Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«6 »
  • Post
  • Reply
TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

Driving is a hazardous and selfish activity. It's more hazardous when you're drunk, but insisting on ruining the lives of people who drive home after two glasses of wine is like advocating the death penalty for hang gliding without a helmet.

There are already penalties for negligent torts and homicide. Most people nicked for DWIs are no menace.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005



Probably but it's okay to drive on weed so I don't know.

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001
Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

TheImmigrant posted:

Driving is a hazardous and selfish activity. It's more hazardous when you're drunk, but insisting on ruining the lives of people who drive home after two glasses of wine is like advocating the death penalty for hang gliding without a helmet.

There are already penalties for negligent torts and homicide. Most people nicked for DWIs are no menace.

You've really been phoning it in lately, dude.

pentyne
Nov 7, 2012


TheImmigrant posted:

Driving is a hazardous and selfish activity. It's more hazardous when you're drunk, but insisting on ruining the lives of people who drive home after two glasses of wine is like advocating the death penalty for hang gliding without a helmet.

There are already penalties for negligent torts and homicide. Most people nicked for DWIs are no menace.

The concern over drunk driving isn't the danger to the drunk individual but the danger they pose to others.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

Dusseldorf posted:

Probably but it's okay to drive on weed so I don't know.

You can get a DWI in many US jurisdictions for having THC in your blood from a week ago.

Sheng-ji Yang
Mar 5, 2014

It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.

slow motion banme

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

Serious issue. No one will stand up to MADD, because, like, THE CHILDREN!, but I'm hard pressed to imagine a more overbearing and overzealous lobbying group

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001
Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

TheImmigrant posted:

Serious issue. No one will stand up to MADD, because, like, THE CHILDREN!, but I'm hard pressed to imagine a more overbearing and overzealous lobbying group

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005



TheImmigrant posted:

Serious issue. No one will stand up to MADD, because, like, THE CHILDREN!, but I'm hard pressed to imagine a more overbearing and overzealous lobbying group

Maybe children matter. Did you think of that. They are our future.

Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvqoDWjoPOE

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

You kill someone while driving incapacitated due to alcohol, it's per se negligent homicide. Most people are perfectly capable of safe driving at 0.09% BAC. It makes no sense to turn these people into criminals with a scarlet letter, which is what a conviction means.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

Dusseldorf posted:

Maybe children matter. Did you think of that. They are our future.

Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvqoDWjoPOE

It's much easier if you imagine that they are capitalist children.

Ray and Shirley
Jan 30, 2003
oh poop

Good luck with your DUI appeal, TheImmigrant.

CapnAndy
Feb 27, 2004

This is how Davos feels.
This is how Davos feels all the time.



No they're not, dummy

lothar_
Sep 11, 2001

Don't Date Robots!

I thought this was going to be a thread about how terrible and stupid it is to send a 20-year-old to jail for possessing a lite beer - a thing that happens in my town - because of MADD's influence on drinking age legislation. But I see that it is not, so I'm going to back away slowly from this thread.

Sword of Chomsky
Nov 15, 2004

It doesnt matter what you say, I disagree.

You could have just waited 30-60 minutes before driving while having a big glass of water. If you only had a couple glasses of wine you would have been fine. Don't drink a bottle and then drive home (duh?). Are you just raging at MADD because you got busted driving over the limit? Was it a DUI checkpoint or were you pulled over? Either way I don't see how MADD affects one's inability to drive while not intoxicated.

You should start a lobbying group Drunk Drivers Against Mothers and siege Washington in a grassroots wave of support.

The Insect Court
Nov 22, 2012

right-wing>>>
strawmen>>>
found here>>>


Personally I find some bath salts makes me a better driver, no matter what that SWAT team thought.

Widestancer
Mar 29, 2014

Red Text Fund




TheImmigrant posted:

Serious issue. No one will stand up to MADD, because, like, THE CHILDREN!, but I'm hard pressed to imagine a more overbearing and overzealous lobbying group

I know that here in TX there has been some serious discussion about lowering the first time DUI/DWI offense penalties due to our excessive overcrowding issues.

I'm conflicted on this because I've had some friends hurt/killed by drunk drivers but at the same time have a hard time seeing how the world is made a better place if we take someone who needs their car to drive to work, take his license, make him get a crappy occupational one at the grace of the court and give him insane minimum fines. I've seen people driven directly to criminal activity due to that sort of thing.

MADD did a good job of making sure that the habitual offenders get spanked; before the huge MADD push there were some pretty huge multiple offenders. But I'm pretty sure no one here has an issue with someone who has gotten his 5th DUI in as many years getting spanked hard for it. It's the first offenders that really get the shaft hard.

