StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
You're being ridiculous. The state would be putting whiskey plates on the DUI's car not his wife's car. If his family wants to borrow the car, then he's put them in this position, not the state. If I go and commit a bunch of crimes and the state puts me in jail and then my family loses my income I could make the exact same silly argument that the state is punishing people (my family) for something they didn't do (since it was I who committed the crimes).
I do, but this seems a much easier step. If they don't want their whiskey plates they're perfectly free to not put them on their car as long as it never leaves the garage. In fact, this is nicer to them. It says "You can still drive, just not without a shame-plate, but if you don't want the plate, don't drive!".
I'm sorry, but otherwise, your stance is just plain cruel. There is NO logical reason for punishing family members who would be driving the same car.
Cruel, my God man grow some skin. If I commit a crime, my family will suffer. It's what happens when one is part of a family, you share the goods and the bads. If I do something stupid like get sent to jail or multi DUI of course they're going to suffer because we live together and share our lives. Cruel would be the state also putting plates on my wife's car even though she was not drinking, but if I drink and own a car, it goes on mine! And if both cars are registered to my wife for some reason, well then I gotta pick one to plate up!
No, my logic does not go there. Using YOUR logic, we should not send people to jail for commiting a crime if by their incarceration their family will suffer.
Good. Perhaps if one of your family members is careened into by somebody who has been caught driving drunk multiple times you'll have a different perspective on this.
Ideally, yes, but the problem is you cannot enforce that. I am pulled over about every two years and if I was more careful I would never have been pulled over, so it's very easy to drive long term without a license and never get caught--people do it all the time.
Yes, the justice system doesn't work as well as it should. But you can't lock up DUI people long term, the jails would explode. The point of the plate would be to scare the crap out of others that they don't want a scarlet letter or scare the person who has it reminding him how much it sucks to pull up for work with a whiskey plate.
It still is. .08 is a few drinks and already starts to impact driving skills.
Who knows? We could easily stop this entire thread right now if somebody could show that the plates do not meaningful cut recidivism because if htey don't, they're a waste of time and I'll give up even arguing it!
It would be PART of the crime and should not be retroactive.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Zero tolerance means that anything above 0.00 is too much.
No, you shouldn't be pulled over, you shouldn't be having a license at all and you should spend at least five years in jail for anything above 0.00. (with a 0.02 +- tolerance for measuring that in essence means that anything over 0.02 will get you busted).
How fucking hard is it, if in doubt, don't drive, that is as simple as it gets, no math to do, no nothing, if you are even at risk, you don't drive.
Right, but those who drink have lost their ability to judge. Thats why they are on the road to begin with. Most drunk drivers don't make the judgement call "I will drive even though I'm for certain to get into an accident and maybe kill someone." They lost their sense of judgement (thats why they are impaired, or DWI)... The only way to solve that matter is to ban alcohol. You could make the legal limit 0.02 but it won't help, because drunks will still drive anyways because they are drunk.
When I was pulled over, my ability to drive a vehicle was not impaired. Thats why I decided to go through the checkpoint. I seen it down the road but I said to myself "I've been driving, I am not impaired, I'm ok to go through it" even though I could have pulled off the road and took a detour.
I kick myself in the ass for the Reckless driving on my record because I was trying to play by the rules. Only to realize theres people out there who want me in jail for 5 years because I had some alcohol period.
I guess those type will only be happy when the only thing a human being can do in their life is work, pay taxes, and STFU. Oh, throw in watch football on Sunday as long as you don't have a Miller during the game.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Most drunk drivers get behind the wheel and drive because they know that in reality the chances of an accident are very low. It's the habitual driving drunk that causes issues. We know that 3 DUIs does not represent driving drunk 3 times; chances are the person does it all the time and was caught only three times. I'm sure I could drive around for an hour with a .15 and not get pulled over, more times than not. Even a person fairly drunk knows that they should not drive drunk but they do it because they know that they probably won't get caught, plus one's self-control decreases with the booze.
What was your blood alcohol at the time and do you think it was fairly determined (the breathalizer, for instance, was accurate)?
I don't think you should get five years because I think punishment should fit the crime. I see no cruel and unusual punishment taking somebody convicted of multiple DUIs and upping the ante with some helpful public shame, though
I presume that most people learn decently after the first DUI. They may have often drove "drunk" or close to it but then only get truly pedantic over their booze and really take it seriously after realizing that "not really feeling it" could still be a ticket and this is why a first time DUI, depending on the level of booze, may necessitate merely a slap on the wrist (as it currently does). I don't know what recidivism rates are but I bet they are not terribly high for first time offenders.
Considering Miller makes one of the better gas-station variety brands (MG Draft!), that would be a shame.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Sure, just like breathing isn't a right. You are only allowed to breath as long as you meet our government's requirements, and those who violate those requirements have the privlage of breathing revoked by execution.
No matter how you look at it, driving is not a right. You have to pass two tests (one written test and one physical test) to get your license. Last time I checked you didn't have to prove competency to speak your mind or breathe. If you have enough violations, your license can be taken away from you. In some states it can be taken away from you because you're too old. In other states minors can lose their license because of non-driving related activities.
So... if you're convicted of multiple DUIs, states can require you to have specialized plates installed on your car. Seems like a small price to pay when in reality after your third conviciton you should just have your license revoked forever. But that is a state's right issue.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
And those will drive anyway, my suggestion will get rid of the "chancers", it's an improvement.
You are belching out strawmen left and right, i never said anything about alcohol, i drink pretty heavily once in a while, this is not the issue at hand, being stupid drunk and armed IS, whether you run around on the streets with an M60 or a car doesn't really matter in my opinion.
Don't drink and drive period, if you can't handle that, you're not fit to have a license.
Exactly, more then one speeding ticket then ypu get the special plate too. More then one accident, special plate for your ass too. Etc., etc.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
If you know you have to drive, DO NOT DRINK. Before you take the first drink, your judgment is unaffected. If you have poor enough judgment stone cold sober to start drinking when you KNOW you will have to drive a little while later, you are a retard. When you get punished for DUI / DWI, you are not being punished for getting drunk and then deciding with clouded judgment to hop in a car and drive. You are being punished for making the totally sober and retarded decision to start drinking when you knew you would have to drive soon. You made that decision before you even took the first drink and for that you should be flogged within an inch of your life. If you know for fact that you can stop after 1 drink and then you have at least an hour before you need to drive that's one thing. But for many people once they take that first drink, judgment becomes clouded and then it's "oh one more won't hurt." People need to be honest with themselves and realize whether or not they are that "oh one more won't hurt" guy and if they are, don't even start if they know they will be driving. It is THAT lapse of judgment which happens before the first drink is ever taken that drunk drivers are punished for. Not for decisions they made while in an impaired state. THAT is why drunk driving accidents are totally preventable. I don't give a flying fvck how much alcohol the average Joe Boozebreath "THINKS" he can handle and still be able to drive fine. Once he has started drinking, he's in NO position to make that judgment call any more. You have no right to risk anybody else's life because you decided, with impaired judgment from drinking, that you were "Ok to drive." That's why the responsible person makes the call ahead of time and doesn't even start drinking. Why even take the chance with something that can potentially end so horrifically and for which there is absolutely no tangible benefit?
Exactly! Too often today people seem to confuse rights with priviledges. Driving is a priviledge that should be treated as such. If you abuse that priviledge the state should be allowed to revoke it.
How about just "I'm a terrible driver" plate for people who are constantly causing fender benders?
Or how about "I'm talking on the phone and too busy to drive" plate?
Driving as a right - When we pay taxes, we generally get a right to use the thing the tax money went to buy. But long ago governments determined that the had to have more control over drivers because of the damage they can cause. So they invented the LEGAL FICTION that driving is a privilege instead of a right. By saying it, it became so. Thus we have the license requirement and all that goes with it.
The Doctrine of Implied Consent - Another legal fiction that says if you are operating a vehicle on the public roadways, you imply your consent to be stopped (and searched) without probable cause. So probable cause does not enter into the analysis at all.
But this is like the case of those who refuse to pay income tax because it, too, is based on legal fictions. Even though the legal framework is based on fiction, it is well entrenched and will not likely change.
The Doctrine of Implied Consent - Another legal fiction that says if you are operating a vehicle on the public roadways, you imply your consent to be stopped (and searched) without probable cause. So probable cause does not enter into the analysis at all.
But this is like the case of those who refuse to pay income tax because it, too, is based on legal fictions. Even though the legal framework is based on fiction, it is well entrenched and will not likely change.
That's faulty logic, there are clear constitutional limits for what restrictions states can place on activities, even if the activities themselves aren't constitutionally protected. For example, a law saying that only Christians can drive would be unconstitutional, despite the fact that "driving is not a right".
That said, I don't think THIS particular case is unconstitutional. It is part of the punishment for DUI, and I don't think it's cruel and unusual or disproportionate to the crime, the two things that usually make a punishment illegal. Doing something that risks the lives of random people in the road more than once is not something to be taken lightly.
THAT said, I think it makes a lot more sense as a punishment if the DUI limit was raised. The real problem isn't the guy at .09, it's the guy at .25. With the limit as low as it is, you can get a DUI and still have better driving skills than people doing a large number of legal activities like talking on a cell phone.
I agree with your assesmnent Rains. It's not only the fact that you only need to have .09, but they keep it on your record for 10 years now.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter