Drunk Drivers

Kandahar · Apr 13, 2012

And by the way, 19% of drivers aged 16-25 tell pollsters that they have driven drunk at some point in the last year...and those are just the ones who admit to it. What do you think the real number is? And what if we're talking about EVER, rather than just in the last year? Maybe 50-60%?

If we assume that today's young people are no more irresponsible about DUIs than their parents' generation or their grandparents' generation were when THEY were young, I think it's probably fair to say that the MAJORITY of Americans have driven while intoxicated at some point in their lives. So to those of you calling for their heads, do you really believe that all of these people are the scum of the earth who are no better than premeditated murderers?

Kandahar · Apr 13, 2012

Arbo said:
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.

I see. So you've never done it, right? And you've also never talked on your cell phone or driven while sleepy, right?

Arbo · Apr 13, 2012

Kandahar said:
I see. So you've never done it, right? And you've also never talked on your cell phone or driven while sleepy, right?

Why do liberals always play this still game? Personalize and extend.

We are talking about drunk driving, and no, I never have.

DiAnna · Apr 13, 2012

I wish DUI's were handled tougher and more uniformly throughout all the states. In some states, the third lifetim DUI is automatically a felony. I like this. I wish all states would adopt this position. In some places, people are working on 15-20 DUI's and have spent only a matter of weeks or months in jail. I'd also like to see drivers licenses suspended, and automobiles registered to all DUI recipients should have the registration suspended for the same amount of time, so the cars cannot be legally driven and would be easier for LEO to spot on the road.

I'm assuming the OP is about DUI drivers who actually kill people. I voted "other" because I believe the proper charge is Vehicular Homicide. If a DUI driver injures someone, I believe the proper charge is Felony Reckless Endangerment. I think the sentence for both crimes should be in decades, not years, dependent upon the individual's past history of prior DUI's.

MaggieD · Apr 13, 2012

DiAnna said:
I wish DUI's were handled tougher and more uniformly throughout all the states. In some states, the third lifetim DUI is automatically a felony. I like this. I wish all states would adopt this position. In some places, people are working on 15-20 DUI's and have spent only a matter of weeks or months in jail. I'd also like to see drivers licenses suspended, and automobiles registered to all DUI recipients should have the registration suspended for the same amount of time, so the cars cannot be legally driven and would be easier for LEO to spot on the road.

I'm assuming the OP is about DUI drivers who actually kill people. I voted "other" because I believe the proper charge is Vehicular Homicide. If a DUI driver injures someone, I believe the proper charge is Felony Reckless Endangerment. I think the sentence for both crimes should be in decades, not years, dependent upon the individual's past history of prior DUI's.

I vote we require all three-time DUI offenders' cars like pink zebras. Oooo! And with reflective paint. We may as well know what we're dealing with.

Kandahar · Apr 13, 2012

Arbo said:
Why do liberals always play this still game? Personalize and extend.

We are talking about drunk driving, and no, I never have.

Just want to make sure that none of the people calling for the heads of drunk drivers have ever done it themselves. After all, I'm SURE that they wouldn't want to be sanctimonious hypocrites. As for driving while on a cell phone or while sleepy, the reason I brought it up is because the situation is exactly the same (i.e. dangerous road behavior that people KNOW they shouldn't do), so I want to make sure we don't have any sanctimonious hypocrites who have done THESE things while calling for the heads of drunk drivers.

And I noticed you didn't answer the question about those. I wonder why. :roll:

Kandahar · Apr 13, 2012

MaggieD said:
I vote we require all three-time DUI offenders' cars like pink zebras. Oooo! And with reflective paint. We may as well know what we're dealing with.

I genuinely like the "scarlet letter" approach to DUIs, much more than I like the visceral off-with-their-heads approach.

In my home state of Ohio, they have special yellow license plates for people who have been convicted of DUIs. Ostensibly, this is to make it easier for cops to identify people who are potentially dangerous on the roads...but in practice, there's also a bit of public shaming involved. I actually like this practice, and think that humiliation is probably a fairly effective punishment for DUIs. Maybe not for the hardcore alcoholics, but at least for the irresponsible college fratboys.

Arbo · Apr 13, 2012

Kandahar said:
Just want to make sure that none of the people calling for the heads of drunk drivers have ever done it themselves. After all, I'm SURE that they wouldn't want to be sanctimonious hypocrites. As for driving while on a cell phone or while sleepy, the reason I brought it up is because the situation is exactly the same (i.e. dangerous road behavior that people KNOW they shouldn't do), so I want to make sure we don't have any sanctimonious hypocrites who have done THESE things while calling for the heads of drunk drivers.

And I noticed you didn't answer the question about those. I wonder why. :roll:

Nobody is calling for the heads of those that talk on the cell phone or drive while tired. You are continuing the normal liberal bait and switch tactic.

