A Pound of Flesh? Two? All of it? (Drunk/drink Drivers)

[Grave_n_idle]

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/10550490701756393

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness

Sources.

Also, not every alcoholic drives drunk, and not everyone who drives drunk is an alcoholic.

Wasn't you original argument something about how 'drunk drivers don't tend to drive drunk again'?

(EDIT: I checked - your actual wording was: "the majority of people who drive drunk don't do it again")

How does any of this address that?

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties (Dictionary.com)

Exactically. Intoxicated. To the point of impairment.

Not "had a drink two hours ago, should be shot for driving."

[Grave_n_idle]

Thank you for acknowledging, contrary to your prior implications, that drinking any amount of alcohol followed in some manner of time by driving =/= "drunk driving."

Where do you think I said that? I'd be curious to see what wording led you to that conclusion.

[Milks Empire]

and I know that if I had that one can of beer, I would be intoxicated.

Lightweight.

It took four before I even felt wobbly. Haven't had more than two since. And I won't drive if I've had even one.

[Grave_n_idle]

1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties (Dictionary.com)

Exactically. Intoxicated. To the point of impairment.

Not "had a drink two hours ago, should be shot for driving."

Where did I say "had a drink two hours ago, should be shot for driving"? One beer, two hours ago, probably leaves you at an effective 0 BAC, overall.

[JuNii]

1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties (Dictionary.com)

Exactically. Intoxicated. To the point of impairment.

Not "had a drink two hours ago, should be shot for driving."

two points... 1) while I do like GnI's idea, I never said to implement it. there are alot of Ideas I like that I know shouldn't be put into effect. that being said...
2) I never posited any level of intoxication that would allow one to be shot.

but then, how can we test for intoxication?

most roadside tests (the physical stuff) are hard to pass even when sober and don't really test the level of intoxication.

you (and others) state that the BAC testers are not infallible...

so any suggestions? and it doesn't have to be for the 'roving bands of executioners' but perhaps for cops to just arrest those DUI?

[JuNii]

and I know that if I had that one can of beer, I would be intoxicated.

Lightweight.

It took four before I even felt wobbly. Haven't had more than two since. And I won't drive if I've had even one.

more like Alcohol Wirgin...

[The Cat-Tribe]

Thank you for acknowledging, contrary to your prior implications, that drinking any amount of alcohol followed in some manner of time by driving =/= "drunk driving."

Where do you think I said that? I'd be curious to see what wording led you to that conclusion.

Really? Don't be so modest:

I'm curious. Drinking alcohol and then driving isn't illegal. Driving while intoxicated is.

So, (1) do the "execute 'em" crowd agree with individual state definitions of intoxication

State definitions of intoxication are lenient. They are geared towards the point where there is expected to be anoticable impairment. There should be zero tolerance.

(2) what about cases where the BAC isn't high enough, but the defendant is nonetheless dangerously impaired

Impaired is impaired. If you're driving like an idiot and you're only halfway to the local level, then halfway is too much for you.

(3) doesn't the fact that you can drink some alcohol and be a safe driver mean that the decision to drive when one has had too much alcohol can, in fact, be a mistake (aided perhaps by impaired judgment)?

You can't drink some alcohol and be a safe driver. There is no judgement call. If you drank, don't drive.

but I would see an argument for more severity being reasonable.

But the "if you have ever had a drink, you should never drive" mantra is bullshit

I have to assume you drive drunk, then - because I can't see any otehr reason why you'd be denying the fact that alcohol can impair ability at almost any measurable quantity.

...and the "kill all the bad drivers" notion is plain evil.

I'm not interested in arguments about 'good' or 'evil'. I'm interested in getting drunk drivers off the road, permanently.

For the record, I do not believe I have ever driven while intoxicated and I have never been arrested for, accused of, convicted of, etc. any offense involving driving and alcohol, let alone a DUI.

Have I ever had a dinner with a cocktail and driven home? Of course. I wasn't drunk.

You didn't feel drunk. That's not the same thing.

[Rolling squid]

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/10550490701756393

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness

Sources.

Also, not every alcoholic drives drunk, and not everyone who drives drunk is an alcoholic.

Wasn't you original argument something about how 'drunk drivers don't tend to drive drunk again'?

(EDIT: I checked - your actual wording was: "the majority of people who drive drunk don't do it again")

How does any of this address that?

Alcoholism is severe condition that is very hard to overcome, yet about 1:5 manage to overcome it with AA. A DUI requires a night of stupidity, as opposed to long-term abuse, leading to physical and physiological dependency, and would therefore be much easier to not re-offend than an alcoholic.

