Skip to comments.To draft a better DUI law
Posted on 11/09/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
It is time to separate fact from fiction about our drunken driving laws. It is time to stop deluding ourselves into believing that stricter penalties are the solution. It is also time to start promulgating laws that attack the core problem, including creating a bright line that even an intoxicated person can walk.
Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts. It is also a problem in New York, Texas and every other state in the country. Statistically, Massachusetts roads are not the most dangerous in the country. There is also no proof that Massachusetts drivers are more likely to drive impaired.
Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Penalties for first offense DUI are serious enough in some states to ruin the life of the offender. Beyond the $3,000 - $5,000 in legal fees and fines, the more serious penalty will be loss of a driver's license for 3-6 months. This can easily lead to loss of employment and even bankruptcy -- for a first offense, without any damage done to people or property. Some states do not permit any driving at all on a suspended license, even driving to work.
The penalty experienced by someone who loses his driving license depends on something irrelevant to the offense: how far the offender lives from his workplace, markets, etc. Someone who walks to work may expereience only minor inconvenience, while someone who drives many miles to work and can't get a ride has a personal disaster, plus a substantial incentive to drive illegally. Isn't the punishment supposed to be proportional to the crime?
I talked to one man who had been arrested for first offense DUI, lost his license, but found himself in a situation where it was necessary to him to drive. He was caught driving, and a judge gave him six months in jail. He lost everything -- house, job, etc. He talked freely about the appeal of suicide. All for drinking a too much at a party and then driving once when he shouldn't have. I had no way to verify his story, but I talked to an attorney who said that it was very plausible.
DUI at high blood alcohol levels is a serious offense that merits penalties that serve as effective deterrents. But first offense DUI should not destroy the offender's life, and necessary driving should be permitted.
Don't leave out making love. Heart attacks do happen. That is, unless we can get them for DFI.
Are you really saying that people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS? That's like saying kids who play with guns are as bad as murderers.
According to some sources, far more people commit suicide while incarcerated for DWI in this country than are killed in crashes caused by drunk drivers.
Yet another reason to fight this tyrrany.
Sorry you have confused sarcasm with reality. Please get a grip and lets go get a beer.
So he has a habit of screaming "prohibition" on "DUI" threads then ?
elf... don't lecture me on DUI's. Been there, done that, got thr T-shirt. The night I got mine, I deserved it. Thank God I got it before I killed someone, because there's a good chance I may have, I was that drunk. I grew up in a time and place that if the cops caught you driving drunk, all they did was follow you home to be sure you could find it. Now, many moons later, times have changed. Still now, 10 years after my DUI, I either dring at home, or turn my keys over to a DD BEFORE I even start to drink. Not really that hard.
If I'm going to kill someone, I'm going to do it on purpose.
Anyone who can't have a good time while drinking alcohol has a serious problem IMO.
The use of alcoholic beverages is a matter of personal liberty. In case you didn't know it, it's legal...
Of course, from your posts, it is obvious that you disagree with that, so all I can say is start your own country!
Have one on me...
Me too, and I miss it. My hat is off to you, BTW. Better safe than sorry.
I didn't intend to lecture you, just used your comments to point out that this is hysteria, and has gotten completely out of hand.
As for the title of this article the answer is....
"TAKE OUT THE PROFIT MOTIVE" for MADD, City County or Parish, and State and we will be way ahead of what we have now. It is nothing but strongarm dirty Money motivation and it seriously divides us on many levels.
I'm not a driver, and I sure WAS a drinker, so I'm asking:
How does all this keep the committed drunk from out behind the wheel?
Looks like a way for LEOs to book more overtime...heh.
Keep cops off the highway during rush hour, they just cause accidents when all the mad-sheeple slam on their brakes.
UB, I was talking about BSD's comments, not yours. He's basically saying anyone who drinks and drives is as bad as a terrorist in the post to which I replied.
And I already HAVE a beer. 8)
And I agree with you 110% it has gotten out of hand. Roadblocks are a heavy step towards a police state, responsible people can't pull off the road and sleep it off, etc......, HOWEVER, I never considered suicide while sitting in a cell, but might if I had killed someones child. I have a daughter driving now, and I don't care to have her killed by a drunken driver.
This whole thing is a double edged sword, and there is NO easy answer.
Well said. It is really amazing to think that we have allowed this alcohol thing to get so carried away. I know a few people with serious drinking problems. Don't know the percentages to drinkers without problems, however agree that problems do exist. The statistics are very manipulated, however, to postulate a certain point of view. That's the problem.
Yup! and it helps to find a small town to demonstrate this.
The MADD members are also the ones that run the court-ordered re-education camps, the alcohol screening enterprises, the ignition interlock franchises, etc., etc.
...and if he kills a family just because it was "once"????