View Full Version : Thoughts on DWI/DUI offenders
I have a friend, and I use that term loosely, more like an acquaintance through his family. In 2006 he was driving while intoxicated and hit a parked car killing a 10 year old boy who was sleeping. He was given 10 days jail and 180 days probation considering the car he hit was driving the wrong way and the driver of that car did not have a license to drive. He was given a breathalyzer but almost 2 hours after the collision and the results came back under the legal limit and the court ruled that alcohol was not a factor even though he had a $200 bar tab. In 2011 he was arrested for DWI but released because technically he was not driving but rather, parked with the engine running. Well in November 2015, he was driving while intoxicated and hit another car killing 2 people. He was given another 180 days probation because the car he hit was parked on the highway entrance ramp with no lights on. Apparently the woman who owned the car left her children in the car while she stepped away from the road, again, he was given a breathalyzer and blood test but almost 3 hours after the fact and test results concluded that alcohol was not a factor even though he stated that he had been drinking earlier. The judge issued a gag order, I am assuming to keep this out of the news but could be for other reasons as well. I know people hate repeat offenders especially when there is a death of a child involved. I'll admit, his attorney seems to be a good representative to have on your side but besides that I wanted to know how most of you felt about these types of things. On one hand, I'm relieved that we live in a country where money still talks and we have laws that can be in our favor and technicalities that rule in our favor, yet most laws seem to be against us. On the other hand, I feel that this guy should be serving a harsher sentence.
Any thoughts?
one of my buddies I quit hanging out with cause his drinking ended up killing his friend which most likely would have been me if I was not smart enough to say no more
his family is wealthy in the 100 million wealth and connected so he basically did a 6 month probation thing and that was it
he blew like 3x limit
yeah IMHO folks like this should be harsh sentences but they often are not sadly and sadly innocent die that do not need to
yet the number of people that die at the hands of drunks compared to guns are insane and yet nothing is really done about it
I have a friend, and I use that term loosely, more like an acquaintance through his family. In 2006 he was driving while intoxicated and hit a parked car killing a 10 year old boy who was sleeping. He was given 10 days jail and 180 days probation considering the car he hit was driving the wrong way and the driver of that car did not have a license to drive. He was given a breathalyzer but almost 2 hours after the collision and the results came back under the legal limit and the court ruled that alcohol was not a factor even though he had a $200 bar tab. In 2011 he was arrested for DWI but released because technically he was not driving but rather, parked with the engine running. Well in November 2015, he was driving while intoxicated and hit another car killing 2 people. He was given another 180 days probation because the car he hit was parked on the highway entrance ramp with no lights on. Apparently the woman who owned the car left her children in the car while she stepped away from the road, again, he was given a breathalyzer and blood test but almost 3 hours after the fact and test results concluded that alcohol was not a factor even though he stated that he had been drinking earlier. The judge issued a gag order, I am assuming to keep this out of the news but could be for other reasons as well. I know people hate repeat offenders especially when there is a death of a child involved. I'll admit, his attorney seems to be a good representative to have on your side but besides that I wanted to know how most of you felt about these types of things. On one hand, I'm relieved that we live in a country where money still talks and we have laws that can be in our favor and technicalities that rule in our favor, yet most laws seem to be against us. On the other hand, I feel that this guy should be serving a harsher sentence.
Any thoughts?
Thoughts? Asshole should be on death row.
Parked cars can just as easily be a kid on a bicycle. If you can't prevent hitting a parked car, you have no business driving. If you drive anyway because you are under the influence, then screw you. If you happen to kill somebody in the process, you should get zero consideration.
It's really easy to not drive intoxicated. If you want to drink, don't drive. If you want to drive, don't drink. It's literally two rules to live by that would prevent all of this crap.
I'm on the flip side. I don't know people who drink and drive, but I sure knew a few decent folks who are no longer alive because some other asshole did.
ramairthree
06-27-16, 23:40
So someone driving without a license down the wrong lane gets their kid killed, he blows under the legal limit.
Someone parks on a highway entrance ramp at night with no lights or markers, abandons their kids, gets them killed, he blows under the legal limit.
maybe mothers against people doing stupid shit getting their kids killed should get involved instead of MADD.
He probably is a scumbag that might have been over at the time,
But those seem to be situations the average sober driver could have gotten into.
I am glad we are getting serious drunks off the road, but the craziest driving I had been seeing that is dangerous, happening all the time, and very widespread are the very elderly, texters, and people I think are one a tone of Percocts and valiums.
I work with a guy who has a drinking problem. He used to be very talented and someone to look up to. He couldn't stop hittin' the sauce though. After his 6th DUI conviction, they finally revoked his license. Didn't stop him. He ran over and killed a 40 year old man that was out riding his bicycle and trying to stay fit so he could be a good father to his two young daughters. Every time I think about those two little girls and what they must go through on a daily basis, I get very angry. So angry I have to force myself to think about something else…
The drunk did some jail time for a few months, but then he got out. I wish someone had shanked that loser in prison. I have NO tolerance or sympathy for any of these a$$holes that put my life and the life of my loved ones at risk because they need to get drunk in public and then drive. I wish every single one of them would slit their wrists or just hang themselves. If it wasn't illegal, I would help them do so.
You wanna drink? Go ahead. I don't care. Just do it in a way that doesn't risk my life. Stay home and lock yourself in a cell. Handcuff yourself to a pole before you take the first drink. Or just have a designated driver. Its really not that hard to figure out. Uber anyone?
eightmillimeter
06-27-16, 23:59
I can understand the sentence in the first incident, but the second would have been 2 counts of vehicular homicide where I'm from, whether the test was 2-3 hours later wouldn't have mattered, we'd have the lab back up the bac.
maybe mothers against people doing stupid shit getting their kids killed should get involved instead of MADD.
He probably is a scumbag that might have been over at the time,
I am glad we are getting serious drunks off the road, but the craziest driving I had been seeing that is dangerous, happening all the time, and very widespread are the very elderly, texters, and people I think are one a tone of Percocts and valiums.
Well, there was more to the story on the 2nd collision, in the month leading up to his wreck , 2 other people had gotten in serious wreck with injuries in the same exact spot, so the jury said it was the luck of the draw. I got t boned last 4th of July by a lady who was texting and ran a red light. Luckily for me, she hit the rear door right behind me instead of my door.
So someone driving without a license down the wrong lane gets their kid killed, he blows under the legal limit.
Someone parks on a highway entrance ramp at night with no lights or markers, abandons their kids, gets them killed, he blows under the legal limit.
maybe mothers against people doing stupid shit getting their kids killed should get involved instead of MADD.
He probably is a scumbag that might have been over at the time,
But those seem to be situations the average sober driver could have gotten into.
I am glad we are getting serious drunks off the road, but the craziest driving I had been seeing that is dangerous, happening all the time, and very widespread are the very elderly, texters, and people I think are one a tone of Percocts and valiums.
