View Poll Results: How should drunks be charged?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • First degree murder

    5 10.20%
  • Second degree murder

    8 16.33%
  • manslaughter

    28 57.14%
  • Other

    8 16.33%
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 156 of 156

Thread: Drunk Drivers

  1. #151
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Drunk Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Reading comprehension is lacking in many of your posts. Here’s what I am saying: Your lax view of drunk driving is in line with your lax view of child molestation. Both positions are utterly absurd. I am not drawing any type of connection between the two crimes. At all.
    I do not have a lax view on either. That is merely your opinion you're trying to present as fact. Before going off and making fun of people for "reading comprehension", perchance you should consider what it is that you’re actually writing. Your personal propaganda against my arguments does not change what they are. I am not “lax” on either drunk driving nor child molestation. Rather, I am merely unemotional on these subjects and seek proper punishment. Not over punishment and hysteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    You are saying that these people are unintentionally harming others. If it’s unintentional, there is no fault involved. Fault assumes culpability which you have clearly denied in these cases.
    Lots of things which are unintentional carry fault. Are you kidding? Reckless endangerment does not carry intent, but it carries punishment because while one may not have INTENDED to cause a certain outcome, through reckless behavior they have led to it. That’s non-intentional yet carries fault. Please, let’s stop with this lie. I know you’re trying to base a lot of propaganda off of it, but it just isn’t true.

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    There is no lie as you put it. You have argued in this thread that current laws need to be reversed which is idiotic, window-linking nonsense.
    How about some of that reading comprehension you so smarmily called out on me at the beginning of your argument? I did not say the current laws need to be reversed. I said the punishments need to be brought into reasonable and proper levels. Are you done lying about my arguments yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    While drunk, they are obviously in an altered state of mind, but not before getting drunk. This is where intention comes into it. After all, how many times does a person need to make the same mistake before it becomes intentional?
    You can say they intended to drink and drive. But that doesn’t mean they are murdering in the first degree if they happen to get in an accident and kill someone as they do not intend to actually kill anyone. Now if someone said “I’m gonna get drunk and kill someone”, then that’s intent to harm. But under normal circumstances there is no intent to harm and punishment must reflect that.

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Lol I doubt it. There are plenty of morons who think exactly like you. Meanwhile, people keep dying.
    Nearly 11,000 people lose their lives each year because of drunk drivers. (according to the CDC) But the current laws need to be reversed according to you. Justice for those whose lives have been destroyed is “emotional tripe” in your opinion.
    What you have written here is indeed emotional tripe. You’re arguing revenge punishment, but I do not believe revenge to be a proper proponent of justice. Proper punishment must reflect the crime. You cannot hold crimes of intent against a drunk driver less you can prove intent in a court of law. The act in and of itself does not mean intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Repeated offenses by drunk driving do not compare to any of your hyperbolic examples. I doubt you even bothered to stop and consider what I’ve actually proposed.
    Punishment for DUI goes up with frequency. And it never comes off your record in some states. Everything I have written there is applicable to the discussion at hand. Your dismissal is just that, dismissal. Try a coherent argument next time, it will go further.

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    What proper punishment? You haven’t proposed any so far.
    I’ve oft proposed what I would remove from punishment. The fines are excessive, the therapy is excessive, the classes for first time offense are excessive (though that covers a larger range of “classes” as it’s a favorite tactic of the government to drain more money away from people). Jail time for first time offense (if no property or personal damage is incurred) is excessive, etc. We should also separate out DUI which does not result in property and personal damage and that which does, as the former should not realize as many of the punishments as the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Yes, your posts are a fine example of that.
    My posts are quite the contrary. It is nothing but intelligence. Remove the emotion and argue rationally from a base concept. Drunk Driving, however, is an example of a crime which has been purposefully emotionalized to remove rational and logical thought in order to increase punishment beyond reasonable levels.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #152
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,081

    Re: Drunk Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You don't need to be drinking and driving to kill someone. How many people are paying attention while driving? They're driving a huge machine, yes? Lots of momentum. You could argue ANY action which leads to substantial distraction should be punished the same. Anything from drinking, to texting, to putting on makeup, etc. UP to 10 grand in total fines, loss of license for what is it 6 months now, possible jail time, lots of community service, classes, therapy, evaluations, etc.

    If you are a conscious citizen you MUST know you can kill innocent ones if you drive distracted.
    i know that and i say we dont need much more reasons that may result in the accidents causing deaths.you cant know whether you will get distracted or not and cause an accident before starting to drive but if you are not drunk you can know at least you wont have an accident because of being drunk.you can reduce the possibility of any accident ...
    Last edited by Medusa; 04-23-12 at 12:04 PM.
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  3. #153
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Drunk Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    i know that and i say we dont need much more reasons that may result in the accidents causing deaths.you cant know whether you will get distracted or not and cause an accident before starting to drive but if you are not drunk you can know at least you wont have an accident because of being drunk.you can reduce the possibility of any accident ...
    You can, yet driving distracted is just as devastating. Hell falling asleep behind the wheel overtook drunk driving deaths not so long ago. Drunk Driving fatalities have been declining. But you want to make this argument wherein drunk driving is so dangerous that these excessive punishments are warranted. Yet for other circumstances which lead to similar or even greater results (texting and driving for one), you seem well more lenient even though the functional result is the same. I think people are less likely to get on the high horse for distracted driving because they themselves can see that maybe at some point they have distracted driven before and don’t want to face the same punishments as DUI. But if the results are the same, then shouldn’t the punishment as well? We’re talking first degree murder charges by some here for drunk driving, what about distracted driving? If you are distracted while driving and lead to a death, could you be charged with first degree murder as well? Or are we going to say “well that was an accident and no intent to harm was present”?

    There is a large inconsistency with punishments for similar dynamics, and most of that rests upon perception of crime, not actual crime. People THINK drunk driving is so much worse than say tired driving, even though tired driving accounts for a large chunk of fatalities on the road. And because of that turn in perception, people are well more willing to hand out tougher punishments for drunk driving than other forms of distracted driving even though functionally these dynamics are equivalent.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #154
    Libertarian socialist

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Staffs, England
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,730

    Re: Drunk Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    How should they be charged?

    I'm leaning towards first degree murder. They are clearly scum of the earth who are unworthy of life.
    Its a separate offence here Causing death by dangerous driving - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  5. #155
    ¡Selah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Drunk Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I do not have a lax view on either. That is merely your opinion you're trying to present as fact.
    No. It's fact.

    You repeatedly state on many issues that laws need to be changed and penalties reduced. This is only one issue where you defend criminals while claiming that those who want justice for victims are hysterical and/or emotional. Nothing new here. You and your supporters disregard the need to address the pain and suffering caused by drunk drivers as “emotional tripe.” And then you deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Before going off and making fun of people for "reading comprehension", perchance you should consider what it is that you’re actually writing.
    “Making fun of”..? You’re the one who came at me with the rude attitude in this thread with your “duh” and your indirect insults. Need I refer you to those posts? Don’t play innocent here. You get what you dish out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Your personal propaganda against my arguments does not change what they are.
    There’s nothing personal at all, nor is there any propaganda. You are making this personal by indirectly referring to a lack of intelligence, and calling me emotional and hysterical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I am not “lax” on either drunk driving nor child molestation. Rather, I am merely unemotional on these subjects and seek proper punishment. Not over punishment and hysteria.
    You have displayed plenty of emotion in this thread. You just direct your compassion upon the criminals instead of the victims. Don’t worry. You’re not alone in this. But pretending to be the unbiased judge, presenting the cold hard facts is getting old and tired.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Lots of things which are unintentional carry fault. Are you kidding? Reckless endangerment does not carry intent, but it carries punishment because while one may not have INTENDED to cause a certain outcome, through reckless behavior they have led to it. That’s non-intentional yet carries fault. Please, let’s stop with this lie. I know you’re trying to base a lot of propaganda off of it, but it just isn’t true.
    Your tactic of trivializing my arguments with unfounded accusations is duly noted. However, if one applies common sense to this discussion, one can plainly see how fault as well as intent can be applied in this specific topic. That has been my argument all along. If you want to discuss reckless driving, please do so in another thread.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    How about some of that reading comprehension you so smarmily called out on me at the beginning of your argument? I did not say the current laws need to be reversed. I said the punishments need to be brought into reasonable and proper levels. Are you done lying about my arguments yet?
    And yet, you did:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Drunk driving punishments far exceed the crime currently. And part of the reason is exactly what is in your post here. It is emotionalized drivel and we're to make law and punishment off of this? No, we're finding ourselves in worse and worse situations because we are allowing emotions to dominate policy making.

