Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations gkittelson on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
DUI vs DWI
- Thread starter Ladyazh
- Start date
Bandenjamin
Programmer
Lunatic,
What good does it do to take away their license, obviously they haev no respect for the law in the first place. I think a more appropriate action would be to say that drunk driving is not a crime, however, if you harm someone while driving junk that will not allow mitigation. IE, you will be charged with Vehicular Manslaughter at the very least if not depraved indifference murder. I firmly believe that will have more of an effect than simply taking away someones license.
What good does it do to take away their license, obviously they haev no respect for the law in the first place. I think a more appropriate action would be to say that drunk driving is not a crime, however, if you harm someone while driving junk that will not allow mitigation. IE, you will be charged with Vehicular Manslaughter at the very least if not depraved indifference murder. I firmly believe that will have more of an effect than simply taking away someones license.
db84799...
There are a number fatal flaws in your logic.
1) Your assumption that all drunk drivers ignore would continue to drive without a liscense. While the worst offenders this is true, the status quo makes far too easy to 'appologize' away your actions and recieve just a slap on the wrist. You are removing the speed-bump that causes most people to avoid the dangereous behavior in the first place.
2) Its hard to drive with a car. Driving with a suspended/revoked liscense also means the car is impounded. Very few drunk drivers will steal a car before getting liquored up.
3) This no-nonsense approach works. The rate of drunk driving, let alone drunk driving fatalities, in European countries (Germany, UK, others) is a incredibly small fraction of what it is in the USA. Zero-tolerance works.
4) Your logic is 100% reactionary. Pro-active measures are in all but a very few cases much preferred over reactive. Try telling the mother who just lost her child or the child that just lost their parent(s) that decided not to do everything possible to prevent a 100% preventable tragedy because you want to throw the book at them.
5) Punishments aren't severe enough. Unless you treat these as 1st degree murder with malice, there is no way the punishment will ever be severe enough to fit the crime. Vehicular manslaughter is what, 2-7 years? Something like that. At that time they are out again. Hopefully wiser, but unlikely... more likely they are at increased risk because of increased pressure factors that jail has added.
6) The ability of major punishments that aren't really 'real' to you are not adequate dis-incentives. The the threat of losing your liscense and the ability to go to the store/mall/work/ballgame tommorrow is a much greater dis-incentive than a big punishment somewhere far down the road. The more immediate the punishment is to the transgression, the more likely it is to serve as a deterent. The time and space between the accident and the judge handing down the sentence lesses the percivied risk.
***
In a world of the future with a more libertarian/anarchic (in the Emma Goldman sense that government hinders the ability of people to reach their full state of awareness, not the current view of black-veiled figures burning things) bent, your option may work better.
But we aren't there yet. This world is still too dark and dank and cruel and human awareness is still too limited to create Utopian laws regarding crime and punishment.
There is no way, in the world we live in, that people are advanced enough to avoid drunk driving simply because it is the correct thing to do.
***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum
There are a number fatal flaws in your logic.
1) Your assumption that all drunk drivers ignore would continue to drive without a liscense. While the worst offenders this is true, the status quo makes far too easy to 'appologize' away your actions and recieve just a slap on the wrist. You are removing the speed-bump that causes most people to avoid the dangereous behavior in the first place.
2) Its hard to drive with a car. Driving with a suspended/revoked liscense also means the car is impounded. Very few drunk drivers will steal a car before getting liquored up.
3) This no-nonsense approach works. The rate of drunk driving, let alone drunk driving fatalities, in European countries (Germany, UK, others) is a incredibly small fraction of what it is in the USA. Zero-tolerance works.
4) Your logic is 100% reactionary. Pro-active measures are in all but a very few cases much preferred over reactive. Try telling the mother who just lost her child or the child that just lost their parent(s) that decided not to do everything possible to prevent a 100% preventable tragedy because you want to throw the book at them.
5) Punishments aren't severe enough. Unless you treat these as 1st degree murder with malice, there is no way the punishment will ever be severe enough to fit the crime. Vehicular manslaughter is what, 2-7 years? Something like that. At that time they are out again. Hopefully wiser, but unlikely... more likely they are at increased risk because of increased pressure factors that jail has added.
6) The ability of major punishments that aren't really 'real' to you are not adequate dis-incentives. The the threat of losing your liscense and the ability to go to the store/mall/work/ballgame tommorrow is a much greater dis-incentive than a big punishment somewhere far down the road. The more immediate the punishment is to the transgression, the more likely it is to serve as a deterent. The time and space between the accident and the judge handing down the sentence lesses the percivied risk.
***
In a world of the future with a more libertarian/anarchic (in the Emma Goldman sense that government hinders the ability of people to reach their full state of awareness, not the current view of black-veiled figures burning things) bent, your option may work better.
But we aren't there yet. This world is still too dark and dank and cruel and human awareness is still too limited to create Utopian laws regarding crime and punishment.
There is no way, in the world we live in, that people are advanced enough to avoid drunk driving simply because it is the correct thing to do.
***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum
I don't think LazyAZH was serious; note the ![[smile]](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif "[smile] [smile]")
in her post.
Anyway, we ought to subject such malcontents to the full wrath of the law. I am in favor of lengthy post-jail probation, with a condition that no alcohol whatsoever be consumed. If you get caught drunk in public while on probation, back to rehab to dry out, even if you were not driving.
I have, in the past, witnessed drunk drivers on the road. Scary thing (especially when they get on the world's longest over-water bridge, which has no shoulders and they are bouncing off the curb every mile or so). I dropped a dime on that clown; the cops pulled him over at the end of the bridge. 6:40 AM is a little early to be bending the elbow.
Tibi gratias agimus quod nihil fumas.
in her post.Anyway, we ought to subject such malcontents to the full wrath of the law. I am in favor of lengthy post-jail probation, with a condition that no alcohol whatsoever be consumed. If you get caught drunk in public while on probation, back to rehab to dry out, even if you were not driving.
I have, in the past, witnessed drunk drivers on the road. Scary thing (especially when they get on the world's longest over-water bridge, which has no shoulders and they are bouncing off the curb every mile or so). I dropped a dime on that clown; the cops pulled him over at the end of the bridge. 6:40 AM is a little early to be bending the elbow.
Tibi gratias agimus quod nihil fumas.
SantaMufasa
Technical User
Sounds like you decided to "Punch-his-train" if you "bridge" my meaning.Flapeyre said:
![[wink]](/data/assets/smilies/wink.gif "[wink] [wink]")
![[santa]](/data/assets/smilies/santa.gif "[santa] [santa]")
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
Flapeyre said:
Thats the problem with text-based communication. The ability for me to mis-interpret is even greater than verbal communication.
I don't know why, as I don't have too much experience with this, but this issue has always been close to the surface for me. Its that issue for me that a slight thing can set me off.
***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum
Actually this true, even mediction prescribed by a doctor can get you the same as a 502 (Californian for DUI).
That is also a good point, 502 is the code that covers this crime, and you do not even have to be driving. "Operating a motor vehicle" is the way it is worded. This covers things such as running the engine to get the AC on, or just listening to the radio while under the influence can get you a DUI.
So can bicycling, horse riding, etc.
Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, eSynergy, and Crystal Reports
"If you have a big enough dictionary, just about everything is a word"
--Dave Barry
SantaMufasa
Technical User
So, in California, authorities consider a horse or a bicycle a "motor vehicle"?dgillz said:
It seems to me that attorneys in the most litigious state in the U.S. would have found the flaw there. If California can cite DUI/DWI while operating a horse or a bicycle, then the law more probably reads something like "operating any conveyance on a public thoroughfare," which would include motor vehicles, horses, bicycles, et cetera.
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!
I had a side job for a while transcribing incident interviews for on-the-job injuries. I was always amazed at all the people who took a bunch of medications in the morning and then drove to work. For some reason, very few people realize that vehicles fall under that "heavy machinery" category that you aren't supposed to operate while taking medications that make you drowsy. Everyone thinks they're immune or not affected enough that they can't perform whatever pressing issue is on their agenda.
On the other hand, I don't know that people should go to jail for being stupid unless they harm someone or are a repeat offender. First time you were stupid, second time, you get locked up because you definitely knew better. Doesn't matter if it's alchohol, drugs, or drowsiness to me.
[blue]Never listen to your customers. They were dumb enough to buy your product, so they have no credibility. - Dogbert[/blue]
I have severe allergies, and because of my long commuute across the aforementioned bridge, I take fexofenadine (which is prescription-only in the US, but I understand it's OTC in other parts of the world). Claritin doesn't work on me, and Zyrtec still makes me drowsy.
Tibi gratias agimus quod nihil fumas.
Tibi gratias agimus quod nihil fumas.
Drunk drivers are only evil because mothers get MADD at them.
More people die on the toilet each year than are killed by drunk drivers...Get real. You people will believe anything that special interest groups can get into a TV commercial. I'm sure we need child safety seats and air bags too. Oh, and the Iraq war is 'bloody', and Global Warming is really happening.
In Michigan they have OUIL (Operating Under the Influence of Liquor), though I'm not sure what else they have. I don't remember. I've never been a big drunk-driver myself, so it wasn't a big worry to me what the law I wasn't apt to break was.
The real evil of drunk driving is that it takes the pressure off of law enforcement to enforce the rest of the traffic laws, leaving our highways an anybody's-guess snarl of no-talent-a$$-clowns pretending to know how to drive. For the Love of God, SLOWER TRAFFIC, KEEP RIGHT!
--Gooser
Gooser said:
What's your source for this? What makes them more credible in your eyes than the "special interest groups"?
Also, the Iraq war is bloody. It's war. The point of war is to make those you are fighting bleed. It's not like their running around handing each other flowers.
Back to drunk driving. The reason many of us get upset over drunk drivers is that:
a) Alcohol impairs your driving ability. This has been shown repeatedly and hopefully can be agreed upon.
b) It is 100% preventable. If you are drunk (or otherwise impaired), you should not be driving.
A car is an object with a large mass that can travel at high velocities. Thus, if it impacts something, it can deliver a large amount of force. If you are not able to operate a vehicle in a safe manner due to intoxication, fatigue, emotional distress, lack of skill, or any other factor, you should not be driving. Call a cab, get a ride from somebody, walk, etc.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
I think we've settled all the language issues with respect to this topic. Let's move on.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
AnotherHiggins
Technical User
Gooser - If you want to defend drunk driving, I suggest you start a thread in Squaring the Circle where such a debate might actually belong.
CC requested that we stop the debate 30 hours before your last post.
I'll now resist the temptation to get in "one last jab".
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.
CC requested that we stop the debate 30 hours before your last post.
I'll now resist the temptation to get in "one last jab".
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.
- Status