, doesn't know that he's over the limit because everybody has different levels of alcohol tolerance, gets in the car, drives perfectly fine, and gets pulled over for a broken taillight, completely unrelated to the alcohol. The cop smells the alcohol, gives him a breathalyzer and finds out he's just at the limit and adds a DUI charge. This guy should never be allowed to drive again?
If it was a case of multiple offenses, a permanent removal of license might be in order, but for a first time offense, no way.
Quote from LogicX »
Where I live recently a drunk driver struck and killed a girl coming home from work. Because he fled the scene of the accident and sobered up before they got to him he is now being charged with a lesser crime and stands to face only about 5 years in jail. Its so ****ed up.
Well, them's the breaks. How do you expect them to charge him with the more serious crime that he did commit if they have no evidence of it?
Quote from LogicX »
Killing someone from drunk driving should be life. It's not an accident, its not accidental manslaughter. It's premeditated murder. Premeditated. They decided to take the risk of killing someone when they got behind the wheel. Just because they happen to get pulled over by the cops before they kill someone, the intent was still there and they should never be able to drive again.
I don't agree with this. They don't get in the car with the intention of killing anybody. It's not premeditated murder. It's stupid, puts others and yourself in danger, etc., but it does not fit the definition of premeditation.
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
It's not an accident, its not accidental manslaughter. It's premeditated murder. Premeditated. They decided to take the risk of killing someone when they got behind the wheel. Just because they happen to get pulled over by the cops before they kill someone, the intent was still there and they should never be able to drive again.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Drunk driving is awful and stupid and many other things, but to call it premeditated murder and insist that there's an intent to kill someone when you drive drunk is asinine.
Hell, I don't think you can realistically prove that it would be premeditated because, well, half of drunk driving is being drunk. The reason why it's illegal to drive while drunk is because you are incapable to premeditate pretty much anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Waiting patiently for MTGO Leagues to become a priority again. It's been 4 years :sick:.
Drop by my Helpdesk if you have any questions/concerns on the Limited forum.
Excited for M13 Limited? What do you think the format will look like? Head over to the limited forum and let us know what you think.
LOL @ logicx, that argument isn't exactly convincing. (Premeditated??)
Why would anyone defend drunk drivers? People get really hyped up over crimes that are particularly offensive, like a drunk vehicular manslaughter or any child related offense. That doesn't mean that those people should be subjected to limitless punishment, nor that they deserve no representation or defense.
Fact is, and I'm not saying it's okay, but based on personal experience and just people that I know, a good portion of people have driven while drunk. Drunkenness has a very wide spectrum, so their actual responsibility is hard to determine. Revoking such a basic necessity as driving a car for something that may be a momentary lapse in judgment (and that could come down a arbitrarily small hair splitting difference between drunk and not drunk) is not even sensible. The punishment is already very strict, and I think it's plenty strict to discourage drunk driving to a reasonable extent.
Permanent revocation is unnecessary. A suspension of license whose length is determined as a function of the BAC in excess of the legal limit and thedamage caused while driving is in order.
I'll defend drunk drivers, but then, I'll also defend the rights of convicted felons, and it's for the same reason: people change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
I voted No, but it's closer to Yes in most opinions I'd imagine.
A DUI should be followed by ridiculously strict measures of rehabilitation - including escorts with a second key if need be for extreme cases. (like social workers for handicapped workers)
But expecting them to lose their life completely in some parts of the country where not having a car is practically unlivable is a bit extreme.
Many of us are lucky enough to have consistent public transportation and/or friends and family to hitch rides with - some of those that would fall into the DUI issue however don't have a safety net like that.
[The above being options if they wish to continue driving, if they're willing to say "No more driving for me" - no need for it - and they'd be footing the bill for the majority of the costs involved]
I guess it would be more accurate to say that while there is no intent to kill, there is intent to put people's lives in danger. I like to think that's pretty serious.
I don't think a single person who is drunk and with limited judgment making capabilities get into the car and think 'I want to hurt people. I want to kill someone'. That is what you are saying. Yes, they are saying 'I want to drive drunk'. They aren't such sadistic individuals that they think 'Oh yeah, I'm gonna go hospitalize someone today it'll be awesome.'. The only thing they have in mind is getting to their destination without getting caught. I don't know how 'intending' to cause harm to people will help.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Waiting patiently for MTGO Leagues to become a priority again. It's been 4 years :sick:.
Drop by my Helpdesk if you have any questions/concerns on the Limited forum.
Excited for M13 Limited? What do you think the format will look like? Head over to the limited forum and let us know what you think.
I believe that the first offense should begin immediately with a suspension on the license for up to 5 years, depending on the circumstances, and the second offense should result in up to a month of jail time (again depending on the circumstances) and a permanent revocation of your license for life.
You get only one second chance. That's it, folks. Those who are killed in drunk driving accidents weren't given another chance.
I cannot help but believe this thread was written in passion at the spur of the moment. LogicX, if it's not too discourteous to ask, is there any chance that you have a personal relation with this victim?
I voted "No" for obvious reasons. Like others, I don't support drunk driving but revoking a person's license forever seems really extreme. I would support doing so if the person killed someone as in the person described in the OP but, otherwise, I don't see harm in giving them a second chance. Taking away their driver's license will severely deter the driver's lifestyle and it isn't as if every drunk driver is way over the legal limit.
To go so far as to assert that they had the knowledge they would kill, such as a 'premeditated murder', would be just plain exaggerate. Many people don't even plan to get drunk and, while they are drunk, their judgment is impaired. To add to that, no rational person would ever bother going through the trouble of killing a random person whether they are morally shaken or not. They'd be dragged through court and forced through an extensive legal process.
I cannot help but believe this thread was written in passion at the spur of the moment. LogicX, if it's not too discourteous to ask, is there any chance that you have a personal relation with this victim?
I voted "No" for obvious reasons. Like others, I don't support drunk driving but revoking a person's license forever seems really extreme. I would support doing so if the person killed someone as in the person described in the OP but, otherwise, I don't see harm in giving them a second chance. Taking away their driver's license will severely deter the driver's lifestyle and it isn't as if every drunk driver is way over the legal limit.
To go so far as to assert that they had the knowledge they would kill, such as a 'premeditated murder', would be just plain exaggerate. Many people don't even plan to get drunk and, while they are drunk, their judgment is impaired. To add to that, no rational person would ever bother going through the trouble of killing a random person whether they are morally shaken or not. They'd be dragged through court and forced through an extensive legal process.
No I am not related to them, I guess I'm just passionate on the issue because it seems like every time you open up the paper these days its another person killed by a drunk driver.
For example a couple weeks ago a women was killed when a drunk man driving the wrong way on the thruway crashed into her. I saw the aftermath of that accident later that day. Ever like 8 hours after it happened they could not open up that section of road. The cars were completely merged together, just a ball of metal. She was on the way to her fiancées house.
It's just so senseless. It can happen to anyone, one minute you are driving somewhere and the next you are dead because someone decided to be reckless that night.
Some statistics from 2005:
There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.
Nationwide in 2005, alcohol was present in 24 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes (BAC .01-.07, 4 percent; BAC .08 or greater, 20 percent).
The 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 (39% of total traffic fatalities for the year) represent a 5-percent reduction from the 17,732 alcohol related fatalities reported in 1995 (42% of the total).
The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.
An estimated 254,000 persons were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes.
In 2005, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.
Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes.
I think a term of like 20 years would make some sense. It would be a strong deterrent and drunk driving kills more people then most things do in a year.
Maybe 10 years for first offense 20 years for a second while this may seem harsh. I think drunk driving needs to have a strong deterrent.
This would be in addition to any other negative problems already attached to doing it in your state.
Most cops are willing to let those just about at the intoxication limit off anyways. The only time most cops will really bring the whole legal process into it is in clear drunk driving cases mostly.
Its like going 7-8 MPH over the limit most officers will let you off with a warning.
It's not typical for me, but I voted 'Yes'. I think that this crime justifies the punishment of permanent suspension of a license. That does not mean the person will never get to drive again, they just have a permanent suspension. Through time, good behavior, counseling, etc. the suspension can be lifted, just like any sentence can be shortened.
I think that with how common a problem this is, and how much of a voluntary choice it is, the punishment is fair for the crime. It also prevents it happening it again without serious jail time.
DUI offenses desperately need to have stricter punishments.
I think that one of the problems is also that in America, you are able to drive before you are allowed to drink. When someone turns 21, he'll probably get a few drinks, gets intoxicated but just doesn't know because he has never drunk before.
And I'm voting no for obvious reasons. Yes, the punishments could be a bit more strict, but you are forgetting one thing: guilt. The people who killed one when driving drunk (or at least most of them) feel incredibly guilty because of their actions and most of them have life-long traumas and fears because of it, and people will shun them for their actions as well. That is one hell of a more severe punishment then getting your license revoked.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I'll need to prefix this for context: my older sister died because of a drunk driver.
I think there should be two major changes to DUI/Alcohol laws: the age should be reduced/eliminated, and DUIs should be simplified; get caught, and you lose your license. You can regain it by going through the full license exam, and going back on a probationary license. Get caught on a probationary license (whether after getting your license for the first time, or through this) and you lose your license for a period of time. (5 years comes to mind here)
The thing that is worth more to many people than money is time. Not actual time, but the perception of their time being wasted. Someone can sit in jail overnight and not miss much, but to probably need to take one or two leaves of absence from work, sitting at a DMV, possibly failing a DMV test on miniscule things and doing it all over again, then being one step from completely losing everything, that may make people actually take license priviledges to heart.
I think there should be two major changes to DUI/Alcohol laws: the age should be reduced/eliminated, and DUIs should be simplified; get caught, and you lose your license. You can regain it by going through the full license exam, and going back on a probationary license. Get caught on a probationary license (whether after getting your license for the first time, or through this) and you lose your license for a period of time. (5 years comes to mind here)
The thing that is worth more to many people than money is time. Not actual time, but the perception of their time being wasted. Someone can sit in jail overnight and not miss much, but to probably need to take one or two leaves of absence from work, sitting at a DMV, possibly failing a DMV test on miniscule things and doing it all over again, then being one step from completely losing everything, that may make people actually take license priviledges to heart.
This man speaks good sense. Again, nobody really intends to cause harm - they just want to get wherever they're going. Most, I'd imagine, honestly think they'll be alright. It is unreasonable to revoke licenses permanently on the first offense.
There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.
Nationwide in 2005, alcohol was present in 24 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes (BAC .01-.07, 4 percent; BAC .08 or greater, 20 percent).
The 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 (39% of total traffic fatalities for the year) represent a 5-percent reduction from the 17,732 alcohol related fatalities reported in 1995 (42% of the total).
The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.
An estimated 254,000 persons were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes.
In 2005, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.
Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but look at the reverse of some of those statistics:
Nationwide in 2005, alcohol was not present in 76 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes (BAC .01-.07, 4 percent; BAC .08 or greater, 20 percent).
The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes. <---- Statistics like this are always misleading and serve little purpose. People die every minute from one thing or another.
An estimated 254,000 persons were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes - Which is on par with the number of heart attack occurences in Britain, for example, a nation with a much smaller population, and on par with the occurence of sexual assault. I don't know about you, but I don't go around expecting sexual assault to happen to someone I know - which is what the "every two minutes" statistic implies.
In 2005, 79 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were not killed in alcohol-related crashes.
It's not what I'm saying. 'I want to drive despite putting myself and everyone around me at great risk' is what they're thinking. Just because your judgment is impaired due to intoxication does not mean you aren't responsible for your actions. "I was drunk" is not a valid defense for a crime you've committed.
I don't think you've ever been drunk. When you're drunk, you don't even think about possible dangers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I agree w/ Rodyle, that a big part of the problem is that you can drive years before you can drink, and too many 18-20 year olds drink because they think it is cool, largely because..they're not supposed to be doing it. And of course they then have no problem with also driving...they're already breaking the law, it's just a slippery slope.
I also agree that penalties against drunk driving should be significantly more severe than they are, on the whole. But they should also be more subjective, taking BAC and various factors into consideration.
I think that one of the problems is also that in America, you are able to drive before you are allowed to drink. When someone turns 21, he'll probably get a few drinks, gets intoxicated but just doesn't know because he has never drunk before.
I just realized how little that relationship makes sense.
People are responsible enough to operate 1-ton death machines moving at tens of miles an hour, in public places with other 1-ton death machines moving at tens of miles an hour, but they're somehow not of the age to imbibe alcohol, in any quantity, around even others all of whom are friends?
@LogicX: Huh. Turkey's penalty is. . . interesting. Also, when I read the penalty in South Africa, I exclaimed "pwned."
I think the chart shows that different penalties work for different places. The U.S. needs to figure out what it's identity is, and construct the right penalty for its DUI felons.
Oh wait. . . you're the original poster. Okay, a few things:
The person who drove drunk is not necessarily the person who inhabits the biologico-functionally continuous entity that goes by the same name now. That is, sure, that drunk driver proved he has no responsibility, but that body can give rise to another person, who does have responsibility. Why punish him for what the other guy did? Because they look the same?
I have no idea how to decide on penalties, but I do think you've categorized killing caused by drunk driving incorrectly. You're right that it's something more connected to willful action than "an accident," but it has been contended that the connection is not robust enough to say it's premeditated. You can't say the driver planned or chose to kill someone, no matter how many choices they made beforehand that increased the likelihood that they would kill someone (unless there's evidence that they planned "to go out that night, drunk to forget, and hit a few people." Depression, I dunno. :confused:)
One important concept in punishment as criminal justice is that you graduate the levels of offence, so that person's feel reason not to escalate to a greater offence in (a) trying to cover up the preceding ones, or (b) because they just don't care anymore. Is a DUI as abhorrent as other offences worth Life? You may actually say yes to this one, and I don't pretend to say you'd be wrong about that. It's just a thought, since I notice TheInfamousBearAssasin hasn't been around. (Was he suspended or something? My apologies for defamation caused by this comment if incorrect.)
Also, this comment:
Quote from LogicX »
Where I live recently a drunk driver struck and killed a girl coming home from work. Because he fled the scene of the accident and sobered up before they got to him he is now being charged with a lesser crime and stands to face only about 5 years in jail. Its so ****ed up.
If you have evidence that the driver was drunk which you think the investigators don't, give that to them. Otherwise, if it's not on record that he was drunk, how do you know he was?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Anyway, I think an analogy with a surgeon is valid. Should he be kept from ever doing surgery again in his life after one fatal surgery under influence? (And this is not a rhetorical question.)
Yes. If you even try surgery drunk, you need to take some serious time off (like years, and go through counseling). If you kill somebody because you're drunk... I'd say surgery is not for you.
Driving is different, because *everybody* can drive. It takes years of training to get to the point where you actually know what you're doing enough to be considered safe going into somebody with a scalpel. Driving is something necessary, and a skill that we purport most people to be able to do reasonably well. Therefore, the analogy doesn't quite work. Why we don't take driving more seriously... convenience? Necessity? Regardless, we expect that the average person drive every day. We don't expect the average person to perform surgery every day.
As somebody who has been convicted of a DUI, I would like to weigh in here. I think the punishment I got was a slap on the wrist. It consisted of 3 months probation, 3 months suspended license and some classes. The thing is, loss of 2 different job opportunities were a bigger inconvenience than the actual punishment.
There are a few measures taken in Michigan to stop drunk driving that I think should be expanded upon. The first one is used only for repeat offenders but I would like to see it used to every offender. It is a Breathalyzer-attachment that goes on your car. You have to blow into it and pass before you can start the car up and periodically otherwise, I believe. It records your BAC and every month you have to have in analyzed and the results are sent to the state. If you fail once you're in deep ****. The person has to pay for the installation of the device and to have it analyzed as well as pay to have it removed once their sentence is over. The other measure is the Driver's Responsibility act. Basically if you get too many points on your license or get popped for a DUI it's a mandatory $500 fine besides whatever the courts decide. Then you have to pay $500 a year later as a reminder. I would like to see the fine bumped up to $750-$1000 and extended for 5 years as a lasting reminder of why you shouldn't do it again. I think it would definitely cut down on repeat offenders.