    If anything we need to reverse directions on DUI laws and punishments such that we create a fair system of appropriate punishments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You can say they intended to drink and drive. But that doesn’t mean they are murdering in the first degree if they happen to get in an accident and kill someone as they do not intend to actually kill anyone. Now if someone said “I’m gonna get drunk and kill someone”, then that’s intent to harm. But under normal circumstances there is no intent to harm and punishment must reflect that.
    So you can admit that someone can intend to drive drunk while knowing the consequences of those actions and yet still not intend to kill someone? What if they just don’t give a damn? Like so many people in this thread: “Well I drove drunk every night.” Seriously?

    And in cases of recidivism-- What if someone drives drunk and kills someone? And then does it again? Still no intent? I think there is. And anyone capable of following simple logic would also come to the same conclusion.

    If people do not intend to drive drunk and have no control over the results, why have drunk driving ads? But clearly people can be dissuaded from this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    What you have written here is indeed emotional tripe. You’re arguing revenge punishment, but I do not believe revenge to be a proper proponent of justice. Proper punishment must reflect the crime. You cannot hold crimes of intent against a drunk driver less you can prove intent in a court of law. The act in and of itself does not mean intent.
    Nonsense. I am arguing for punishments that are most likely to prevent repeated offenses, deter the action, as well as provide justice for those whose lives were senselessly destroyed. Your plan, so called, will do none of those things.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Punishment for DUI goes up with frequency. And it never comes off your record in some states.

    I do not support waiting until someone is dead before increasing punishments appropriately. As I’ve said, first degree is reserved only for those who have killed people as a result of drunk driving on more than one occasion. Repeated drunk driving despite having killed someone shows intent. In other instances, 2nd degree or vehicular homicide would be appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Everything I have written there is applicable to the discussion at hand. Your dismissal is just that, dismissal. Try a coherent argument next time, it will go further.
    Not as clever as you think. Dismissing me while claiming I am dismissing you is simply filling up space. Just because you do not agree with what I have written here doesn’t make your argument correct or coherent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I’ve oft proposed what I would remove from punishment. The fines are excessive, the therapy is excessive, the classes for first time offense are excessive (though that covers a larger range of “classes” as it’s a favorite tactic of the government to drain more money away from people). Jail time for first time offense (if no property or personal damage is incurred) is excessive, etc. We should also separate out DUI which does not result in property and personal damage and that which does, as the former should not realize as many of the punishments as the latter.
    What then? What do you propose? I mean assuming that any punishment wouldn’t be too much of an inconvenience. And btw, we’re not discussing property damage and run-of-the-mill DUIs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    My posts are quite the contrary. It is nothing but intelligence.
    Ba dum tsssssshhh!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Remove the emotion and argue rationally from a base concept. Drunk Driving, however, is an example of a crime which has been purposefully emotionalized to remove rational and logical thought in order to increase punishment beyond reasonable levels.
    Yes, yes- remove the emotion. If I were to sum up your argument, this would be your main point. After that, there’s static. You have failed to provide any alternative to deter drunk driving.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  6. #156
    ¡Selah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Drunk Drivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You can, yet driving distracted is just as devastating.
    Nope. Drunk drivers kill approximately 10,000 people each year while distracted drivers kill about 5000. Drivers who are distracted are a problem, no doubt, but pretending that this is on the same level as drunk driving is foolish nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcana XV View Post
    Again, it's not "people", it's the law. Premeditation and intent have legal definitions. I suggest you look at a legal dictionary or talk to a criminal lawyer about it so they can explain it to you.
    I’m aware of what the law says. But people interpret that law. Law is semantics. Simply waving “the law” in my face does nothing for your argument.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •