and Pataki/NY proposes our first american gulag...
- Thread starter scubie02
- Start date
- Status
carebear
Member
We already have appropriate punishments for people who drive recklessly for whatever reason; traffic infractions / reckless driving for when no one is hurt and varying grades of assault and vehicular homicide for when someone is. Sure, throw BAC/drug on there as an aggravating factor but why let the makeup applyers and cell phone talkers off the hook. It isn't the BAC, it's the actual harm to others that matters.
If a person is driving absolutely perfectly but is over the arbitrarily determined BAC of danger (a patently non-scientific number, it's based on averages and has no bearing on any particular individual) why do we care, they haven't done anything mala in se.
I know you think it'd be reasonably enforced and wouldn't lead to preventative laws against, say, weapons but there's no historical support for that belief. Folks back in the good old days never thought those gun control laws aimed at "those kind of people" would ever be aimed at them. We don't need laws that presume harm by an individual where none has been proven, we don't need more mala prohibita law to "make society better".
I'm guessing you have been personally affected by a DD horror. So have many of us, moral outrage at an individual's choices does not mean we ought to give away all our freedoms or the very structure of our justice system with or without (the actual case unfortunately) any guarantee of increased safety. That's a fool's bargain.
As far as Pataki's idea goes, if the guy is dangerous enough we're going to lock him up indefinitely at the end of his prison time, they need to just sentence him to that punishment at the time of trial. Otherwise it is indeed double jeopardy. You can't sentence someone again after they've completed their sentence for the same crime.
I'm as in favor of good old horsewhipping as any of us, but we CANNOT allow our emotions to start throwing exceptions into due process and the rule of law. Nothing will accelerate our slide toward tyranny faster.
If a person is driving absolutely perfectly but is over the arbitrarily determined BAC of danger (a patently non-scientific number, it's based on averages and has no bearing on any particular individual) why do we care, they haven't done anything mala in se.
I know you think it'd be reasonably enforced and wouldn't lead to preventative laws against, say, weapons but there's no historical support for that belief. Folks back in the good old days never thought those gun control laws aimed at "those kind of people" would ever be aimed at them. We don't need laws that presume harm by an individual where none has been proven, we don't need more mala prohibita law to "make society better".
I'm guessing you have been personally affected by a DD horror. So have many of us, moral outrage at an individual's choices does not mean we ought to give away all our freedoms or the very structure of our justice system with or without (the actual case unfortunately) any guarantee of increased safety. That's a fool's bargain.
As far as Pataki's idea goes, if the guy is dangerous enough we're going to lock him up indefinitely at the end of his prison time, they need to just sentence him to that punishment at the time of trial. Otherwise it is indeed double jeopardy. You can't sentence someone again after they've completed their sentence for the same crime.
I'm as in favor of good old horsewhipping as any of us, but we CANNOT allow our emotions to start throwing exceptions into due process and the rule of law. Nothing will accelerate our slide toward tyranny faster.
Chrontius said:
Most states I'm familiar with allow for the possibility of 18 year old senior and 16-17 year old junior relationships by providing that a specific disparity in age must exist when the perpetrator is 17-18. So, senior-junior relationships generally aren't statutory rape (your particular state may be "out of the mainstream").
DRZinn
Member
SomeKid, the problem is your definition of "drunk:
As has been proven, but was pretty intuitive anyway, some people can drive better drunk than others can sober. Punish someone who drives badly. Punish those who endanger others, but don't define "endanger" as some number chosen by the teetotallers.
trueblue1776
Member
22-rimfire said:
CB, I am seeing your point. The only problem I have with giving the cops discretionary powers, is that police have a tendency to abuse them. I do see the point, if a person with alcohol in them is driving perfectly, it wouldn't matter as much.
I have always hated those blasted checkpoints, as they are just harassment. It is rather obvious, the only purpose they serve (other than violation of the 4th and 5th) is to catch drunkards who would otherwise make it home. So how about this..
If, for whatever reason you are pulled over and have alcohol in your system, $500 fine, cop takes you home. Do it again within say, a year, loose your car, fine jumps to 5k. Do it a third time, within a year of the second offense, and you get DP.
If a wreck is involved, one car or two, they pay all damages, plus a 5000 fine. They have another one of these, DP.
I do however stand by using the death penalty, on the first offense, if they injure someone. Period. 1 injury because you drove drunk, die.
What do y'all think of that? It is much more incremental, and gives leeway for people to be a little stupid.
I have always hated those blasted checkpoints, as they are just harassment. It is rather obvious, the only purpose they serve (other than violation of the 4th and 5th) is to catch drunkards who would otherwise make it home. So how about this..
If, for whatever reason you are pulled over and have alcohol in your system, $500 fine, cop takes you home. Do it again within say, a year, loose your car, fine jumps to 5k. Do it a third time, within a year of the second offense, and you get DP.
If a wreck is involved, one car or two, they pay all damages, plus a 5000 fine. They have another one of these, DP.