The OP stated he was legal due to the fact that he was tested hours after the fact. That doesn't mean he wasn't impaired at the time and he shouldn't have been driving at all. I also have similar objections to the things you describe in your last sentence. If you are impaired, don't drive.
There have been times I took a prescription medicine, which did not prohibit driving or operating heavy machinery, but due to my low tolerance for anything I actually got pretty woozy and made the decision that I wasn't good to drive even though I only wanted to run around the corner and grab some Burger King. It's basic accountability.
I don't need a BAC to tell me if I'm good to go, there have been times where I know I was perfectly legal but again due to low alcohol tolerance, I handed my keys to my gf at the time because the single B&B I had after a steak dinner made me a little fuzzy and I wasn't 100% about my ability to navigate home in the snow.
If we'd all follow some basic rules, like we do with guns, a lot less people would be killed. Some suggestions are:
Dont' text and drive. Put your damn phone down and if you HAVE to take or make a call, pull over off the road.
Don't drive if you are under the influence of ANYTHING and are impaired. I don't care if it's one beer, legally prescribed or whatever. If you are "impaired" don't drive. You have to be adult enough to figure out if you are good to go.
If your eyesight is so bad, your reaction time so poor or you are subject to any other severe limitation that prevents you from driving safely then you shouldn't drive. You might be too old, you might be handicapped you might be a combat injured veteran. Nobody is trying to punish you for anything, and we should do everything reasonable to permit you to be a safe driver if you are able, but if you are not good to go, then you aren't good to go. And when the day comes that I can no longer pass a standard driving test then I need to stop driving. It will suck, but not as bad as killing a kid by mistake.
ramairthree
06-28-16, 00:41
I can understand the sentence in the first incident, but the second would have been 2 counts of vehicular homicide where I'm from, whether the test was 2-3 hours later wouldn't have mattered, we'd have the lab back up the bac.
How? He had a legal BAC and hit a car stopped on the highway at night with no lights.
What would you do to 0 BAC, vs 01, vs .02, .04 guy that came around a corner in the dark and hit a car stopped there with no lights, flares, Etc.?
Do I have the scenario wrong? I picture coming around the curve of a clover leaf getting onto whatever highway I took the exit for and bam, a non moving car in the lane in the dark , no brake lights, nothing just stopped there?
I am not here cheering on drunk drivers.
I want them off the road.
I want them answering fully.
Driving down the wrong side of the road without a license and blaming the guy that hits you, That's like blaming and ostracizing gun owners for shooting at a home intruder and hitting their kid they brought on the robbery with them.
You hit a line of kids getting on the bus after ten drinks and I am all for lowering you into a pen of starving hogs an inch at a time.
But there seems to be something very fishy about the two accidents he was in on the part of the other drivers.
either he has a drinking and driving problem or does not ?
that said same goes for texting and driving and I am more afraid of being hit by idiots texting these days then drinking so I guess I am a old curmudgeon but ANY of these distracted or drunk drivers need insane harsh sentences
agree often the other party might have something to do with things like stopping on a road no lights leaving kids in cars ? IMHO these again if he has a drinking driving are just the times he has been caught !!!
just like child molesters many have done many things just to get caught and claim first offense
Moose-Knuckle
06-28-16, 04:12
Any thoughts?
I think the family members of their victims should be legally allowed to bludgeon them to death.
Seems to me the first one is both drivers fault. Guy driving with no license should not have been there. Guy driving after drinking should not have been there.
One with the car parked in the dark, unless it was illegally parked, it's drinking guys fault. Guy driving after drinking should not have been there. Yes, parking in a bad spot is adding to the risk, and a contributing factor, but if drinker was not driving, he would not have hit the car.
Whether or not someone else would hit the car is another matter.
There is no excuse for drinking and driving, period. Hit them with everything they can.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
The legal limit is a quantified set number. You are over or under it. It seems clear to me. If the current limit is too high, the law needs changed.
That said, once you've killed 3 people, sober or not, I'd be taking a long look in the mirror. Even if it's 100% the other guys fault, it would be hard to deal with, especially twice.
As for drinking and driving, I like to enjoy a beer with dinner and drive home. I'm within the law, and I don't get inebriated. It also doesn't put people at risk since I can still drive normal. Personal responsibility is applicable here, along with many things in life.
Business_Casual
06-28-16, 10:57
Isn't drink driving the same as gun ownership? You can own a car and do stupid things with it. You buy a bottle of booze and do stupid things with it. Same goes for a gun. If you do something like drive the wrong way down a street or park on a ramp you share some of the "stupid" don't you?
ramairthree
06-28-16, 11:11
Again,
I read it as a car parked and stopped in the lane on the road at night with no lights. Something any sober guy would come around a corner and hit.
I am trying to make the point someone with a BAC more than zero but in the legal limit should not be vilified.
Anyone of you could toast a guy leaving at work, a birthday at dinner, and get in an accident with a BAC half the legal limit or less somebody else caused and should not be vilified for it.
There are enough to scumbags over the legal limit, some far far over, getting in repeat accidents that they caused that should be done for.
The legal limit has gone from .10 to .08.
Are we really looking to put guys at .04 and .02 into the horrible felon category?
That is like putting legal, law abiding safe gun owners in the same category gang bangers.
I went back and looked at the op. It only reads that the car was parked on the entrance ramp to the highway. Really, this leaves a lot open, as some ramps are straight, and some are curved. Also, there is usually a breakdown lane of sorts along one side. So, the car could be anywhere there, but it's being assumed that it was parked in the lane itself.
And no, I agree that the person who has a drink with dinner does not need to become a felon for life.
There was explanation given to suggest somewhat heavy drinking before each wreck.
But there is clearly a pattern here, and by this last incident, this guy should be off the road, at the very least.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
crusader377
06-28-16, 12:22
Back to the original posting by the OP. I believe the individual that he posted about is a public menace and their should be more ways to keep people like that out of society. IMO in the era of smartphones and uber their is no reason why anyone should drive drunk and drunk drivers deserve every negative thing that happens to them.
Again,
I read it as a car parked and stopped in the lane on the road at night with no lights. Something any sober guy would come around a corner and hit.
How many sober drivers didn't hit that stupidly parked car? Were they able to miss it because they were sober and their reaction times and SA were not impaired?
That is like putting legal, law abiding safe gun owners in the same category gang bangers.
Legal, law abiding, safe, gun owners don't "accidentally" kill three kids after they've been drinking. NOT the same thing in any way.
Would you not want to prosecute a guy who shot his gun off and killed a couple of kids, because those kids should not have been standing there? Just like the gun in your example, we are all responsible for where we point our cars. Adding alcohol to the mix make either a crime.
I had a buddy who was a bad alcoholic right out of Highschool.
He had a kid within 2 years of graduating, and with that he fell down a slippery slope.
I remember many a times him coming over to drink, would spend some time plastered, and would wanna leave.
There was a couple times I considered calling him in for it, at one point, (The last time we hung out in this manner) he was so toasted he was putting the car in gear with the door open and one foot outside.
I told him if he left, he wouldn't make it outa the driveway before I called him in. He hopped out, threw his keys, and angrily started walking. Considering he was 20 miles from home, and 5 miles away from even the nearest street lamp, he was doomed from the get-go.
I let him go anyways.
Moral of the story, I always wondered how often he hopped into his car with his Kid. He worked overnights, probably still does, and there were far to many weeks I would see him crawling out of a local bar in the mornings/afternoons.
Nowadays, I hear he is sober, doesn't drink at all, but because of those actions, we don't really talk much anymore.
His alcohol caused many a issue, but particularly, it drove everyone he knew away. He never got a DUI, or got into an accident (that he was ever willing to admit), but every time I knew he was drinking, it was an extreme moral dilemma, needless to say, I finally said I was not going to have his actions resting on my mind at the end of the day.
I always wondered though, if maybe he had gotten in trouble, and that's what spurred his wanting to be sober, or what.
Eurodriver
06-28-16, 13:22
I am glad we are getting serious drunks off the road, but the craziest driving I had been seeing that is dangerous, happening all the time, and very widespread are the very elderly, texters, and people I think are one a tone of Percocts and valiums.
I've been on Percs due to an orthopaedic procedure I had done last week.
Literally the only thing I can think of 90% of the time is "Wow, I am loopy as f. right now. I can barely keep myself awake - I would never ever drive like this". I cannot possibly fathom how anyone would think it's okay, a good idea, not unsafe, etc
The other 10% is outside the scope of this thread.
eightmillimeter
06-28-16, 14:17
How? He had a legal BAC and hit a car stopped on the highway at night with no lights.
What would you do to 0 BAC, vs 01, vs .02, .04 guy that came around a corner in the dark and hit a car stopped there with no lights, flares, Etc.?
Do I have the scenario wrong? I picture coming around the curve of a clover leaf getting onto whatever highway I took the exit for and bam, a non moving car in the lane in the dark , no brake lights, nothing just stopped there?
I am not here cheering on drunk drivers.
I want them off the road.
I want them answering fully.
Driving down the wrong side of the road without a license and blaming the guy that hits you, That's like blaming and ostracizing gun owners for shooting at a home intruder and hitting their kid they brought on the robbery with them.
You hit a line of kids getting on the bus after ten drinks and I am all for lowering you into a pen of starving hogs an inch at a time.
But there seems to be something very fishy about the two accidents he was in on the part of the other drivers.
I may have misunderstood the OP when he said the guy was tested 3 hours later and alcohol was determined to be not a factor, I guess he didn't specifically say it was a zero test, any presence of alcohol 3-4 hours will put the average guy over 0.08 in most cases, which is what I was referring to.
My thinking is that it is totally avoidable.
If you're gonna drink, don't drive.
If you're gonna drive, don't drink.
Everybody has a sob story, but it is never an excuse.
But hey, if you have enough money you can get away with anything.
I think what bothers me is the fact that he was able to get out of any wrongdoing because of a technicality. I mean, hitting a parked car on an entrance ramp could happen to anyone, hitting a car driving the wrong way could happen to anyone. Its just that this guys has super rich parents and seems that we all know alcohol contributed but since he stopped at both and called police to report and hung around to help, he had time to sober up since they didn't do a BAC test till a couple hours later. I don't know if that is enough time to recover from being drunk but it just seems that somewhere in the rule book there is a loop hole that handicaps drunk drivers. Perhaps it because he stopped and stayed at the scene and cooperated with police, maybe its because the wrecks looked like perfectly normal unavoidable accidents, maybe its because he has a good lawyer. Too me, this is like the "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit". Should the police to a breathalyzer within moments of something like that or is it standard to wait till later? I think I'm bothered by his attitude about this, I know it doesn't bother him, he got a new car, he is going to Hawaii for 20 days in August and seems to not have any memory of the accidents.
Should the police to a breathalyzer within moments of something like that or is it standard to wait till later? I think I'm bothered by his attitude about this, I know it doesn't bother him, he got a new car, he is going to Hawaii for 20 days in August and seems to not have any memory of the accidents.
Reference your last sentence, sociopaths gonna be sociopaths whether they are drunk or sober.
The way most state's (I think all) laws work is that you have to be under arrest to be required to provide a breath blood or urine sample that is admissible. The roadside devices that officers carry in their units are called 'PBT's' (Probable Cause Breath Test) and can be used to establish PC to arrest, but their results are not admissible.
You can also extrapolate a BAC based on the time of the accident/arrest, time of the breath test, and the person's physical size. There are also attorneys who make very good livings trying to make sure those extrapolated results are not admitted.
But hey, in America today, if you've got the money, you make the rules.
scoutfsu99
06-28-16, 20:22
You wouldn't happen to have any links you could provide so we can see read up on these two fatal car wrecks, would you?
Averageman
06-28-16, 20:25
Reference your last sentence, sociopaths gonna be sociopaths whether they are drunk or sober.
There are likely a Hundred Thousand or more drunks driving home from work right now. You aren't going to stop them, no matter how stiff the penalty it continues.
Now add a Alcoholic and a Sociopath together?
You're more likely to have been glad to have met them than wonder if they're to drunk to drive home tonight. Many times when stopped, they'll in most cases not get "caught", they're just too smooth well practiced for that. When caught in an obvious accident caused by their drunkenness, they will likely come out as your example did.
Sociopath + addict + family money?
Dude just walk as far away as you can.
I think I'm bothered by his attitude about this, I know it doesn't bother him, he got a new car, he is going to Hawaii for 20 days in August and seems to not have any memory of the accidents.
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2013/06/27/27-dexter-greenshirt-2.w750.h560.2x.jpg
My thinking is that it is totally avoidable.
If you're gonna drink, don't drive.
If you're gonna drive, don't drink.
Everybody has a sob story, but it is never an excuse.
But hey, if you have enough money you can get away with anything.
This right here.
I see DUI as one of the most preventable crimes out there. Don't drink and drive. It's pretty damn easy. I think the courts are way too lenient on it and here it is quickly plead to negligent driving in spite of the suspect failing SFTs, blowing over .08 and solid pre-stop indicators. Really DUI is treated like a joke in the legal world and it pisses me off. Some of the worst crashes I ever went to were DUI related. I'd like to see actual jail time for 1st and 2nd offenders and those who catch a felony DUI, make that shit stick. Too bad the prosecutors and judges are weak sucks.
Every perpetual drunk driver has a story they try to use as an excuse. It isn't worth it. The average drunk will drive 80 times before they get caught, putting all of us and our families at risk.
Texas is an unforgiving state for the drunk driver. We have a state prison just for them. Having worked in a couple jails, I've noticed that the same people continue this habit, and it's the repeat offenders who go to prison. It's almost as if this bunch looks for a car to drive when they drink. 99.99% of the repeat offenders are alcoholics, and maybe it's this disease that interferes with their thinking. I don't see a cure for it.
Moose-Knuckle
06-29-16, 02:48
Texas is an unforgiving state for the drunk driver. We have a state prison just for them. Having worked in a couple jails, I've noticed that the same people continue this habit, and it's the repeat offenders who go to prison. It's almost as if this bunch looks for a car to drive when they drink. 99.99% of the repeat offenders are alcoholics, and maybe it's this disease that interferes with their thinking. I don't see a cure for it.
We have more than one sitting out life sentences for habitual offender status of DWI's. They didn't even kill anybody but after twenty arrests or so the Judge isn't going to take that chance.
But hey, if you have enough money you can get away with anything.
Bad driving taxes are big revenue generators. If traffic laws were meant to make the streets safer the penalty would be suspension or revocation instead of fine$ and "points".
Bad driving taxes are big revenue generators. If traffic laws were meant to make the streets safer the penalty would be suspension or revocation instead of fine$ and "points".
I don't disagree with your premise, but there is a HUGE difference between drunk driving and rolling a stop sign or driving 8 mph over.
I don't disagree with your premise, but there is a HUGE difference between drunk driving and rolling a stop sign or driving 8 mph over.
Theres even more money to be made from DUI offenses. Not just in bad driving taxes, but also attorney fees, driver education courses and "treatment" to keep the driver on the road even after a DUI conviction.
Since theres no Constitutional protection for unfettered access to motorized transportation, a state should set its max BAC and once that threshold has been crossed... meaningful suspension or permanent revocation in addition to penalties for any other harm done as a result of the DUI. Follow the money...
Digital_Damage
06-29-16, 09:49
Many states have modifiers to the laws with increased penalties.
In FL
Being Involved in an accident is treated far more serious.
Killing someone is man slaughter.
Twice the limit, forces minimum sentencing guidelines.
that is the laws on the books.
As for the Money equation it is BIG money for the state, the average DUI will cost someone round 16,000 in probation fees and fines. That is the REAL reason they have sobriety checks.
Theres even more money to be made from DUI offenses. Not just in bad driving taxes, but also attorney fees, driver education courses and "treatment" to keep the driver on the road even after a DUI conviction.
Since theres no Constitutional protection for unfettered access to motorized transportation, a state should set its max BAC and once that threshold has been crossed... meaningful suspension or permanent revocation in addition to penalties for any other harm done as a result of the DUI. Follow the money...
Good idea! They should make a law so that Felons can't possess firearms too!
Good idea! They should make a law so that Felons can't possess firearms too!
Laws don't prevent crimes from being committed, but they can punish those that commit them... if folks actually want to see a criminal punished. Most don't when the drunk driver is in their own home or they are the drunk driver.
Ok, Honest question to all the posters in this thread:
If you were responsible for writing the DUI laws of your state, what would be your punishment for a first time offender with no criminal record and the DUI didn't involve an accident. The defendant was caught speeding and during the traffic stop was found to be intoxicated and their BAC was 0.08 at the time of testing.
What would be your minimum punishment for this situation?
No fines, 18 month no special privileges/conditions suspension.
Ok, Honest question to all the posters in this thread:
If you were responsible for writing the DUI laws of your state, what would be your punishment for a first time offender with no criminal record and the DUI didn't involve an accident. The defendant was caught speeding and during the traffic stop was found to be intoxicated and their BAC was 0.08 at the time of testing.
What would be your minimum punishment for this situation?
Upon conviction after due process: 6 months suspended license. $10,000 fine. Mandatory guided tour of a junk yard containing lots of crashed DUI cars, including all the shit and blood stains, preferably at noon in the sun in summer. 12 months probation with a blow and go device after the suspension is up. No BS. No exceptions.
Just DON'T drink and drive. Simple.
To think,
With SmartStartMN, we've only had a few reported incidents of drunk drivers making their kids/teens blow into the device.
I mean, heck, it can't be that bad right? At least they have options to get to work and bring they kids to school. (/sarcasm) :jester:
To be honest, I refuse to drink anything more than one drink and still drive. I take proof content in consideration when requesting drinks, if I plan on driving, and make sure to spend some time where I am. I have no issues with having a beer, relaxing in the restaurant for an hour or so while you eat and wait for food. Spend some time after the meal with discussion and such. By the time we are ready for date night to come to a wrap, the single beer was nothing more than a nice compliment to my meal and discussion.
I don't do the tall boys, or mugs, or etc. If I plan to drink-to-drink, I have a Cab Company in the family, if I know he'll be busy, I am within walking distance of a small country bar that makes a damn good burger.
I would rather be able to make it to work to afford those date-nights and drinking-nights than not; even more importantly, my fun is not worth the exchange of another life.
If I had to choose, or make the laws, penalties should be increased. Any same or similar, ever, should come with revocation and a hell of a time getting it back. I agree, driving is a privilege. 3 or more repeat offenders. Pull with require of appeal. Make them give a good reason why they need it back. Be very strict, and need to see promising results before approval. If they mess up that appeal, bye-bye license. Enjoy the bus or hoofing it from here on out.
ETA: Considering our public transportation continues to report lowered use and prices continue to climb to ride the bus, maybe they should start forcing more people to ride them.
BoringGuy45
06-29-16, 12:51
Ok, Honest question to all the posters in this thread:
If you were responsible for writing the DUI laws of your state, what would be your punishment for a first time offender with no criminal record and the DUI didn't involve an accident. The defendant was caught speeding and during the traffic stop was found to be intoxicated and their BAC was 0.08 at the time of testing.
What would be your minimum punishment for this situation?
The DUI laws here in PA are pretty reasonable here, including for the scenario you give here. For a first offense with a BAC between .08 and .099, it's a minimum $300 fine, 6 months probation, mandatory highway safety school, but no license suspension. The only thing I would change is adding a 60 day suspension, 5 points on the offender's license, and the removal of safety school. Highway safety school is nothing but a feel good measure. High insurance rates and having to bum rides is, in my opinion, a much more effective deterrent than making people spend an hour each week watching movies telling them not to do things they already know they shouldn't have done.
drinking and driving I would make it one year in prison and 5 year probation !!!!
you know the laws dont do it !!!!
just like other countries and drug smuggling are the risks worth it ?
I would also make texting and driving accidents the same thing !
maybe it was my FD/Medic days of picking up body parts or trying to patch people together but I have seen enough death from DUI and enough lives ruined on a regular basis
Business_Casual
06-29-16, 14:58
Upon conviction after due process: 6 months suspended license. $10,000 fine. Mandatory guided tour of a junk yard containing lots of crashed DUI cars, including all the shit and blood stains, preferably at noon in the sun in summer. 12 months probation with a blow and go device after the suspension is up. No BS. No exceptions.
Just DON'T drink and drive. Simple.
You would bankrupt your State. Simple.
JackFanToM
06-29-16, 15:02
I think if caught drinking and driving it is an automatic loss of driving privileges for life, 2nd offense 5 years in prison, 3rd offense 15 years, 4th is life. Accident involving a fatality results in a 2nd degree murder charge, if you were intoxicated at the time of the accident.
Alcoholics are treated as if they have an uncontrollable illness...I know as I have been sober since 1998. It is controllable, and adults are accountable for decisions they make! Sick of the double standard of alcohol vs illicit drugs, they are all the same and alcohol has killed a great many people in the US. I don't care if people drink, or do drugs, but if you choose to do those things they should not be allowed to be used to excuse the actions committed while under their influence.
The_War_Wagon
06-29-16, 15:09
I'm partial to roadside executions myself. Alcohol, drugs, matters not to me. Cops can call the next of kin - "Ma'am, your husband Fred was caught driving drunk at mile marker 68 on the interstate. You can collect his carcass there; bring help - he looks heavy."
JackFanToM
06-29-16, 15:11
War Wagon, thanks for the chuckle [emoji4]
The reason DUI gets dropped, plead down, whatever is because most judges and lawyers are drunks themselves.
Not all, but most. As long as the judge generates revenue and the lawyer generates revenue and so forth; nobody cares.
Like the judge who berates an officer for waiting by a nearby juke joint or club until people start pulling out and catch some drunks. And accuse officer of entrapment.
Um....no. By that logic, hiding out by a playground and waiting for some guy in a raincoat and a van advertising free candy and naps is entrapment if you bust his ass for messing with kids.
Or hanging out by a stop sign or dark parking lot waiting for dope to be slung.
But they are the judge and know every damn thing so case dismissed.
ETA Yet checkpoint charlie East Berlin "license checks" never get questioned by a judge. Wonder why? Oh yeah....the revenue for No License on Person, Tail light out, cracked windshield, etc
Averageman
06-29-16, 16:40
The reason DUI gets dropped, plead down, whatever is because most judges and lawyers are drunks themselves.
Not all, but most. As long as the judge generates revenue and the lawyer generates revenue and so forth; nobody cares.
A page or so back I went in to a rant about Sociopaths who were also Alcoholics, I'm pretty sure that applies to those groups mentioned above.
The reason DUI gets dropped, plead down, whatever is because most judges and lawyers are drunks themselves.
Or because....the officer did a poor administration of SFSTS, did not ask the correct questions, failed to obtain a sample of the defendant's breath or blood, botched the warrant to get the sample, failed to turn on his microphone, failed to wait for adequate PC to stop the vehicle, is unable to articulate reasonable suspicion properly, is unable to articulate what he is doing in each of the SFTS, why he did them, or who developed them, or how they are used, what causes certain things to be present under alcohol, has prior issues with impeaching himself on the stand, the video is broken, the tests aren't done on camera, the officer failed to conduct a preliminary medical screening before administering the HGN test, is unable to articulate why such preliminary screening is important, the officer cannot testify as to the causes of HGN, the breath test was not performed correctly....
...i could go on forever. DWI investigations require training, and where you live can have a serious impact on how well people are trained. I have seen it vary wildly from county to county, state to state.
DWIs can be a pain to prove up, and if you have a skeptical jury pool it can take a lot of work. It also accounts for the vast majority of misdemeanor trials in Texas.
That is the reason most DWIs get reduced...if you have people reducing them just for the heck of it in your county, call MADD, I'm sure they will help.
The reason DUI gets dropped, plead down, whatever is because most judges and lawyers are drunks themselves.
Not all, but most. As long as the judge generates revenue and the lawyer generates revenue and so forth; nobody cares.
Like the judge who berates an officer for waiting by a nearby juke joint or club until people start pulling out and catch some drunks. And accuse officer of entrapment.
Um....no. By that logic, hiding out by a playground and waiting for some guy in a raincoat and a van advertising free candy and naps is entrapment if you bust his ass for messing with kids.
Or hanging out by a stop sign or dark parking lot waiting for dope to be slung.
But they are the judge and know every damn thing so case dismissed.
ETA Yet checkpoint charlie East Berlin "license checks" never get questioned by a judge. Wonder why? Oh yeah....the revenue for No License on Person, Tail light out, cracked windshield, etc
You don't want to know how many local judges down here have been nailed for DUI. Worst part is most of them never lose their job. They go into a "program" and talk about how their "substance challenges" actually make them a better judge because they can relate to other offenders and empathize with them.
Moose-Knuckle
06-30-16, 03:08
Australia and a spike of DWI/DUI vehicular homicides several years ago. Nothing was curbing the problem; fines, jail time, notta.
One savvy judge decided to use an age old tactic, public shame. He would have the offenders mugshot photo, offense, and name plastered on billboards in close proximity to the offenders home/work/kids' schools, etc.
Say what you will, but THAT made their DWIs drop significantly. So kind of a modern take on putting someone in the stocks in the town square for all to walk by and see.
mattpittinger
07-01-16, 02:20
Well I've skimmed most of the posts on this one after reading the OP, and I'm afraid I'm going to get banned or burned alive for this......I've had a DUI. Yup. And while I agree for the most with what y'all are saying, roadside executions seem a bit harsh.
My DUI was one of the best things that ever happen to me. Now in the moment it was really bad, spent the night in hands down the worst jail I've ever sat, spent enough money to buy a transferable M16, and really really really pissed my wife off.
It led me to getting my shit strait. I had been a **** up for quite a while and it was a hell of a wake up call.
I know everyone has a story about someone that got away with murder while driving drunk, it's true it happens, it costs a boat load of money, but there are people with boat loads of money that get away with murder sober. That's the advantage of boat loads of money. For the average, and even above average, it is not a fun time.
I know several close family and friend that have had one. Texas frat life+10 year oilfield, it's really not that uncommon. Some it didn't phase, and those people were, and still are real big pieces of shit. Some were like me, raised in a culture that condoned and encouraged drinking and driving, and never got that wake up call until they had handcuffs on.
I'm not condoning it by any means, but the jail sentences I'm hearing on here are nuts FOR A FIRST OFFENCE. You pull that shit a second time I'm with y'all, throw the book at them, but people **** up, drink too much and make bad choices. I did. I didn't kill anyone, I could have, and that's what gets me the most. In college and a little after, i could of killed someone any Friday night. I got lucky. Some don't and that's a shame, if you kill or hurt someone, throw the book at them.
However for a drunk kid, that ****s up, gets put though a rough time (yeah it is a real pain in the ass for a DUI), and then shapes up because of it, let's tone it down with the roadside execution talk.
My $0.02
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moose-Knuckle
07-01-16, 05:07
Well I've skimmed most of the posts on this one after reading the OP, and I'm afraid I'm going to get banned or burned alive for this......I've had a DUI. Yup. And while I agree for the most with what y'all are saying, roadside executions seem a bit harsh.
My DUI was one of the best things that ever happen to me. Now in the moment it was really bad, spent the night in hands down the worst jail I've ever sat, spent enough money to buy a transferable M16, and really really really pissed my wife off.
It led me to getting my shit strait. I had been a **** up for quite a while and it was a hell of a wake up call.
I know everyone has a story about someone that got away with murder while driving drunk, it's true it happens, it costs a boat load of money, but there are people with boat loads of money that get away with murder sober. That's the advantage of boat loads of money. For the average, and even above average, it is not a fun time.
I know several close family and friend that have had one. Texas frat life+10 year oilfield, it's really not that uncommon. Some it didn't phase, and those people were, and still are real big pieces of shit. Some were like me, raised in a culture that condoned and encouraged drinking and driving, and never got that wake up call until they had handcuffs on.
I'm not condoning it by any means, but the jail sentences I'm hearing on here are nuts FOR A FIRST OFFENCE. You pull that shit a second time I'm with y'all, throw the book at them, but people **** up, drink too much and make bad choices. I did. I didn't kill anyone, I could have, and that's what gets me the most. In college and a little after, i could of killed someone any Friday night. I got lucky. Some don't and that's a shame, if you kill or hurt someone, throw the book at them.
However for a drunk kid, that ****s up, gets put though a rough time (yeah it is a real pain in the ass for a DUI), and then shapes up because of it, let's tone it down with the roadside execution talk.
My $0.02
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah that's cool and all but I'm still for executing anyone and everyone to include rich ****'s that kill innocent people whether it's intoxication vehicular homicide or willful murder.
I'm not for executing someone who had one to many and got stopped by a LEO cause they couldn't keep it in between the lines.
I wasn't going to post on this topic, but....
I'm not a fan of creating laws to turn people into criminals before they've even committed a crime. I'm sure plenty of people drive better at the legal limit than many sober people can muster if they're distracted or not but we let EVERYONE drive anyway. I've known people injured/killed by a drunk driver (to include close family members) and I've known people including myself injured/killed by sober drivers. Some people just can't drive and some people can.
Part of me feels like most of us have been successfully brainwashed into thinking that someone who gets a DUI is the devil himself and any punishment is acceptable to include roadside execution. I have a buddy that once got a DUI when we were in our early 20's and is now 40 and has yet to have a car accident that was his fault. Meanwhile I know a girl who has had COUNTLESS car accidents that were here fault including injury accidents and one that resulted in manslaughter chargers that she was later cleared of. She doesn't drink alcohol. So according to our laws the safe driver who barely blew the legal limit is more of a threat to himself and those around him than the girl who has repeatedly caused injury/death to other motorists as a direct result of her poor driving.
Just seems like some backwards thinking in there for the freest country in the world where we criminalize those who have done nothing wrong otherwise to prevent them from potentially doing something wrong. Sounds like a similar argument to gun control to make us all safer and I think I know how most of us here side on that conversation.
Just seems like some backwards thinking in there for the freest country in the world where we criminalize those who have done nothing wrong otherwise to prevent them from potentially doing something wrong. Sounds like a similar argument to gun control to make us all safer and I think I know how most of us here side on that conversation.
Done nothing wrong? Driving drunk and risking the lives of innocent people around you is most definitely something wrong. Crashing your car while drinking and driving, leading to the deaths of three children, which is the subject of this thread, will most definitely fall under the heading of "doing something wrong". Once a drunk is behind the wheel and going down the road, there is nothing "potential" about it. In that case, something wrong is being done.
I have no problem with any laws that call for no shooting while drunk. Drinking and shooting should be illegal. Punishing a drunk driver is no different than punishing someone who uses a firearm in public in an irresponsible or dangerous way while intoxicated. Drunk driving does not equal responsible safe firearm ownership in any way, so no, I don't think these arguments sound similar at all.
As for your example of the girl who can't seem to drive without crashing: I have no problem with fines and license suspension or revocation for her either. I would not mind jail time for her if she injures someone else in an at fault accident, given her history. I would like her to get the crashed car junkyard tour too. Because "the system" has not dealt with this particular poor driver, is not an excuse to give a pass to anyone who drinks and drives. We would all be safer if there were no drunks OR stupid people with a track record of inability to handle a motor vehicle responsibly on the road. Both should be removed from the road and dealt with legally.
mattpittinger,
I actually applaud your forthcomingness given the topic.
I've dealt with a lot of DUIs and honestly most people just allowed their drinking to sneak up on them. Not excusing it, just understanding. While a lot of drunks get DUIs, not everyone with a DUI is necessarily a drunk.
It doesn't excuse it and I am not one of the Judge Dredd types. I stand by my statements that a lot of Monty Hall goes on, especially if you have money or are a fat fish in a small pond.
It doesn't matter what I think but FWIW, one should take a bit of Zen. Forgive yourself, be thankful no one was injured, and do better next time.
If people want to drink, fine. Just do it where you aren't driving. Even a straight and sober person can have an automobile accident. Wrong place wrong time and all.
So, I do think people should get treatment if they have a real problem but in some cases punishment once changes a person's outlook entirely.
I'm not a lawyer or politician and don't want to be. All I can say, and with sincerity and not as a smug cop filler phrase, is I understand.
JackFanToM
07-01-16, 15:15
I think the 1st offense consequences should be higher, i.e. Immediate loss of privileges for life, and that would make people plan accordingly. Those that don't/can't follow that simple law begin the path to no longer being an issue that much quicker.
mattpittinger
07-01-16, 15:23
I think the 1st offense consequences should be higher, i.e. Immediate loss of privileges for life, and that would make people plan accordingly. Those that don't/can't follow that simple law begin the path to no longer being an issue that much quicker.
So a 20 year old college kid that screwed up one night, needs to have his life ruined?
That falls into the same logic as giving teenagers sex offender charges for texting a naked pic, we were all young and dumb once, some of us still are, I'm all for learning a lesson, and you should be punished, but on a first offense you shouldn't have your life ruined.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Life isn't black and white, nor gray.
It is full color.
JackFanToM
07-01-16, 15:26
Consequences are severe enough it will make people adjust, and yes if the same 20 year old gets in an accident and kills someone their life won't be ruined?
mattpittinger
07-01-16, 15:27
Life isn't black and white, nor gray.
It is full color.
Agreed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So a 20 year old college kid that screwed up one night, needs to have his life ruined?
That falls into the same logic as giving teenagers sex offender charges for texting a naked pic, we were all young and dumb once, some of us still are, I'm all for learning a lesson, and you should be punished, but on a first offense you shouldn't have your life ruined.
I don't agree that license revocation for life is appropriate for a first time offender either, but texting a sexy picture is not equivalent to dunk driving and risking lives in ANY way. There is no comparison there.
Don Robison
07-01-16, 15:36
Consequences are severe enough it will make people adjust, and yes if the same 20 year old gets in an accident and kills someone their life won't be ruined?
Can't get much more severe than the death penalty; yet we still have a high rate of murder........
Consequences are severe enough it will make people adjust, and yes if the same 20 year old gets in an accident and kills someone their life won't be ruined?
With respect, I hope your wife/domestic partner never accuses you of Domestic Violence.
I have dealt with people under the legal limit, but just couldn't handle their liquor and guys stopped for a headlight out blowing .112 who were not slurring, not staggering, and actually completed SFST but were by Intoxilyzer reading over the limit. And, while not excusing it, likely would've gotten home had it not been for some nickel and dime stop.
It's easy to be hawkish and absolute until it affects you.
You may not be a drinker, neither am I, but someone somewhere someday will make a law that will strip you of a right for life.
Then what?
Think about it.
JackFanToM
07-01-16, 15:43
Murder is a more deviant act than the simple lack of accountability that is demonstrated by drinking and driving. Most murders either are indifferent of the consequence or assume they can get away with it.
I disagree with the loss of a privilege as being the same as ruining someone's life. 1st offenders currently are made mildly uncomfortable and then pay fines and court costs.
JackFanToM
07-01-16, 15:51
Again a difference of false accusation and actually actively breaking a law and putting others at risk.
Typical of our current paradigm that we excuse alcohol abusers but if the same person was caught driving with an illicit drug, also a young person first time offender they would be incarcerated, or if they had a concealed weapon without a license, or a million other crimes of varying degrees that are not equally excused as a "first time" offender but are potentially far less lethal.
"Oh I'm a young kid and I made a mistake" doesn't excuse a great many things, why does it work with drinking and driving?
Okay, I appreciate your strong opinions and beliefs. Now all you have to do is get enough consensus built and get a legislator to present it as a bill (it helps if it felonizes ir bars firearm ownership) and get it passed as State Law. Or go to Police Academy, get certified for SFST, ARIDE, DRE, and Intoximeter and just be the hardest ass on the side of the road you can be. Get a Campaign Hat and shave your head.
But bear in mind everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and must be proven in a court of law.
Also bear in mind, people get restraining orders(a disqualifier for firearms purchase) all the time on mere accusation in a lot of areas.
So, good luck with it.
JackFanToM
07-01-16, 16:13
I'm not kidding myself into thinking this will change, or that there are other stupidities in the law (had some asshole neighbors vandalize my car and they tried to get a PPO after I called them out, so I know 1st hand), but I do not think current consequences fit many current crimes. I also think that 1st time dui offender that kills someone would agree that losing their license would have been much less of a hardship. We average over 16k deaths a year due to dui's...maybe a harder 1st time consequence will cut down on repeat offenders. 16k dead people a year would probably state it is worth a shot.
I was hit head on, while traversing a very narrow cement bridge, by a guy who was blind drunk. He fell asleep at the wheel, crossed the center-line and being on the bridge, I had nowhere to go but into him. My 1970 F100 saved my life, such a shame it was totalled. In those days I wasn't wearing the lap belt, so my head bounced from the steering wheel and then through the windshield. I ended up concussed with lacerations on my face from the glass. I still have a scar on my upper lip to remind me.......Very minor injuries everything considered.
Bearing the above in mind, I have no use for the constant lowering of BAC limits that has been the fad in recent years. It is to the point now where someone my size can't risk having a beer or two and risk driving anywhere. In my view, it has gotten ridiculous, a .10 or lower driver isn't a danger to anyone but his wife. The blind drunk morons blowing .20+ are the people creating danger. I don't drive drunk or even after drinking at all any more.
I defer to any officers who may have a different experience.
I was hit head on, while traversing a very narrow cement bridge, by a guy who was blind drunk. He fell asleep at the wheel, crossed the center-line and being on the bridge, I had nowhere to go but into him. My 1970 F100 saved my life, such a shame it was totalled. In those days I wasn't wearing the lap belt, so my head bounced from the steering wheel and then through the windshield. I ended up concussed with lacerations on my face from the glass. I still have a scar on my upper lip to remind me.......Very minor injuries everything considered.
Bearing the above in mind, I have no use for the constant lowering of BAC limits that has been the fad in recent years. It is to the point now where someone my size can't risk having a beer or two and risk driving anywhere. In my view, it has gotten ridiculous, a .10 or lower driver isn't a danger to anyone but his wife. The blind drunk morons blowing .20+ are the people creating danger. I don't drive drunk or even after drinking at all any more.
I defer to any officers who may have a different experience.
Think about the driving task - in order to do it safely you must be able to divide your attention appropriately between numerous subtasks - being aware of your position on the roadway, being aware of other cars, being aware of your speed in relation to the circumstances AND being able to operate the controls of the vehicle in response to what is going on. Ergo, driving is a divided attention task.
Alcohol in a CNS depressant, at very low levels, most studies indicate .02ish people begin to show measurable loss of ability to divide tasks. Some folks compensate for this by being extra cautious while driving after just one drink - others think everything is kosher and just drive on.
At about .05ish most folks begin to feel less inhibited and there is a measurable increase in risk-taking behavior. Some folks may begin to overtly show loss of motor skills at this level.
.08 is the level that most folks begin to display observable psycho motor degradation that can be reliably detected by sobriety tests given by a practiced, trained officer. Many officers do not detect at the .08 level.
At about .12 most folks become what we call 'Ray Charles Drunks' a blind guy can detect them.
I don't think .08 is too low.
True.
But there are tolerances people can reach from drinking long term.
Was not exaggerating. That one guy was .112. Not on Alcosensor but Intox. He was functional. He did have noticeable HGN but not like a typewriter. He still rode and didn't put up a fuss. He could hold a cogent conversation. Didn't act emotional or erratic or anything. And aside from odor and HGN, he was not abnormal in coordination. First timer, he just drank everyday for like 30 years. Had he not been a nickel and dime stop, would've likely driven home without incident. He was driving normal and would've likely just gotten a warning if not for the odor. Honestly, It was dead and nothing else to do but be Mr. Friendly.
Contrast with this skinny twentysomething white girl who was celebrating and I thought for sure she was gonna be like a no shit .200 from the weaving and drifting. She was flirty, slurred, eyes were like typewriters, and could not stand up straight in flat shoes. She was rambling and just off it.
She blew .06. Dead damn serious. So she went with less safe and hollered and screamed and well hr parents had money so not much happened to her and had she got the full hit, it would not have hurt my feelings.
She reminded me a little of Cheryl from Archer when she was talking so crazy. But in court, she was in her church clothes with high dollar liar for hire. Before anyone asks....No. She was not polydrugging. Not trusting alcosensor, I requested a urinalysis.
Nothing but Alcohol. Nothing else. She later admitted she just had wine because she got promoted or some such and was out with her girlfriends.
So....everybody is different. She likely wasn't a drinker.
But guy #1 was stocky, burly, and could hold his liquor.
tl;dr. I think .08 is a good baseline but there are people who can be under it and off their top
You both sound like LE so as I said above, I defer completely to your experience. Great points and observations.
Business_Casual
07-01-16, 21:28
Think about the driving task - in order to do it safely you must be able to divide your attention appropriately between numerous subtasks - being aware of your position on the roadway, being aware of other cars, being aware of your speed in relation to the circumstances AND being able to operate the controls of the vehicle in response to what is going on. Ergo, driving is a divided attention task.
Alcohol in a CNS depressant, at very low levels, most studies indicate .02ish people begin to show measurable loss of ability to divide tasks. Some folks compensate for this by being extra cautious while driving after just one drink - others think everything is kosher and just drive on.
At about .05ish most folks begin to feel less inhibited and there is a measurable increase in risk-taking behavior. Some folks may begin to overtly show loss of motor skills at this level.
.08 is the level that most folks begin to display observable psycho motor degradation that can be reliably detected by sobriety tests given by a practiced, trained officer. Many officers do not detect at the .08 level.
At about .12 most folks become what we call 'Ray Charles Drunks' a blind guy can detect them.
I don't think .08 is too low.
Really, so 100% of people react to a certain amount of alcohol exactly the same way and have exactly the same behaviors? That seems a bit odd.
Yes, I realize that isn't what you are saying but when other posters are advocating road-side executions, I am concerned about the niceties of innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Really, so 100% of people react to a certain amount of alcohol exactly the same way and have exactly the same behaviors? That seems a bit odd.
Yes, I realize that isn't what you are saying but when other posters are advocating road-side executions, I am concerned about the niceties of innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Not exactly the same way.
One winter I worked a minor rear-ender at a light on one of the state highways running through town. Guy was sitting in the left turn lane, minding his own business, turn signal on, the whole bit. Some kid slid on the ice and rear-ended him. I got there and the kid says 'this guy's been drinking' like that makes it the guy's fault that this little idiot rear-ended him. At that point, I hadn't really delved into the whole DUI cost to society thing and I felt bad popping him. Turned out he had a couple priors and pretty much just stayed around .10 all the time.
In our area diversions for first time offenses are pretty much the norm. Folks say that first DUI costs you about $10,000 - I think that is a little high, but no doubt it is an expensive lesson. Hopefully, the only one needed.
And please remember that the testing only gives PC for arrest, then the officer has to dot all the 'I's' and cross all the 'T's' to get the intox admitted. Then, in most states a BAC of .08 or above is presumptive evidence the driver was impaired.
Moose-Knuckle
07-02-16, 04:59
Can't get much more severe than the death penalty; yet we still have a high rate of murder........
Capital punishment is not a deterrent, it never has been. It is however fool proof prevention of the said individual(s) from ever hurting anyone else ever again.
Not to mention we have states that don't even have capital punishment and some of the ones that do can't even put someone to sleep cause the big pharma companies refuse to sell them the drugs in the name of political correctness.
We don't execute enough convicted murderers and we should be adding every rapists and pedophile to the heap.
Don Robison
07-02-16, 09:35
Capital punishment is not a deterrent, it never has been. It is however fool proof prevention of the said individual(s) from ever hurting anyone else ever again.
Not to mention we have states that don't even have capital punishment and some of the ones that do can't even put someone to sleep cause the big pharma companies refuse to sell them the drugs in the name of political correctness.
We don't execute enough convicted murderers and we should be adding every rapists and pedophile to the heap.
Thanks for making my point. When you reach a certain level of harshness, it's either not used or not enforced so we end up with a special set of prisoners that cost more to take care of because of their "status".
All that said, I don't oppose roadside executions for drunk drivers causing fatal accidents.
Sent from my Energy X 2 using Tapatalk
IMHO capital punishment can be a deterrent ? there are not enough studies to conclude it is not either ?
no it wont stop hardened criminals who do not care just like gun laws but at least it could save a lot of money if done quickly :)
thug says yeah I raped the hoe ! GOOD execution in 5 minutes
yeah I killed the guy OK good lets walk outside ! BOOM
same thing drunk idiot blows over limit and then taken blood at scene shows he was and someone died or was serious injured POP and the family has to loose all assets to the other family
IMHO capital punishment can be a deterrent ? there are not enough studies to conclude it is not either ?
It is only a deterrent if you are not out of control under the influence of drugs, rage,fear, etc. Otherwise you are just rolling with the emotions. A guy shooting a cop isn't all - 'well let's see, in the last decade, of over 565 subjects identified in the killings of police officers only 4 are still at large, yeah those are good odds, I'll do it...' Eff no, he kills the cop because 1) he thinks he's so crafty he doesn't figure to get caught; 2) he isn't thinking beyond getting away.
Same thing with the guy who finally murders his wife in a DV. He isn't pondering the likelihood of sentence, he is out of control, rational thought leaves most of those guys long before they pull the trigger or cut the throat.
The death penalty isn't a good deterrent, it is simply the just punishment in some cases.
Back when I was taking criminal justice courses to get my degree I took a class called 'Theory of Probation and Parole' where I learned that murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates. Not sure if that is still true 40 years later.
agree about out of control :)
going SNAP and on a murder spree of course or killing a spouse those kinda things are not deterrence
I dont think it has any deterrent on murder and such
those countries that have insane harsh DUI laws have almost no DUI ?
so 5 years min prison and say 100,000 fine first offense
I think that might make some think twice and after a few folks get busted some of the friends would be like NO WAY and it would bring down the DUI
same as texting and driving say a $10,000 fine first offense
if you get in a accident when texting or DUI its death !
again I think quite a few would be like NO WAY am I risking that
as it is now everyone knows its not a huge deal to have DUI charges just like other things the punishment is not happening anymore
if these punks who ran from LEO in stolen cars and wreck them through neighborhoods then bail and try to run
well they get some street cred and a ticket they never pay ?
if instead they were pulled out and pop to the back of the head for attempted murder many more would not be running those that will run would be running anyway ?
as it is now the don't chase policies have created way way more runners
there is a reason when you travel in other parts of the world HUGE signs 25 years in prison for trafficking drugs immediately carried out !
and they have a bail area where you can get rid of what you are carrying and its insane how full the bins are and talking with those guys on some of the Honduran airports I used to travel when living there they say a ton of folks use them
they do catch quite a few that still dont care but they also get a ton that do and wont take the risk
It is only a deterrent if you are not out of control under the influence of drugs, rage,fear, etc. Otherwise you are just rolling with the emotions. A guy shooting a cop isn't all - 'well let's see, in the last decade, of over 565 subjects identified in the killings of police officers only 4 are still at large, yeah those are good odds, I'll do it...' Eff no, he kills the cop because 1) he thinks he's so crafty he doesn't figure to get caught; 2) he isn't thinking beyond getting away.
Same thing with the guy who finally murders his wife in a DV. He isn't pondering the likelihood of sentence, he is out of control, rational thought leaves most of those guys long before they pull the trigger or cut the throat.
The death penalty isn't a good deterrent, it is simply the just punishment in some cases.
Back when I was taking criminal justice courses to get my degree I took a class called 'Theory of Probation and Parole' where I learned that murder has one of the lowest recidivism rates. Not sure if that is still true 40 years later.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.