They've shown they cannot be responsible enough to drive. There is no redemption for a crime like this and maybe it could dissuade people from driving drunk.
Where I live recently a drunk driver struck and killed a girl coming home from work. Because he fled the scene of the accident and sobered up before they got to him he is now being charged with a lesser crime and stands to face only about 5 years in jail. Its so ****ed up.
Killing someone from drunk driving should be life. It's not an accident, its not accidental manslaughter. It's premeditated murder. Premeditated. They decided to take the risk of killing someone when they got behind the wheel. Just because they happen to get pulled over by the cops before they kill someone, the intent was still there and they should never be able to drive again.
Why would anyone try to defend drunk drivers? Driving is a privilege, and anyone who drives drunk has shown they cannot be trusted enough to be allowed that privilege.
Take this situation - Guy has a drink or two, feels perfectly fine, doesn't know that he's over the limit because everybody has different levels of alcohol tolerance, gets in the car, drives perfectly fine, and gets pulled over for a broken taillight, completely unrelated to the alcohol. The cop smells the alcohol, gives him a breathalyzer and finds out he's just at the limit and adds a DUI charge. This guy should never be allowed to drive again?
If it was a case of multiple offenses, a permanent removal of license might be in order, but for a first time offense, no way.
Well, them's the breaks. How do you expect them to charge him with the more serious crime that he did commit if they have no evidence of it?
I don't agree with this. They don't get in the car with the intention of killing anybody. It's not premeditated murder. It's stupid, puts others and yourself in danger, etc., but it does not fit the definition of premeditation.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Drunk driving is awful and stupid and many other things, but to call it premeditated murder and insist that there's an intent to kill someone when you drive drunk is asinine.
Hell, I don't think you can realistically prove that it would be premeditated because, well, half of drunk driving is being drunk. The reason why it's illegal to drive while drunk is because you are incapable to premeditate pretty much anything.
Drop by my Helpdesk if you have any questions/concerns on the Limited forum.
Excited for M13 Limited? What do you think the format will look like? Head over to the limited forum and let us know what you think.
Why would anyone defend drunk drivers? People get really hyped up over crimes that are particularly offensive, like a drunk vehicular manslaughter or any child related offense. That doesn't mean that those people should be subjected to limitless punishment, nor that they deserve no representation or defense.
Fact is, and I'm not saying it's okay, but based on personal experience and just people that I know, a good portion of people have driven while drunk. Drunkenness has a very wide spectrum, so their actual responsibility is hard to determine. Revoking such a basic necessity as driving a car for something that may be a momentary lapse in judgment (and that could come down a arbitrarily small hair splitting difference between drunk and not drunk) is not even sensible. The punishment is already very strict, and I think it's plenty strict to discourage drunk driving to a reasonable extent.
I'll defend drunk drivers, but then, I'll also defend the rights of convicted felons, and it's for the same reason: people change.
A DUI should be followed by ridiculously strict measures of rehabilitation - including escorts with a second key if need be for extreme cases. (like social workers for handicapped workers)
But expecting them to lose their life completely in some parts of the country where not having a car is practically unlivable is a bit extreme.
Many of us are lucky enough to have consistent public transportation and/or friends and family to hitch rides with - some of those that would fall into the DUI issue however don't have a safety net like that.
[The above being options if they wish to continue driving, if they're willing to say "No more driving for me" - no need for it - and they'd be footing the bill for the majority of the costs involved]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I don't think a single person who is drunk and with limited judgment making capabilities get into the car and think 'I want to hurt people. I want to kill someone'. That is what you are saying. Yes, they are saying 'I want to drive drunk'. They aren't such sadistic individuals that they think 'Oh yeah, I'm gonna go hospitalize someone today it'll be awesome.'. The only thing they have in mind is getting to their destination without getting caught. I don't know how 'intending' to cause harm to people will help.
Drop by my Helpdesk if you have any questions/concerns on the Limited forum.
Excited for M13 Limited? What do you think the format will look like? Head over to the limited forum and let us know what you think.
