Posted on 07/26/2002 12:04:36 PM PDT by chance33_98
Drunken driving laws don't prevent tragedies
Megan Baldino
Anchorage, Alaska, July 25 - The family of a young man who died in a car crash Tuesday wants to know how a driver with three drunken-driving convictions and a revoked license could get back on the road.
Seventeen-year-old Chaz Crabb was killed in that early morning crash downtown, and 28-year-old Michele Pungowiyi is in custody on a charge of manslaughter.
Efforts to reduce drunken driving are ongoing. This year, the Legislature also passed a bill providing for two court-mandated pilot programs for alcohol and drug treatment.
The bill requires the courts to use existing programs and agencies to help offenders get sober. That means the courts, Department of Corrections and the Department of Health and Social Services work together to get convicted drunken drivers to deal with the addiction that is the root of their problem.
Rokeberg says the idea of the pilot programs is to make a small investment now to help reduce the long-term costs of drunken drivers, which can amount to millions of dollars every year, as well as loss of life.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
It's a good question.
Easy. He got in a car, put a key in the ignition and drove onto it. Duh!
Only a fool believes laws prevent crimes. Unfortunately, we have no shortage of fools.
Force prevents crimes. Like being forced into a jail cell for twenty years. Keep him in a cage and he won't be doing much drinking or driving.
Instead, we let him out, shake our finger, and admonish him that he better not let us catch him at it again. Of course, after three slaps on the wrist, what is society's credibility in issuing threats?
Now, this is a "give and take" proposal. With this policy in place, I would like to see penalties for simple "DUI" reduced severely or removed. I think DUI laws in many cases are prime examples of "selective enforcement". If a driver is obviously impaired(swirving, eratic driving), then its not. But think about this: Bar lets out at 2:00 AM - most people are legally intoxicated, but given the percentages of wrecks caused versus the number of people driving intoxicated, the "DUI problem" is very insignificant. Cops could stand outside bars, wait till the patrons get into their cars, order them out, test them and arrest them. I would bet 90% were "over the limit". But this doesn't happen, and I do not propose it. You could stop all drunk driving like this. But, very few who drive "drunk" cause problems. Its no different than the number of law abiding gun owners versus thos who criminaly mis-use guns - very small numbers in comparison.
Raise the penalties for actual harm caused. Give no exceptions when the court proves that alcohol was THE contributing factor. IMO, this is the only thing that will stop tragedies caused by foolish people.
I agree in the case of a person convicted of causing harm while driving impaired, but not for violating arbitrary "legally intoxicated" standards.
Blood Alcohol counts are a very poor gauge of intoxication, and the one drink/hour rule is not reliable. Anyone having a drink with dinner will blow over .08, and not be a serious threat to the public. They are criminalizing people over a limit that is almost impossible to distinguish, portable BAC meters are questionable at best. And you do not have to blow .08 to get a Negligent 1 on your record.
The stigma of DUIs do not match the nature of the crime. I would like to see good numbers on how many deaths can be directly attributed by the intoxication of a .08 driver. I doubt it is very many, but if you hit a transient after a business diner and blow anything near .08 and you are ruined for life. The punishment is not fitting of the crime.
They do generate:
a) busy work for LEO's
b) Revenue (for the state and lawyers)
c) a false sense that 'at least they're trying to stop this epidemic'
d) All of the above.
Answer: D
You do the crime, you do the time. PERIOD.
If this nation cracked down on criminals, and I mean CRACKED DOWN on Criminals. Things like making more crimes Capital Offenses.
Think about this for a second, for many years in our nation's history, Rape, Robbery and other Violent crimes were Capital Offenses. And when you had your fair trial and were convicted by a jury, you were taken out and hung within a few days to a few months at the most. None of this sit on Death Row for 40 years making appeals.
If it worked in our History, how did it all of the sudden become cruel and unusual punishment in the 1960's? I will tell you why, the hippie liberals of the 60's are the ones in power today, they are PRO-CRIMINAL. And wacko's like the libertarians are just as PRO-CRIMINAL.
The only way to solve crime is to unmercifully punish those who break the law.
Every drunk on the road thinks that they are in full control of their body and their driving skills, but none of them are.
Let me guess, you are right and years of scientific research is wrong. You know more than anyone else out their and you are going to do whatever you want, because you think you have the right to disobey laws and not submit to any authority.
Well my friend your attitude will catch up with you one day. You will have a drink, you will drive thinking you are in control and you will be caught.
If I could I would ban all alcohol period and make just having it a Capital Offense. The same with Drugs. Just having it on you should be a Capital Offense.
Troll alert
Man must answer to God, and only God's laws matter. All Human laws should reflect the law of Almighty God.
1. I see no fundamental difference between a drunk driver who kills someone or a sober reckless driver who kills someone.
2. The penalties for the above offenses are inconsistent.
3. DUI Penalties are imposed based on the assumption that you are putting the community at greater risk of harm after drinking. While this is true, it becomes pretty scary when legislation is passed (with devastating personal repercussions), on the grounds that someone "might get hurt". This is especially true when you take into account the relatively low probability that moderate drinking will result in an auto accident. In a free society there is inherent potential that any person may harm (whether intentionally or inadvertently) another person. Every time you tee off while golfing or go skiing there is an increased risk that someone will be injured or killed as a result of your conscious decision to engage in these activities. But I think that most of us would agree that it is not the activities that should be punishable, but a failure to exercise due caution that results in another's harm.
4. Small, personally affected groups of people devote their lives to setting lower DUI thresholds and ever increasing punishments. They petition elected officials and no politician is going to tell a group of mothers, grieving over the loss of a loved one, that they will not do all that is in their power to correct the situation. Not even Ted Kennedy.
Don't mean to offend JMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.