I do however stand by using the death penalty, on the first offense, if they injure someone. Period. 1 injury because you drove drunk, die.
What do y'all think of that? It is much more incremental, and gives leeway for people to be a little stupid.
Cellar Dweller
Member
Somekid, you still don't get it
I hate to veer again, but:
From NHTSA's website, the % of Non-Occupants killed that had >0.08 BAC
2002 10%
2003 10%
2004 12%
This is basically pedestrians and bicyclists in "alcohol-related" accidents, where the only DRUNK involved wasn't even DRIVING.
~1.5 million DUI arrests in 2003
~1.4 million DUI arrests in 2004 - better at checkpoint avoidance, less drunks driving, less alcohol consumed? Can't tell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset forfeiture for ANY alcohol in the system. What a great idea. Police departments can set up checkpoints and get thousands of seizures a day (over 3800 a day on average for DUI now, with a higher standard) and nobody can say they're NOT fighting crime. The dragnet will get a few gangbangers and people with outstanding warrants, so it's not ALL about drunks. Relatively safe compared to drug raids or bank robberies in-progress so it should be popular with the police (except the ones who WOULD rather be chasing real criminals). More loot for municipalities, although I'll bet that taxes wouldn't go down. Gee, it's a win-win all around because only CRIMINALS will be hurt, not the prohibitionists. It's not like any civil rights would be trampled in the process (like cruel and unusual punishment)
/end veer, for good I hope
I hate to veer again, but:
From NHTSA's website, the % of Non-Occupants killed that had >0.08 BAC
2002 10%
2003 10%
2004 12%
This is basically pedestrians and bicyclists in "alcohol-related" accidents, where the only DRUNK involved wasn't even DRIVING.
~1.5 million DUI arrests in 2003
~1.4 million DUI arrests in 2004 - better at checkpoint avoidance, less drunks driving, less alcohol consumed? Can't tell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset forfeiture for ANY alcohol in the system. What a great idea. Police departments can set up checkpoints and get thousands of seizures a day (over 3800 a day on average for DUI now, with a higher standard) and nobody can say they're NOT fighting crime. The dragnet will get a few gangbangers and people with outstanding warrants, so it's not ALL about drunks. Relatively safe compared to drug raids or bank robberies in-progress so it should be popular with the police (except the ones who WOULD rather be chasing real criminals). More loot for municipalities, although I'll bet that taxes wouldn't go down. Gee, it's a win-win all around because only CRIMINALS will be hurt, not the prohibitionists. It's not like any civil rights would be trampled in the process (like cruel and unusual punishment)
/end veer, for good I hope
This isnt about the crime that was commited, the offenders, or the victims. It is about due process. Think that sex offenders should be executed? Cool, im fine with that, but it needs to be the law. People are convicted by a jury, that jury considers the sentance that goes with a crime when they return a verdict and the voters elect the people who decide the punishment. By allowing this sort of post-sentance incarceration we are subverting the entire justice system, and once that ball starts rolling it aint gonna stop at sex offenders.
carebear
Member
Somekid,
Any amount of alcohol, like if I took some cough medicine before leaving the house? It's still an arbitrary number until it can be demonstrated that I'm actually driving in a reckless manner.
As far as the death penalty, why should killing a person draw a death penalty when killing them sober wouldn't. In effect you are proposing to make drinking the same as those BS "hate crimes".
I'd rather just add it to a list of aggravating factors but leave the sentence requirements the same for any assault w/DW. Same crime, same time... that's justice.
Any amount of alcohol, like if I took some cough medicine before leaving the house? It's still an arbitrary number until it can be demonstrated that I'm actually driving in a reckless manner.
As far as the death penalty, why should killing a person draw a death penalty when killing them sober wouldn't. In effect you are proposing to make drinking the same as those BS "hate crimes".
I'd rather just add it to a list of aggravating factors but leave the sentence requirements the same for any assault w/DW. Same crime, same time... that's justice.
Considering how I support making murder a DP offence, always, that comment of yours holds no validity. The reason I specifically mention making drunk drivers face that penalty, is that I never see them get it as is. It is always negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter, 10 years and they walk. It is wrong, and this fixes it.
carebear
Member
Well, that's gonna take more law changes than just drunk driving related.
Right now in most DP states only 1st degree murder or 2nd with aggravating conditions can draw the ultimate sanction.
That's why we HAVE criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; for times when an individual is killed but the killer had no specific intent to kill or there are mitigating circumstances.
To upset that classification system by adding a new one solely for specific driving while intoxicated related homicides introduces a due process issue and upsets centuries of common law.
It's neither realistic nor sensible.
Right now in most DP states only 1st degree murder or 2nd with aggravating conditions can draw the ultimate sanction.
That's why we HAVE criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; for times when an individual is killed but the killer had no specific intent to kill or there are mitigating circumstances.
To upset that classification system by adding a new one solely for specific driving while intoxicated related homicides introduces a due process issue and upsets centuries of common law.
It's neither realistic nor sensible.
- Status