I believe that the first offense should begin immediately with a suspension on the license for up to 5 years, depending on the circumstances, and the second offense should result in up to a month of jail time (again depending on the circumstances) and a permanent revocation of your license for life.
You get only one second chance. That's it, folks. Those who are killed in drunk driving accidents weren't given another chance.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
I voted "No" for obvious reasons. Like others, I don't support drunk driving but revoking a person's license forever seems really extreme. I would support doing so if the person killed someone as in the person described in the OP but, otherwise, I don't see harm in giving them a second chance. Taking away their driver's license will severely deter the driver's lifestyle and it isn't as if every drunk driver is way over the legal limit.
To go so far as to assert that they had the knowledge they would kill, such as a 'premeditated murder', would be just plain exaggerate. Many people don't even plan to get drunk and, while they are drunk, their judgment is impaired. To add to that, no rational person would ever bother going through the trouble of killing a random person whether they are morally shaken or not. They'd be dragged through court and forced through an extensive legal process.
No I am not related to them, I guess I'm just passionate on the issue because it seems like every time you open up the paper these days its another person killed by a drunk driver.
For example a couple weeks ago a women was killed when a drunk man driving the wrong way on the thruway crashed into her. I saw the aftermath of that accident later that day. Ever like 8 hours after it happened they could not open up that section of road. The cars were completely merged together, just a ball of metal. She was on the way to her fiancées house.
It's just so senseless. It can happen to anyone, one minute you are driving somewhere and the next you are dead because someone decided to be reckless that night.
Some statistics from 2005:
Maybe 10 years for first offense 20 years for a second while this may seem harsh. I think drunk driving needs to have a strong deterrent.
This would be in addition to any other negative problems already attached to doing it in your state.
Most cops are willing to let those just about at the intoxication limit off anyways. The only time most cops will really bring the whole legal process into it is in clear drunk driving cases mostly.
Its like going 7-8 MPH over the limit most officers will let you off with a warning.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
I think that with how common a problem this is, and how much of a voluntary choice it is, the punishment is fair for the crime. It also prevents it happening it again without serious jail time.
DUI offenses desperately need to have stricter punishments.
And I'm voting no for obvious reasons. Yes, the punishments could be a bit more strict, but you are forgetting one thing: guilt. The people who killed one when driving drunk (or at least most of them) feel incredibly guilty because of their actions and most of them have life-long traumas and fears because of it, and people will shun them for their actions as well. That is one hell of a more severe punishment then getting your license revoked.
I think there should be two major changes to DUI/Alcohol laws: the age should be reduced/eliminated, and DUIs should be simplified; get caught, and you lose your license. You can regain it by going through the full license exam, and going back on a probationary license. Get caught on a probationary license (whether after getting your license for the first time, or through this) and you lose your license for a period of time. (5 years comes to mind here)
The thing that is worth more to many people than money is time. Not actual time, but the perception of their time being wasted. Someone can sit in jail overnight and not miss much, but to probably need to take one or two leaves of absence from work, sitting at a DMV, possibly failing a DMV test on miniscule things and doing it all over again, then being one step from completely losing everything, that may make people actually take license priviledges to heart.
静
This man speaks good sense. Again, nobody really intends to cause harm - they just want to get wherever they're going. Most, I'd imagine, honestly think they'll be alright. It is unreasonable to revoke licenses permanently on the first offense.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but look at the reverse of some of those statistics:
I don't think you've ever been drunk. When you're drunk, you don't even think about possible dangers.
Which is not to say he isn't correct about one's liability.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He is indeed. However, he tries to make it look like those people put themselves and others in danger on purpose, which is not the case.
I also agree that penalties against drunk driving should be significantly more severe than they are, on the whole. But they should also be more subjective, taking BAC and various factors into consideration.
Australia:
The names of the drivers are sent to the local newspapers and are printed under the heading "He's Drunk and in Jail".
Malaysia:
The Driver is jailed and if married, his wife is jailed too.
South Africa
A 10 year prison sentence and the equivalent of a $10,000.00 fine
Turkey
Drunk drivers are taken 20 miles outside of town by police and are forced to walk back under escort
Norway
Three weeks in jail at hard labor, one year loss of license. Second offense within five years, license revoked for life.
Finland & Sweden
Automatic jail for one year of hard labor
Costa Rica
Police remove plates fron car
Russia
License revoked for life
England
One year suspension and a $250.00 fine and jail for one year
France
Three year loss of license, one year in jail and a $1000.00 fine
Poland
Jail, fine and forced to attend political lectures
Bulgaria
A second conviction results in execution
El Salvador
Your first offense is your last---execution by firing squad
Now that last one may be a bit harsh but the US can do a little better I think.
I think this one is very reasonable.
Many of the others are just silly.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
I just realized how little that relationship makes sense.
People are responsible enough to operate 1-ton death machines moving at tens of miles an hour, in public places with other 1-ton death machines moving at tens of miles an hour, but they're somehow not of the age to imbibe alcohol, in any quantity, around even others all of whom are friends?
@LogicX: Huh. Turkey's penalty is. . . interesting. Also, when I read the penalty in South Africa, I exclaimed "pwned."
I think the chart shows that different penalties work for different places. The U.S. needs to figure out what it's identity is, and construct the right penalty for its DUI felons.
Oh wait. . . you're the original poster. Okay, a few things:
The person who drove drunk is not necessarily the person who inhabits the biologico-functionally continuous entity that goes by the same name now. That is, sure, that drunk driver proved he has no responsibility, but that body can give rise to another person, who does have responsibility. Why punish him for what the other guy did? Because they look the same?
I have no idea how to decide on penalties, but I do think you've categorized killing caused by drunk driving incorrectly. You're right that it's something more connected to willful action than "an accident," but it has been contended that the connection is not robust enough to say it's premeditated. You can't say the driver planned or chose to kill someone, no matter how many choices they made beforehand that increased the likelihood that they would kill someone (unless there's evidence that they planned "to go out that night, drunk to forget, and hit a few people." Depression, I dunno. :confused:)
One important concept in punishment as criminal justice is that you graduate the levels of offence, so that person's feel reason not to escalate to a greater offence in (a) trying to cover up the preceding ones, or (b) because they just don't care anymore. Is a DUI as abhorrent as other offences worth Life? You may actually say yes to this one, and I don't pretend to say you'd be wrong about that. It's just a thought, since I notice TheInfamousBearAssasin hasn't been around. (Was he suspended or something? My apologies for defamation caused by this comment if incorrect.)
Also, this comment:
If you have evidence that the driver was drunk which you think the investigators don't, give that to them. Otherwise, if it's not on record that he was drunk, how do you know he was?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Yes. If you even try surgery drunk, you need to take some serious time off (like years, and go through counseling). If you kill somebody because you're drunk... I'd say surgery is not for you.
Driving is different, because *everybody* can drive. It takes years of training to get to the point where you actually know what you're doing enough to be considered safe going into somebody with a scalpel. Driving is something necessary, and a skill that we purport most people to be able to do reasonably well. Therefore, the analogy doesn't quite work. Why we don't take driving more seriously... convenience? Necessity? Regardless, we expect that the average person drive every day. We don't expect the average person to perform surgery every day.
There are a few measures taken in Michigan to stop drunk driving that I think should be expanded upon. The first one is used only for repeat offenders but I would like to see it used to every offender. It is a Breathalyzer-attachment that goes on your car. You have to blow into it and pass before you can start the car up and periodically otherwise, I believe. It records your BAC and every month you have to have in analyzed and the results are sent to the state. If you fail once you're in deep ****. The person has to pay for the installation of the device and to have it analyzed as well as pay to have it removed once their sentence is over. The other measure is the Driver's Responsibility act. Basically if you get too many points on your license or get popped for a DUI it's a mandatory $500 fine besides whatever the courts decide. Then you have to pay $500 a year later as a reminder. I would like to see the fine bumped up to $750-$1000 and extended for 5 years as a lasting reminder of why you shouldn't do it again. I think it would definitely cut down on repeat offenders.
You know what drunk drivers do when they get their license back? They typically drive drunk again.