Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: paulat
...and if he kills a family just because it was "once"????

If he had killed a family he would be responsible for killing a family. However, he didn’t kill anyone, so he isn’t even slightly responsible for killing anyone.

His actual crime was to increase the public’s risk from his driving. I understand why that is considered a crime, but in fact people do that legally all the time. They drive when they are exhausted, they talk on the phone, they don’t concentrate on the road. The presence of these drivers on the road increases everyone’s risk, yet our legal system rarely touches them. Yet in this guy’s case, the legal system destroyed his life.

I suppose I agree with the author of the article. I believe that drunk driving should be illegal, but the recent MADD inspired punishments seem excessive and inappropriate. In particular, first-time DUI offenders should be permitted to drive to and from work.

76 posted on 11/09/2005 8:09:00 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: TChad
His actual crime was to increase the public’s risk from his driving. I understand why that is considered a crime, but in fact people do that legally all the time. They drive when they are exhausted, they talk on the phone, they don’t concentrate on the road. The presence of these drivers on the road increases everyone’s risk, yet our legal system rarely touches them. Yet in this guy’s case, the legal system destroyed his life.

A just society shouldn't focus energies on punishing someone who does something a teensy weensy bit bad while ignoring people who do things many times worse.

Compared with all of the other things that may affect a person's driving, the effects from a 0.08 BAC on a typical person are within the realm of statistical noise. Though some effort may be made to measure them, there are so many confounding variables (e.g. someone is more likely to drink after a long day than before one) that meaningful measurements are impossible.

Given that there are many things people do which pose a bigger risk (e.g. thinking about their upcoming date with a boy/girlfriend, or the movie they just saw, or the discussion they just had, or whatever; not to mention putting on makeup, eating a gyro, driving while sleepy, etc.) I see no legitimate basis for prosecuting drivers for a 0.08BAC.

Indeed, I see no basis for prosecuting anyone for DUI unless there was some basis, prior to the police involvement, to suspect them of it (e.g. they were seen to be driving incompetently, or they got into an accident, or something).

78 posted on 11/09/2005 9:09:35 PM PST by supercat (Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: TChad

"I understand why that is considered a crime, but in fact people do that legally all the time. They drive when they are exhausted, they talk on the phone, they don’t concentrate on the road. The presence of these drivers on the road increases everyone’s risk, yet our legal system rarely touches them."

In fact, the concentration on DUI has actually caused the roads to be more dangerous. People forget that driving is a serious activity and they now fail to take the proper care. Society seems to think that if you aren't drunk, then all driving is safe.

My solution, prosecute all drivers causing damage to property or other persons to the same standard. Then all driving would be treated with the appropriate care.


89 posted on 11/10/2005 9:28:47 AM PST by CSM (When laws are written, they apply to ALL...Not just the yucky people you don't like. - HairOfTheDog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson