• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drunk Drivers

How should drunks be charged?

  • Total voters
    39
Ikari said:
I don’t think so. In fact, while there is a lot of push on drunk driving you know there’s not a whole lot of actual movement in areas which could prevent it. There’s a large double standard on some level, and I’d venture a guess it’s because DUI is big business for the State. Fact of the matter is in the way we district businesses and such now, there are not many places left with a corner bar on every corner. Things are distances away, you have to travel to get out there. But public transport is not very good in A LOT of places. So you drive, and one can say that “well you shouldn’t drink and drive so you shouldn’t drink at all”, but it’s going to happen and everyone knows it. It’s like telling kids abstinence is the best method of birth control. Technically true, functionally unrealizable.

If we were really worried about DUI, we would be putting effort into better public transport across the nation. Better access to alternative ways home, hotels, etc. We’re not looking into that. Fort Collins, CO for example has very few taxi services. And at night when the bars close it becomes neigh impossible to get a taxi. The reason is that the city restricts heavily the companies allowed to operate taxi companies in the city. If there was a goal to decrease DUI, you don’t do that. Furthermore, cops will sit outside of bars and look for drunks getting into cars. Wait till they’re getting into their cars and then go arrest them for DUI. If the idea was prevention, you have cops intervening BEFORE they get into the car. But the idea isn’t to stop DUI from happening, it’s to wait till it does happen and then pounce. Because we’ve emotionalized this issue to such a degree to allow for unreasonable punishment, including excessive fines, there’s a lot of money. They WANT the DUI to happen because that’s money in the city coffers.

DUI is one of those crimes that you can rile people up easily and get them to throw away reason. There is no real effort to minimize DUI instances. The effort instead is maximizing DUI punishment. There’s a difference.
Click to expand...

Where I live there are big signs in every bar,

WE WILL CALL FOR A CAB AND PAY FOR YOUR RIDE HOME, JUST ASK
 
Ikari said:
If we were really worried about DUI, we would be putting effort into better public transport across the nation. Better access to alternative ways home, hotels, etc. We’re not looking into that. Fort Collins, CO for example has very few taxi services. And at night when the bars close it becomes neigh impossible to get a taxi. The reason is that the city restricts heavily the companies allowed to operate taxi companies in the city. If there was a goal to decrease DUI, you don’t do that. Furthermore, cops will sit outside of bars and look for drunks getting into cars. Wait till they’re getting into their cars and then go arrest them for DUI. If the idea was prevention, you have cops intervening BEFORE they get into the car. But the idea isn’t to stop DUI from happening, it’s to wait till it does happen and then pounce. Because we’ve emotionalized this issue to such a degree to allow for unreasonable punishment, including excessive fines, there’s a lot of money. They WANT the DUI to happen because that’s money in the city coffers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The best way to prevent drunk driving is to make it so drunks don't have to drive. Better public transportation is a great solution to the problem.

sawyerloggingon said:
Where I live there are big signs in every bar,

WE WILL CALL FOR A CAB AND PAY FOR YOUR RIDE HOME, JUST ASK
Click to expand...

Does anyone use that, though? I wouldn't want to leave my car somewhere overnight, and then have to find a way to get back to it the next day. You not only need to get people not to drive home, you need to get them not to drive to the bar, party, or wherever in the first place. The transit needs to go both ways.
 
First degree or second degree do not apply in cases of drunk driving. It is not premeditated in the case of first degree murder and there is no willful intent in second degree murder. This is why we have manslaughter, as it is an accident no matter how negligent on the part of the drunk driver. With no intent the other two just do not apply.
 
Ikari said:
Your other question could be answered if you took the time to read my posts.
Click to expand...

I was giving you a chance to redact your nonchalant "slap him on the wrist and tell him he's been bad" view toward negligent homicide.

You still sticking by your guns on this?
 
The best way they could be charged, is with about 2000 volts.
 
evanescence said:
mmm- going to a bar/ party whatever, and getting smashed without regard for the safety of others equals premeditation in my view. Not that it matters. Plenty of people agree with you. If it happens to my family, I'll have to take justice into my own hands, I suppose. I'll be damned if I let some drunk pos kill my family and get a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...
Then your view would be incorrect. Both legally and factually.
 
Chiefgator said:
I have no problem with your a assertion. You may in fact be one of the few that have never done it.
I am just not surprised because I expect extremists to take that position. I will also not be surprised if, let's say, Tigger or maybe NP had the same stance.
Click to expand...

I'd like to take a moment and apologize to Connory. For some reason I had it in my brain that he was a different poster.
I was wrong to call him an extremist as I actually don't feel that he is one.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Where I live there are big signs in every bar,

WE WILL CALL FOR A CAB AND PAY FOR YOUR RIDE HOME, JUST ASK
Click to expand...

Well you're in one of the better areas. This is not as common as you would think it should be.
 
Gipper said:
I was giving you a chance to redact your nonchalant "slap him on the wrist and tell him he's been bad" view toward negligent homicide.

You still sticking by your guns on this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, manslaughter is really a slap on the wrist :roll:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Where I live there are big signs in every bar,

WE WILL CALL FOR A CAB AND PAY FOR YOUR RIDE HOME, JUST ASK
Click to expand...

My brother owned a bar. He had the same sign. I asked him one time how often he gets taken up on the offer. He said that he has one guy that uses it all the time, completely abusing the situation. Other than him, it has only been used one other time.
Then he admitted to me, that he put the sign up at the suggestion of our uncle, who is a lawyer. It was there more for the protection of the business in case someone got a DUI fatality injury etc. After leaving the bar.
 
Chiefgator said:
My brother owned a bar. He had the same sign. I asked him one time how often he gets taken up on the offer. He said that he has one guy that uses it all the time, completely abusing the situation. Other than him, it has only been used one other time.
Then he admitted to me, that he put the sign up at the suggestion of our uncle, who is a lawyer. It was there more for the protection of the business in case someone got a DUI fatality injury etc. After leaving the bar.
Click to expand...
Legal issues aside... most people who are drunk are also incapable of accurately assessing their own driving abilities at the moment. Most think/say, "Oh, I'm fine.", and honestly believe that, when in reality they're not.
 
evanescence said:
How should they be charged?

I'm leaning towards first degree murder. They are clearly scum of the earth who are unworthy of life.
Click to expand...

I think all of these are too steep for Drinking and Driving. Why would you charge someone with murder for DWI? How about we charge them with DUI?
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no question that emotions play a part in law-making..IMO, far too large a role...
A human trait(emotions)
I agree that the law can be improved...including the all-important record keeping.
Rather than having an emphais on "punishment", there must be prevention instead.
Drunks are unhappy people.
 
Sadly we call them accidents, I don't think many actual accidents really happen. I tend to think of them more as negligent driving episodes. Knock wood I haven't caused any harm to other drivers during my lifetime, yet I have been on the receiving end of other negligent drivers vehicles, once on a motorcycle and several times in larger vehicles.

Drunk or not I think there needs to be stiffer penalties for driving negligent(causing accidents).

I really don't see too much difference between being drunk and just plain negligent. If there was no insurance maybe people would be more careful especially if they had to go to jail when harming another individual, instead we allow people to shrug it off "sorry your back is broken(because I was running late)but my insurance should cover that". I really wonder how people live with themselves at times.

Stiffer penalties all around IMO.
 
Utility Man said:
I really don't see too much difference between being drunk and just plain negligent.
Click to expand...

Functionally, there is very little difference. You’re posing a threat on the road. But the perception is different. With drunk driving it’s easy to get on your high horse and preach down to people. And say that punishments need to be X, Y and Z because of the dangers present. A lot of people likely do not believe that they’ve ever drunk drove before. So you get this case where it’s like “OMG! Drunk driving is worse than Hitler! You’re a terrible person if you ever done it” blah blah blah. They’ll then cite some of the limited cases wherein excessive repeat offenders finally cause a fatality and then they point their fingers “he had X DUIs! Why was he allowed to get behind a wheel? Why wasn’t he in jail?”

The truth is that many people have drunk drove before. In many many States, 0.05 starts the DWAI/DUI laws. Lots of people have had a few drinks and gotten behind the wheel and never got caught. The vast majority of drinking and driving cases end up with the individual making it home safety (not that it’s overall as safe as driving sober, of course it’s not, but it’s very frequent). So this perception that they’ve never done it, that it is performed only by the most derelict of us all leads to this ability to crusade against it (and on some levels, it’s very much like religious zealousness). They cry for harsher punishments without thinking about who all will be caught up in the system because of it and whether or not the punishment is even appropriate.

Neglectful driving, on the other hand, is perceived as well more frequent. Who hasn’t driven while eating, or talking on their phone, and on some level now even texting? Everyone has been neglectful t some point. So it’s seen as more accidental and even the most zealous of the anti-Drinking and Driving crusaders out there wouldn’t sell themselves up the river even if it produced safer roads. So they don’t think much about that, they’re more likely to forgive, more willing to say “well you got home without harming anyone”. It’s a lot harder to stand your high horse on your soap box for generalized neglectful driving because it’s perceived as common and that everyone (not just the derelicts) has done it at some point.

In the end, I do agree that functionally it’s equivalent and one should face equivalent punishments. Now I wonder how many people out there would complain if talking on the phone netted about 10K worth of fines, months of classes, even more months of therapy, losing one’s license, etc. I have a feeling that people would find the punishment well too excessive once they can envision themselves being subjected to it.
 
Utility Man said:
I really don't see too much difference between being drunk and just plain negligent.
Click to expand...
The main difference I would see is that a negligent person can "wake up" if something grabs their attention, and possibly avert an incident. The chances of a drunk person being that lucky is less likely.

I'm taking "negligent" to mean something like day dreaming, being distracted, etc.
 
Arcana XV said:
People don't generally decide to get drunk with the specific intent of killing someone once they get behind the wheel of a car. So no, it's not a premeditated killing. It's reckless and very dangerous behavior, but it doesn't fit in the legal definition of "premeditated murder".
Click to expand...

Being drunk does not excuse of following laws, you should realize this before your first drink that you may end up drunk. The question is did you know you can get drunk from drinking alcohol? Did you know that being drunk can lead to making piss poor decisions and you could be held accountable for any crimes you may commit? Ignorance of the laws is not a viable defense, unless your deemed incompetent, so even if you answered no to these, oh well.
 
Last edited:
barbarian_style said:
Being drunk does not excuse of following laws, you should realize this before your first drink that you may end up drunk. The question is did you know you can get drunk from drinking alcohol? Did you know that being drunk can lead to making piss poor decisions and you could be held accountable for any crimes you may commit? Ignorance of the laws is not a viable defense, unless your deemed incompetent, so even if you answered no to these, oh well.
Click to expand...

So....people are saying that DUI should be legal?
 
barbarian_style said:
Being drunk does not excuse of following laws, you should realize this before your first drink that you may end up drunk. The question is did you know you can get drunk from drinking alcohol? Did you know that being drunk can lead to making piss poor decisions and you could be held accountable for any crimes you may commit? Ignorance of the laws is not a viable defense, unless your deemed incompetent, so even if you answered no to these, oh well.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but none of that is any indication of clear intent to go out and commit murder. The legal system places specific definitions on the different levels of murder. Take it up with them. :shrug:
 
Chiefgator said:
I'd like to take a moment and apologize to Connory. For some reason I had it in my brain that he was a different poster.
I was wrong to call him an extremist as I actually don't feel that he is one.
Click to expand...


^^^^
This is an act of a gentleman.


Thank you Chiefgator no apology necessary...:mrgreen::thumbs:
 
It is not just the person drinking that has a responsibility in this issue, bars and other places which sell alcohol can and in many cases have liability here as well. For example, "Dram Shop" statutes are enacted so the business selling alcohol will "cut off" or stop serving alcohol to those that may be inebriated.

The statutory duty not to sell or deliver alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons applies to and is intended to protect, among others, the intoxicated patron. However, an intoxicated person may recover against a licensed vendor of alcoholic beverages for personal injuries, property damage or consequential damages arising out of the service of alcohol only if the proprietor acted in a willful, wanton or reckless manner in serving the patron alcohol. The statutes are also intended to protect members of the general public. Accordingly, a tavern keeper who sells alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated patron may be held civilly liable to a third party who is injured by the intoxicated person.
Click to expand...

Dram Shop Act Law
 
evanescence said:
How should they be charged?

I'm leaning towards first degree murder. They are clearly scum of the earth who are unworthy of life.
Click to expand...

Umm whether you think they are "scum of the earth who are unworthy of life" (pure emotional prejudice with no place in criminal justice) is completely IRRELEVANT to the actual criminal charge they should face. People who accidentally kill someone while driving drunk are not guilty of first-degree murder, because there was no intent to kill. Simply being irresponsible is not the same as committing premeditated murder.

Let me rephrase your above statement about first-degree murder, and tell me if you still agree: Do you think that someone who intentionally uses their car as a weapon to mow down a pedestrian should receive no harsher punishment than someone who accidentally killed someone through negligence?
 
Kandahar said:
Umm whether you think they are "scum of the earth who are unworthy of life" (pure emotional prejudice with no place in criminal justice) is completely IRRELEVANT to the actual criminal charge they should face. People who accidentally kill someone while driving drunk are not guilty of first-degree murder, because there was no intent to kill. Simply being irresponsible is not the same as committing premeditated murder.
Click to expand...

If at this point in our society, someone does not know the potential destruction they can bring by drinking and driving, then they are too dumb to deserve to live. To the same level as a drunk driver that kills others does not deserve to live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom