even if you didn't smoke it and ingested it instead?
I believe so, that's a good question though, I'll have to look it up to be certain.
even if you didn't smoke it and ingested it instead?
What price does society pay for a victimless crime? Please enlighten us.
A couple of reminders:
1) median house hold income is $49,000. After taxes ~40k.
10k fine = 25% of annual income
25k fine = 60% of annual income
How do you propose people will be able to pay this fine. What happens if they don't or can't pay the fine? Debtors prison?
Well since you are suspending their license for a year its not likely they will keep a job so the income will be realistically 0. Jobless and broke is a recipe for more crime. everyone knows this.
2) Permanent revocation of license will effectively make them jobless for life if their 5 year prison stint doesn't. Collecting welfare and unemployment. (unknown cost)
5 years in prison x 40k per year = $200k tax payer cost - 25k fine (assuming they have it) = 175k to tax payer not inclusive of court and administrative overhead probation/parole etc.
The recidivism rate for criminals is well over 50% so odds are they will definitely be in and out of the system permanently after 5 years in criminal training school(jail)
What if it was the bread winner of the family. Who watches the kids now? Who pays for them? What does that cost society?
3) Life in prison ....assuming 25 years x 40k = $1 million .
The societal risks add up quickly with this kind of punishment scheme.
Would it be more effective to invest in preventive measures?
Yes, death penalty. Society pays a huge price for what these dumbasses do, and I have no sympathy for those that can't learn a simple life lesson.
A couple of reminders:
1) median house hold income is $49,000. After taxes ~40k.
10k fine = 25% of annual income
25k fine = 60% of annual income
How do you propose people will be able to pay this fine. What happens if they don't or can't pay the fine? Debtors prison?
Well since you are suspending their license for a year its not likely they will keep a job so the income will be realistically 0. Jobless and broke is a recipe for more crime. everyone knows this.
2) Permanent revocation of license will effectively make them jobless for life if their 5 year prison stint doesn't. Collecting welfare and unemployment. (unknown cost)
5 years in prison x 40k per year = $200k tax payer cost - 25k fine (assuming they have it) = 175k to tax payer not inclusive of court and administrative overhead probation/parole etc.
The recidivism rate for criminals is well over 50% so odds are they will definitely be in and out of the system permanently after 5 years in criminal training school(jail)
What if it was the bread winner of the family. Who watches the kids now? Who pays for them? What does that cost society?
3) Life in prison ....assuming 25 years x 40k = $1 million .
The societal risks add up quickly with this kind of punishment scheme.
Would it be more effective to invest in preventive measures?
Sounds like the person who was drinking and driving should have thought twice before driving, eh?
Sounds like the person who was drinking and driving should have thought twice before driving, eh?
it's not really a victimless crime if that behavior has ato involve victims. just because they didn't that time doesn't mean they won't continue to do it, and involve someone next time.high chance
so stop using the term "victimless crime".
You list a lot of reasons not to drink and drive. Should be a good deterrent I think.
A good deterrent would be a zero tolerance policy across the board.
No car != no job. There are these things called a bus.
only if you are lucky(or unlucky) enough to live in a city. Assuming they would hire a convict in the first place. Probably only a low wage job at most, it would make more sense to just make money the easy way.(commit more crime)
You do make a compelling argument for the 2nd/3rd offenses though. I guess maybe we should just go with lethal injection for 2nd offense and not worry about it anymore.
Should we apply this to all small offenses too?
And you can't just get unemployment. It's not that simple.
Your right but you can get welfare and food stamps and housing subsidies.
Ban these people from receiving any public help if you want.Then what do they do? Rob you and me? haha.
Ok, let's do it your way.
DUI is just fine and everyone should do it!!
so, 3 times talking on cellphone while driving = death, too right?
Society pays a much greater penalty for those idiots than they do the drunk drivers, you know.
Ok, let's do it your way.
DUI is just fine and everyone should do it!!
Ok, let's do it your way.
DUI is just fine and everyone should do it!!
At no point did he say that.........
Iceberg and Numernorean. I see both your arguments. Ice is arguing with logic and Numernorean is arguing with emotion. He is either trolling you or just really emotional about drunk drivers. In either case, I don't think you (ice) have anything to prove to him. Whatever you say now will just feed his emotions or trolling.
In the perfect world there wouldn't be any DUI laws.
No, not because I think it is fine to drink and drive. I think the laws and approach society is taking is bogus.
We have the technology and means to disable a car from starting if the driver has been drinking yet we do not implement it. Instead we take the passive approach and demonize those who do it for the revenue it generates. We've put a cost on saving lives and decided its easier or more convenient or *gasp* more profitable to not prevent the problem(dui's). All the laws in the world won't stop dui's and dui deaths but a simple readily available technology can. We opt to let the problem continue in order to continue taking in all that money.
Demonizing someone that gets a DUI does zero to benefit society. Treating them like killers(assuming they didn't hurt or kill anyone) does even less for society.
I never have and never will drink and drive. So does that mean I should be forced to have these devices in my car? That's ridiculous.
Now maybe a better preventative measure is to install these devices in ALL vehicles owned currently and in the future by anyone with a DUI. Make them permanent from the time of the first DUI. They have to pay for any install/maintenance.
But those devices aren't perfect.
I never have and never will drink and drive. So does that mean I should be forced to have these devices in my car? That's ridiculous.
Now maybe a better preventative measure is to install these devices in ALL vehicles owned currently and in the future by anyone with a DUI. Make them permanent from the time of the first DUI. They have to pay for any install/maintenance.
But those devices aren't perfect.
Seat belts, airbags, anti lock breaks, break lights, rear view mirrors are all safety driven advances that were made to cars since their advent. They have saved countless lives. This would be no different. If the challenge was posed to car makers I can bet they'd have a tested working non-intrusive solution ready in under a year.
I never have and never will drink and drive. So does that mean I should be forced to have these devices in my car? That's ridiculous.
Now maybe a better preventative measure is to install these devices in ALL vehicles owned currently and in the future by anyone with a DUI. Make them permanent from the time of the first DUI. They have to pay for any install/maintenance.
But those devices aren't perfect.
"break" lights?
anti-lock "breaks" can actually be a bad thing.
Thanks for more proof that you're a moron.