[Ryadn]

I agree completely. I only want to add that I'd really like to see the penalties for drunk driving stiffened significantly even if the driver is lucky enough not to hurt or kill anyone. As you point out, it is an incredibly stupid, selfish decision to make, and I cannot understand punishing it with, "Eh, okay, pay a few hundred dollars and you can't drive for a few months." I think there should be jail time - not necessarily a lot, but SOME - the first time someone gets convicted of driving drunk. It's just not taken anywhere near seriously enough as it is - to the best of my knowledge, the penalties for things like shoplifting tend to be worse, and shoplifting very rarely kills people.

You're absolutely right. It's a difficult thing to think about, having been there and done it--going to jail for not *actually* having anything go wrong. But the recklessness and potential for tragedy is too great. Not everyone gets the message after the first time like I did, thankfully, and not everyone gets a first time. Sometimes, the first time you drive drunk ends in death.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties (Dictionary.com)

Exactically. Intoxicated. To the point of impairment.

Not "had a drink two hours ago, should be shot for driving."

Where did I say "had a drink two hours ago, should be shot for driving"? One beer, two hours ago, probably leaves you at an effective 0 BAC, overall.

See my post above. "zero tolerance," "you didn't feel drunk," "if you drank, don't drive," etc.

[Saint Johns County]

The punishment for drunk-driving should be instant execution at the roadside.

I'd love to hear the rationale for this. Hell, if we actually properly enforced this (stopping practically every car to make sure the driver wasn't drunk), this would lead to a drastic cut in population.

So, it's a win-win situation, no? The world's getting too crowded anyways.

Just a joke.

Anyways, I personally think drunk driving should carry the same penalty as a gun. If you pull out a gun in public, you can get 10 years. So if you're caught drunk, but not recklessly driving, 10 years. If you fire a gun in public, but don't hit anybody, you get 20 years. So, if you're recklessly driving (drunk or not) I think you should get 20 years. Shooting somebody by discharging a gun usually carries a sentence of 30- life. Therefore, hitting another car, whether you kill the person or not, should carry a sentence of 30-life. People need to start treating cars like weapons. That doesn't mean they always are, but (true story, happened to someone I know) if you throw a glass coke bottle in a trash can, miss, and it hits somebody, you're charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Same should go for cars.

[The Cat-Tribe]

two points... 1) while I do like GnI's idea, I never said to implement it. there are alot of Ideas I like that I know shouldn't be put into effect. that being said...
2) I never posited any level of intoxication that would allow one to be shot.

but then, how can we test for intoxication?

most roadside tests (the physical stuff) are hard to pass even when sober and don't really test the level of intoxication.

you (and others) state that the BAC testers are not infallible...

so any suggestions? and it doesn't have to be for the 'roving bands of executioners' but perhaps for cops to just arrest those DUI?

I have a radical idea. Police can stop those who are suspected of driving illegally. Police can administer tests at the roadside than tend to indicate intoxication or impairment and arrest those who fail or refuse the test. Blood tests can be administered to those who are arrested. Those who are intoxicated or impaired should be charged with serious crimes. If convicted, the should face severe sentences.

*imagine it*

[JuNii]

Alcoholism is severe condition that is very hard to overcome, yet about 1:5 manage to overcome it with AA. A DUI requires a night of stupidity, as opposed to long-term abuse, leading to physical and physiological dependency, and would therefore be much easier to not re-offend than an alcoholic.

you might want to research that.

I've seen studies that have DUI recidivism rates anywhere from 2% to little over 15%.

of course most of these studies were doing comparative work with Alcohol/intoxication education.

[Rolling squid]

you might want to research that.

I've seen studies that have DUI recidivism rates anywhere from 2% to little over 15%.

of course most of these studies were doing comparative work with Alcohol/intoxication education.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/10550490701756393

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness

[The Cat-Tribe]

Alcoholism is severe condition that is very hard to overcome, yet about 1:5 manage to overcome it with AA. A DUI requires a night of stupidity, as opposed to long-term abuse, leading to physical and physiological dependency, and would therefore be much easier to not re-offend than an alcoholic.

you might want to research that.

I've seen studies that have DUI recidivism rates anywhere from 2% to little over 15%.

of course most of these studies were doing comparative work with Alcohol/intoxication education.

Assuming the bolded statement is accurate about DUI recidivism rates, then Rolling squid's earlier allegation that "the majority of people who drive drunk don't do it again" isn't just true -- it's an understatement!

[JuNii]

I have a radical idea. Police can stop those who are suspected of driving illegally. Police can administer tests at the roadside than tend to indicate intoxication or impairment and arrest those who fail or refuse the test. Blood tests can be administered to those who are arrested. Those who are intoxicated or impaired should be charged with serious crimes. If convicted, the should face severe sentences.

*imagine it*

you mean... use the same tests that rely on the police officers judgement for pass/fail as well as the breathalyser and blood test that doesn't measure impairment? wasn't it you who was trying to say that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutly"?

guess then a level would need to be used to determine intoxication... but a high BAC doesn't prove impaired facilities nor impaired judgement... and a low BAC can still have an intoxicated driver on the road...

so... we use the same methods to test impairment and intoxication as we would today. GnI is just suggesting a different consequence.

[JuNii]

Alcoholism is severe condition that is very hard to overcome, yet about 1:5 manage to overcome it with AA. A DUI requires a night of stupidity, as opposed to long-term abuse, leading to physical and physiological dependency, and would therefore be much easier to not re-offend than an alcoholic.

you might want to research that.

I've seen studies that have DUI recidivism rates anywhere from 2% to little over 15%.

of course most of these studies were doing comparative work with Alcohol/intoxication education.

Assuming the bolded statement is accurate about DUI recidivism rates, then Rolling squid's earlier allegation that "the majority of people who drive drunk don't do it again" isn't just true -- it's an understatement!

and if you read. it's comparative work about alcohol education programs. so the results is not a true recidivism rate of first time DUI's but only compaired with those undergoing the programs. which is still damn impressive.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I have a radical idea. Police can stop those who are suspected of driving illegally. Police can administer tests at the roadside than tend to indicate intoxication or impairment and arrest those who fail or refuse the test. Blood tests can be administered to those who are arrested. Those who are intoxicated or impaired should be charged with serious crimes. If convicted, the should face severe sentences.

*imagine it*

you mean... use the same tests that rely on the police officers judgement for pass/fail as well as the breathalyser and blood test that doesn't measure impairment? wasn't it you who was trying to say that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutly"?

guess then a level would need to be used to determine intoxication... but a high BAC doesn't prove impaired facilities nor impaired judgement... and a low BAC can still have an intoxicated driver on the road...

so... we use the same methods to test impairment and intoxication as we would today. GnI is just suggesting a different consequence.

Um. What part about fair trial and due process followed by fair punishment vs. summary execution by police officer didn't you get?

[Poliwanacraca]

in fact, anyone under any circumstances who has ever crashed a car has demonstrated more impaired driving ability than that of any drunk driver stopped by anything else other than the destruction of their vehicle.

I don't agree with GnI at all, but this is a flagrantly silly statement. When a deer jumped about three feet in front of my car when I was traveling at 35 mph, I did not demonstrate the least bit of "impaired driving ability" by not being able to magically decelerate from 35 to 0 in under three feet. I demonstrated that cars continue to obey the basic laws of physics, and hit the deer. A drunk driver who is pulled over by the cops is more often than not driving in a way that would lead the cops to think he might be drunk, i.e. badly. Making really dumb assertions doesn't help your argument.

[JuNii]

Um. What part about fair trial and due process followed by fair punishment vs. summary execution by police officer didn't you get?

how many of these DUI cases end up with a trial?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Um. What part about fair trial and due process followed by fair punishment vs. summary execution by police officer didn't you get?

how many of these DUI cases end up with a trial?

I have no idea off the top of my head and I'm not going to research it unless you provide some clue as to how that is even vaguely relevant to the discussion.

[Rolling squid]

Um. What part about fair trial and due process followed by fair punishment vs. summary execution by police officer didn't you get?

how many of these DUI cases end up with a trial?

All that don't end in roadside executions?

[JuNii]

Um. What part about fair trial and due process followed by fair punishment vs. summary execution by police officer didn't you get?

how many of these DUI cases end up with a trial?

I have no idea off the top of my head and I'm not going to research it unless you provide some clue as to how that is even vaguely relevant to the discussion.

just wondering the difference between those that actually go to trial and those that plead guilty/no contest.

that all. no real point, so no need research.

[JuNii]

Um. What part about fair trial and due process followed by fair punishment vs. summary execution by police officer didn't you get?

how many of these DUI cases end up with a trial?

All that don't end in roadside executions?

really? so no one pleads guilty/no contest (which isn't the trial)?