I think we need to ask ourselves as a country what the purpose of our anti-DUI laws are; if they are to prevent damage to the greater good then perhaps having something lighter for first time offenders would be a good thing assuming that there is no damage to life. Maybe something like serious restrictions on driving (but not revocation), courses, REASONABLE fines (stuff that doesn't put one in the hole and doesn't impact employment)...unless there has been harm inflicted bodily. In that case, bam, use manslaughter charges. Culpability is easy to prove on manslaughter and other similar charges due to the culpability needed.

I'm pretty sure that several jurisdictions are actively reducing first time mandatory sentences. I know they are here in Texas. If you repeat offend or cause bodily harm, however, you're still completely screwed. As you should be. I'm pretty sure that the drunk driver who screwed my friend's back up for life didn't walk out the door that day thinking, MAN, I'd better go ruin someone's life. But he WAS negligent and based on his court testimony and his actions afterwards it doesn't look like he'll be a repeat offender. If he is, it's his own fault and screw him. But she (the victim in that case) is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Thankfully the judge is exercising his options there for all involved.

One big problem with going against MADD are the people who don't target simply the first time mandatory sentences and go for the whole "be lenient no matter what" mentality. That's not going to win anyone over and it just looks dumb to anyone who has been hurt by a drunk driver.

Mirthless
Mar 27, 2011

Yeah, everything is okay!


TheImmigrant posted:

You kill someone while driving incapacitated due to alcohol, it's per se negligent homicide. Most people are perfectly capable of safe driving at 0.09% BAC. It makes no sense to turn these people into criminals with a scarlet letter, which is what a conviction means.

If I pretend, for a second, that you're not just a bizarre troll that inexplicably has a free pass to shitpost here, DUI laws exist for the same reason car insurance mandates exist - to encourage people to engage in correct behavior. As DUI penalties have increased, drunk driving cases have decreased. People are more likely to pay cab fare or ask a friend for a ride than they are to get behind the wheel while inebriated.

It is an indisputable fact that an inebriated driver is more likely to be in an accident than one who is not. Given that fact, it is reasonable to encourage people to not do it. The earlier DUI laws had relatively light penalties and were treated as a standard traffic offense. This did not stop people from driving while drunk and certainly didn't reduce the number of accidents and traffic fatalities people were getting in. So the penalties were increased, and cases of drunk driving are going down every year as a result.

If the only way to stop drunk driving (and thus massively reduce traffic fatalities) is to make the penalties for doing it unbelievably steep, then so be it - as a sacrifice, the "good" drunk drivers (lol) get to live with a scarlet letter. I guess this is worth complaining about if you don't like being alive.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

Ray and Shirley posted:

Good luck with your DUI appeal, TheImmigrant.

Too late for me. I was convicted five years ago for sleeping in the backseat of my car, with the keys in the ignition so I didn't freeze. Perversely, I would've lessened my exposure had I driven home while drunk.

Widestancer
Mar 29, 2014

Red Text Fund




The main issues that we've had with it as a state simply have to do with the incarceration and general overcrowding of facilities to the point where it becomes a constitutional issue; this is something that can be overcome via GPS trackers, RFID, etc or by simply voting on bonds to construct new facilities, both things that are happening here and (when used) seem to be working (not fast enough though as anyone who has ever worked with TDC or a county jail can tell you here).

I'm not sure what it's like in other states but I'm pretty sure the main objections here can be covered by differences in sentencing and in reducing incarceration for other crimes as well that don't, you know, KILL people.

De Nomolos
Jan 17, 2007

TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine


The government that carries a gun is out for a slaughter.I should be allowed to carry a gun, not police.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

De Nomolos posted:

The government that carries a gun is out for a slaughter.I should be allowed to carry a gun, not police.

I'm sorry, this post appears to be in English, but has conveyed zero meaning to this fluent-English speaker.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

Canada is even worse about it. Get convicted of a DWI in the States, and you're inadmissible to Canada.

De Nomolos
Jan 17, 2007

TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine


You don't feel threatened by a government that rules from the barrel of a gun? "If you don't obey our laws, we will shoot you." ReLOVEution.

Harik
Sep 9, 2001


TheImmigrant posted:

Too late for me. I was convicted five years ago for sleeping in the backseat of my car, with the keys in the ignition so I didn't freeze. Perversely, I would've lessened my exposure had I driven home while drunk.

That's about the only point where you have any traction. Zero-tolerance laws tending towards "you own a car and also you may have once drank something therefore" are absolutely ridiculous. Laws that grant black-box Breathalyzers from having their calibration challenged in court are another one you could have a solid argument against. You could even meta-argue about ads showcasing extremely unsafe driving practices under the fig leaf of "closed course, don't emulate" selling cars designed to go far faster than any speed limits - that MADD ignores due to hush-money donations given to them by car manufacturers.

But instead, you picked "It was only a half case of beer, guys, I'm totally fine to drive" as your hill to die on.

Widestancer
Mar 29, 2014

Red Text Fund




TheImmigrant posted:

Too late for me. I was convicted five years ago for sleeping in the backseat of my car, with the keys in the ignition so I didn't freeze. Perversely, I would've lessened my exposure had I driven home while drunk.

Being able to speak from experience, were there mandatory sentences imposed? If there were, did they make a difference positive or negative? And if there were not, would the inclusion of them have made a difference in whether or not you would re-offend?

Mandatory sentences bother me. If our courts are so backed up that we have to resort to such tactics then we have other issues and I'm pretty sure that people don't go, man, I really think I'm going to drive but UH OH there's a mandatory minimum sentence! Pretty sure most people know that DWI is a BAD thing that has BAD results. Before the MADD push those BAD results sucked and didn't do anything, and strengthening the rules as Mirthless said HAS improved things.

Most of those changes that have had a positive influence are not mandatory sentences for first time offenders, though. I'm guessing the ones that had a big impact were the establishment of the .08 standard, cumulative penalties for repeat offenders (the real big cause that MADD originally rallied around in its origins and a justified one at that; some of the repeat offenses were silly) and public education programs.

For a first time offender who does not cause injury to another I'm guessing that the biggest drive for any sane judge is going to be to reduce the risk of recidivism. In order to do that a complex set of decisions have to be made and options may need to be made available; mandatory sentences for first time offenders in many cases might neuter that judge's ability to do so.

Schizotek
Nov 8, 2011

It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom.

Didn't you used to post less...I dunno, terrible threads in the past? You're basically Fire 2.0 at this rate.

But no, MADD is not a terrorist group. They don't terrorize the population into doing what they want, they just use pretty normal activism and campaigning to influence peoples attitudes and lobby for legislation they like. Hope that helps. Also, think of DWIs as the same thing as shooting at someone with intent to kill and missing. Your argument is basically that you shouldn't be charged for merely attempting murder.
"Do they give Nobel Prizes for "attempted chemistry" too?"

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Next time PT6A makes you want to buy him another red title, instead please donate to the Alberta Children's Hospital that he hates so much.

The problem with MADD is that they are essentially turning into prohibitionists, and I think anti-drunk-driving penalties in general are getting a little bizarrely extreme. Now, in the province of Alberta (and BC, I believe) you get an automatic suspension of your license and your car gets towed if you're above 0.05, which still isn't technically illegal. There's no way to fight it, since it's not a criminal penalty, and it is further applied if you refuse to blow or are physically unable to blow into a breathalyzer. I don't drive after drinking any amount of alcohol (unless I wait two hours per standard drink), but I still think the current laws are becoming rather absurd.

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


TheImmigrant posted:

You kill someone while driving incapacitated due to alcohol, it's per se negligent homicide. Most people are perfectly capable of safe driving at 0.09% BAC. It makes no sense to turn these people into criminals with a scarlet letter, which is what a conviction means.

Did oyu know you can be given a dui even with a BAC below the .08?

In fact even so much as mentioning you drank at all is enough cause to be arrested and charged with dui including automatic license suspension and all the other civil penalties associated with it, even if the charge is later dismissed.

I think due process should apply to all crimes, but maybe I'm just a crazy drunkard.

Popular Thug Drink
Apr 25, 2013


Mirthless posted:

If I pretend, for a second, that you're not just a bizarre troll that inexplicably has a free pass to shitpost here, DUI laws exist for the same reason car insurance mandates exist - to encourage people to engage in correct behavior. As DUI penalties have increased, drunk driving cases have decreased. People are more likely to pay cab fare or ask a friend for a ride than they are to get behind the wheel while inebriated.

It is an indisputable fact that an inebriated driver is more likely to be in an accident than one who is not. Given that fact, it is reasonable to encourage people to not do it. The earlier DUI laws had relatively light penalties and were treated as a standard traffic offense. This did not stop people from driving while drunk and certainly didn't reduce the number of accidents and traffic fatalities people were getting in. So the penalties were increased, and cases of drunk driving are going down every year as a result.

If the only way to stop drunk driving (and thus massively reduce traffic fatalities) is to make the penalties for doing it unbelievably steep, then so be it - as a sacrifice, the "good" drunk drivers (lol) get to live with a scarlet letter. I guess this is worth complaining about if you don't like being alive.

Good god.

Popular Thug Drink
Apr 25, 2013


I hope this thread crosses the center line and kills a family.

Widestancer
Mar 29, 2014

Red Text Fund




Powercrazy posted:

Did oyu know you can be given a dui even with a BAC below the .08?

In fact even so much as mentioning you drank at all is enough cause to be arrested and charged with dui including automatic license suspension and all the other civil penalties associated with it, even if the charge is later dismissed.

I think due process should apply to all crimes, but maybe I'm just a crazy drunkard.

This is why every attorney I've spoken to about the matter has always told me never to blow, EVER, to MAKE them get a blood warrant and to NEVER mention anything aside from "I have been going about lawful business" under the idea that you are probably going to get your license taken ANYWAYS and will probably be charged ANYWAYS so it's best not to hand them any more ammunition.

I always just make sure to have a DD. Works for me.

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


Mirthless posted:

If I pretend, for a second, that you're not just a bizarre troll that inexplicably has a free pass to shitpost here, DUI laws exist for the same reason car insurance mandates exist - to encourage people to engage in correct behavior. As DUI penalties have increased, drunk driving cases have decreased. People are more likely to pay cab fare or ask a friend for a ride than they are to get behind the wheel while inebriated.

It is an indisputable fact that an inebriated driver is more likely to be in an accident than one who is not. Given that fact, it is reasonable to encourage people to not do it. The earlier DUI laws had relatively light penalties and were treated as a standard traffic offense. This did not stop people from driving while drunk and certainly didn't reduce the number of accidents and traffic fatalities people were getting in. So the penalties were increased, and cases of drunk driving are going down every year as a result.

If the only way to stop drunk driving (and thus massively reduce traffic fatalities) is to make the penalties for doing it unbelievably steep, then so be it - as a sacrifice, the "good" drunk drivers (lol) get to live with a scarlet letter. I guess this is worth complaining about if you don't like being alive.

Alternatively we oculd all kill ourselves and crime would go to zero.

Voluntary Human Extinction. It's the ONLY Way.

TheImmigrant
Jan 18, 2011

Arrogant Yankee Cokehead

Powercrazy posted:

Did oyu know you can be given a dui even with a BAC below the .08?

In fact even so much as mentioning you drank at all is enough cause to be arrested and charged with dui including automatic license suspension and all the other civil penalties associated with it, even if the charge is later dismissed.

I think due process should apply to all crimes, but maybe I'm just a crazy drunkard.

Yes. (I used to be a DWI-defense lawyer.). I completely agree with punishing people who cause actual harm by drunk driving. I disagree with the draconian, life-ruining per se treatment embraced by MADD terrorists.

Slobjob Zizek
Jun 20, 2004


Also, don't forget that public transport is terrible in the US, the existing infrastructure is mainly operated for the benefit of "working families" (lol), and taxis are prohibitively expensive over any moderate distance.

Just never drink outside your home! What great economic stimulus.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005



TheImmigrant posted:

Yes. (I used to be a DWI-defense lawyer.). I completely agree with punishing people who cause actual harm by drunk driving. I disagree with the draconian, life-ruining per se treatment embraced by MADD terrorists.

Did being a lawyer help you get your job as a clown?

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


TheImmigrant posted:

Yes. (I used to be a DWI-defense lawyer.). I completely agree with punishing people who cause actual harm by drunk driving. I disagree with the draconian, life-ruining per se treatment embraced by MADD terrorists.

Regardless of the merit of your position, you've poisoned the well by calling MADD Terrorists. You could maybe get away with calling them prohibitionists (because they are), but even that is pushing it.

Oakland Martini
Feb 14, 2008
Refugee from the great account hijacking of 2008

TheImmigrant posted:

I was convicted five years ago for sleeping in the backseat of my car, with the keys in the ignition so I didn't freeze.

Can anyone here possibly justify this kind of thing?

Pohl
Jan 28, 2005


TheImmigrant posted:

You kill someone while driving incapacitated due to alcohol, it's per se negligent homicide. Most people are perfectly capable of safe driving at 0.09% BAC. It makes no sense to turn these people into criminals with a scarlet letter, which is what a conviction means.

Most people can't walk straight with a .09% BAC. People that drink a lot, however, do fine. Your post is incorrect.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Powercrazy
Feb 15, 2004

*~I'm Back Boyz~*

If you can read this your style sheet is a PoS.


Oakland Martini posted:

Can anyone here possibly justify this kind of thing?

It's no secret that "traffic enforcement" violations are for revenue first, with safety a distant second.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«6 »