Ed Morrissey wonders How many DWIs should it take to put someone away for good? He has a poll to vote on how many DWIs should be the limit before you are sentenced to life in prison. I say three – along the lines of the “three strikes” laws. Drunk driving should be treated like a weapons charge. A car is a lethal weapon when a drunk is behind the wheel.
Sure, I’m biased. We’re very grateful the illegal alien drunk driver who hit my mother and daughter didn’t kill them or anyone else. But he easily could have. It happens every day. And serial drunk drivers often go out of their way to carry on what they’re doing. One that we know actually got put back in jail for removing the breathalyzer that the court ordered installed in his car. This tool was put in there for his own protection as well as others – if he was over the limit the car would not start. And he took it out. He willfully removed it in order to risk other people’s lives. He got a slap on the wrist, as did the drunk who hit my mother and daughter. We need to stop waiting until someone gets killed and treat this crime with the seriousness it deserves.
Part of the problem is that lots of “drunk drivers” aren’t drunk.
They’re not even as impared as students driving after doing an allnighter for study.
This really screws up the “drunk driving” stuff– I’d kind of like “impared driving.”
Which would be its own can of worms.
Foxfier´s last blog post..Way Out Of My League–
I’ll take it one step at a time. Alcohol impairs a driver in a measurable and objectively provable way. Conviction doesn’t rely on walking the straight line; breathalyzers and/or blood tests pretty much end that argument. And drinking alcohol is a purposeful, entirely voluntary act. We can reasonably expect people to understand the effects that follow drinking alcohol. While the effects of an all-night study session may be similar to kicking back a few cold ones, certainly it’s a good deal harder to objectively prove. We should throw the book at alcohol-impaired drivers and start a good PR campaign on other types of impairment.
We should throw the book at alcohol-impaired drivers and start a good PR campaign on other types of impairment.
Except that, contrary to what those PR campaigns claim, .08 isn’t always impaired. THAT is what’s dangerous.
For a very easy to prove example of .08 not being impaired, find a long-term alcoholic. Getting down to .08 might make them dangerous drivers– has with the ones I’ve observed. (one of these drove jets for 15 years– never a flaw. That takes a bit more reaction time than the freeway….) *
Additionally, Breathalyzers used as they currently are used are not particularly accurate– there are lots of ways to get false positives– and a very quick way to get extra charges handed to you is to ask for the blood test.
Don’t get me started on the “open container” laws, especially as they effect littering.
Add to this that a lot of “alcohol related” crashes aren’t “the guy who caused the accident was drinking,” it’s “someone who was involved in the accident was drinking” and it gets even more worrying. I really don’t like working from faulty information. (once again, drawn from information I or those I know observed personally– if that many folks all have the same information on faulty reporting, there’s probably something to it.)
Maybe a change along the lines of “driver observed operating vehicle erratically; chemical alterants detected; throw the book at them.”
* if your gut response is “alcoholism is bad for you”– a reasonable response— remember this is laws, not morality. Gov’t isn’t there to force people to make good decisions, just to punish them if their bad decisions hurt others.
((((sorry if any major grammar problems, it’s rather early here– wanted to reply before I left town for a few days))))
Foxfier´s last blog post..Baby, Cancer, Miracle!
Yeah, I’m with Foxfier. I think the DUI penalties are about right, and that the BAC limit should possibly be raised, perhaps to .10. Furthermore, I don’t agree with three-strikes laws. Morally, I have a hard time understanding how a third offense is any more sinful than a first offense.
Drew´s last blog post..Honoring Gaia
I think you guys are arguing against points I didn’t make. I didn’t say the third offense is more sinful. I’m just saying at that point society should say, I’ve had enough of your endangering other people and since you won’t voluntarily knock that crap off, we’re going to MAKE you knock it off. And to me, the time to say that is the third offense. I’m not defining a sin, I’m defining a crime. I also didn’t get into the specifics of what the BAC should be. (Doesn’t it vary by state, in any case?) I don’t want it to be so sensitive that somebody who ate some rum balls at a Christmas party gets hauled off to jail. If Breathalyzers aren’t accurate (something I hadn’t heard before except from disgruntled drunks that I personally know and who were pissed about getting caught; consequently I haven’t taken such claims seriously or even investigated) and asking for a blood alcohol test is a good way to get you hit with extra charges, then it seems to me that we need to throw out the bathwater, not the baby. Fix the breathalyzer and remove adverse consequences of asking for a blood test. Maybe use the breathalyzer to exclude people who haven’t consumed alcohol, but a positive breathalzyer result requires a blood alcohol test. Somewhat more expensive, but also more foolproof.
There is no good, defensible reason to drink and drive, and every reason not to do so. It’s a completely egregious offense. Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege, and I think given the potential to cause harm, it’s one we should have pretty high standards for. As to the jet driver… Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! as my grandmother was prone to exclaim. My grandfather was a pilot for 30 years and never dreamed of drinking and flying. The FAA rule is 8 hours and he never even approached that line. He would have reported anyone who did, and I think he would have been right to do it.
I don’t like the “driver observed operating a vehicle erratically” idea because it’s too subjective, and could be prone to abuse. I realize it doesn’t address your sleepy or otherwise impaired driver scenario, but I’m not asking it to… my goal isn’t to stop all impaired driving with one silver bullet law. It’s to stop drinking and driving.
My point can boil down to:
Having a BAC of .08 is not always endangering society.
Additionally, the most common test is known to be flawed.
Thus, those who actually cause a hazard– which would be observable from their actions while driving– should be punished, if the cause is alcohol, lack of sleep, vicodin, illegal drugs or just being massive a**holes.
No, BAC doesn’t actually vary by state– states that didn’t take the .08 would have lost Fed highway funds, so it’s a Federally set limit. (there’s another rant altogether….)
You seem to be missing the point about Commander Pink– the guy had a flawless record. Not nearly flawless, not “pretty good considering he was toasted.”
This guy trained other military jet pilots.
Not something you can do while impaired, thus providing an example of the flaw in the “BAC= you are dangerous” theory.
I thought your goal was to keep people from being killed by other folks’ stupidity, preferably with a minimum of stomping on those who are not a hazard.
Same goal here, we just disagree on the tipping point– mine is where they are a hazard regardless of cause, because dangerous driving is already a crime; yours is centered on the BAC and preventing those who are convicted of having X BAC multiple times from doing it again.
Some folks who are driving hazards are not operating erratically– they are just violating traffic laws and generally causing a hazard. (Think “aggressive driving” that creates conditions where drivers who follow the laws are put at higher risk of accident. Cutting folks off, failing to yield, no blinkers, etc.)
And running away again, didn’t think I’d get this much time online in the first place. ^.^
Foxfier´s last blog post..Very Quick Thought-
I agree both that 1) the DUI laws are currently flawed, and that 2) they could theoretically be fixed.
But my main point is that punishment should always reflect the seriousness of the evil committed. I therefore have a hard time understanding why a repeat offense should warrant a much more serious punishment than the original offense.
For example, God never said, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life…but if they’ve already knocked out teeth on multiple occasions, just go ahead and kill them.” I can understand going a little easier on first-time offenders since they are less culpable due to their lack of knowledge of the legal system. But that only extends to a certain point.
C.S. Lewis did a pretty good job explaining the importance of retribution, and the danger of looking for alternative theories of criminal justice.
Drew´s last blog post..Isn’t she just ADORABLE?
Repeat offenders should get harsher punishment because they are refusing to modify their illegal behavior. In the case of that 11-time drunk driving offender, he willfully, repeatedly endangered other people’s lives. That makes him dangerous to society, and for society’s sake, he should be locked up. Punishment isn’t just about retribution – it’s about society’s right to protect itself from habitual criminals.
With regard to the .08… I’m not fixated on that number; they could raise it a bit and I wouldn’t complain. But with regard to your example… We don’t make personalized laws. (Well, except for Democrats, but that’s another story.) Your man Pink can’t be the basis for everybody else. I’m a really good driver, and am perfectly safe at 90 – 100mph. Even at 115 I do fine. But I am not the rule all drivers should be measured by, and it’s not reasonable to expect cops, who have enough of a load to carry, to make the kind of constant judgment calls such a system would cause. They’d constantly be in court defending their arrests; he said, she said. Not to mention any bad cop with a grudge could just go to town on that one. What I like about the blood test is it stops the argument dead in it’s tracks. It’s objectively provable. It saves a ton of money and time for everybody.
And regardless of personal ability, there is NO good reason why anyone needs to be hitting the road with more than a drink or two in them.
We shouldn’t make personalized laws– but we shouldn’t make arbiritrary ones if we can avoid it, either.
Where’s the blood content limit for vicodin? Wait, that’s caught by actions.
Where’s the blood content limit for anti-alergy medications? That’s caught by actions.
Where’s the blood content limit for– you get the idea.
Goal: remove hazardous drivers.
Solution: for everything EXCEPT for alcohol, remove drivers who are a hazard; for alcohol, come up with a number that can’t be accurately measured by the arresting officer and doesn’t accurately reflect actual imparement.
Then tack on top of that that you remove hazardous drivers who are under the known inaccurate limit, anyways.
Foxfier´s last blog post..Comparing Accidents
I think that after 3 dui’s (provided no one was killed or injured) a person’s car should be confiscated–permanently–and make it extremely difficult for them to obtain another car for at least a year! When they start confiscating people’s cars for drunk driving this crime will just about cease! If people knew that if they got caught driving drunk they might risk losing their precious car for good and have to buy another one and have to take public transportation to and from work, or walk to work or spend money on a taxi every day or maybe even lose their job if they just can’t get to work and have to buy another car each time they got caught driving drunk after that–I think people would really, really think long and hard about driving drunk!! I don’t know anyone who can afford to just buy cars over and over again just because they drive drunk!! I believe contemplating such a penalty would cut through the most dense alcoholic haze. I would also penalize by imposing a hefty fine on anyone caught lending THEIR car to a drunk driver who lost theirs and notify their insurance company that they lent their car to a drunk driver. I don’t know about anyone else but I sure wouldn’t risk lending my car to someone who lost theirs for drunk driving if I knew that if I got caught (or they got caught in my car) my insurance company would be notified and my insurance premium would soar!!) I would also set up a national database with the names of all those who lost their cars for dui’s that would be available to all car dealerships and rental agencies so these people wouldn’t be able to buy or rent a car for a period of at least 1 year!! I would also flag their licenses so that they will be unable to register or insure a car in their name for at least a year! I think its time to get REAL tough on drunk drivers. This is a SERIOUS and DESPICABLE crime that is easily avoided! I say let them keep their licenses–TAKE THEIR CARS PERMANENTLY after 3 dui’s and each and every time after that if they are again caught driving drunk!!