And BTW, 'humiliation' of a drunk driver will not save your family when they are on an intersecting course with that drunk driver in the future.

Kandahar · Apr 13, 2012

Arbo said:
Nobody is calling for the heads of those that talk on the cell phone or drive while tired.

Your reading comprehension skills are not very strong, I'm afraid.

Oh well.

Arbo · Apr 13, 2012

Kandahar said:
Your reading comprehension skills are not very strong, I'm afraid.
Oh well.

Yes, more of the typical left bs. Go figure.

DiAnna · Apr 13, 2012

@Kandahar: Not everyone drives when they've been drinking. I don't. I don't even know a person who has gotten a DUI. I do know a person who drove drunk every day of her life, and was not arrested for it once. My alcoholic mother. Back in the day, drunk driving was pretty much ignored, the thought being that "every body did it." Legislators certainly did it, and they were not about to make a law against something they themselves engaged in.

You may scoff at MADD, but that group was so sick of scraping their children off the bumpers of stumbling drunks' cars that they literally forced drunk driving legislation to be passed. It took decades, and uncountable deaths, but it's on the books now and I want to see it stay there... and be strengthened.

Don't put your own guilty conscience onto others, please, and don't let yourself be deceived by the "everybody does it so it's not that big a deal" idea. Everybody doesn't do it. And yes, it IS a big deal.

Aderleth · Apr 13, 2012

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.

If they actually kill someone, they're likely to get manslaughter, which I think is reasonable (since they never intended to kill anyone). If they haven't actually killed or hurt anyone, they should be charged more or less as they are charged - with DUI's.

barbarian_style · Apr 13, 2012

Arcana XV said:
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:

Don't need to in the state I live they have a charge for it already, it is called vehicular homicide. We also have a charge of vehicular manslaughter but that is for people that weren't reckless drunks.

Kandahar · Apr 13, 2012

DiAnna said:
@Kandahar: Not everyone drives when they've been drinking. I don't. I don't even know a person who has gotten a DUI. I do know a person who drove drunk every day of her life, and was not arrested for it once. My alcoholic mother. Back in the day, drunk driving was pretty much ignored, the thought being that "every body did it." Legislators certainly did it, and they were not about to make a law against something they themselves engaged in.

But that's exactly my point, you say "you don't even know a person who has gotten a DUI" just before you describe your mother who regularly drove while intoxicated ("even" being the operative word there, as though getting caught would somehow be morally worse, rather than simply unluckier). I showed the statistics above...19% of young drivers are willing to ADMIT to driving while intoxicated within the last 12 months. When you expand that to people who won't admit or don't realize it, people who have done it in the past but longer than 12 months ago, and to older generations who were probably at least as irresponsible about it as today's youth, I think it's very plausible that the majority of drivers have done it at some point in their lives.

You may scoff at MADD, but that group was so sick of scraping their children off the bumpers of stumbling drunks' cars that they literally forced drunk driving legislation to be passed. It took decades, and uncountable deaths, but it's on the books now and I want to see it stay there...

As far as I can tell, no one in this thread is arguing it should be removed.

and be strengthened.

Strengthened in what way? Do you think that the majority of Americans should have served prison time?

Don't put your own guilty conscience onto others, please, and don't let yourself be deceived by the "everybody does it so it's not that big a deal" idea.

Before you go making assumptions, I live in a large city with a good metro system so I rarely drive anywhere, period. As far as I know, I've never driven while intoxicated...but I've done plenty of other irresponsible stuff behind the wheel (e.g. talking on the phone, messing with my iPod, driving while sleepy), and don't consider myself morally superior to those who are irresponsible in ways different from mine.

Everybody doesn't do it.

19% of young people are willing to admit to a pollster that they've done it in the last year.

And yes, it IS a big deal.

"Big deal" =/= "tougher laws." This attitude is EXACTLY the problem I have with our criminal justice system...politicians regularly try to show that they care about some crime (i.e. it's a "big deal") by toughening criminal sentences for it, regardless of whether tougher sentences are actually appropriate for the crime. This is why the US has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in world history, it's why there are more slaves of the criminal justice system today than there were slaves on southern plantations in 1860, and it's part of why some states have so utterly failed that they can't even afford to keep their huge criminal populations locked up.

Kandahar · Apr 13, 2012

Ikari said:
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.

This is exactly right. It's easier for people to demonize drunk drivers because they assume (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that "drunk drivers" refers to someone ELSE. But people who are every bit as irresponsible in other ways would never want to apply the same punishments to their own forms of vehicular irresponsibility.

jamesrage · Apr 13, 2012

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.

Involuntary Manslaughter. Getting into a car drunk is not an preplanned attempt to murder.Its not even an at the moment attempt to take someone's life. It is the result of carelessness or an accident.

In the US, what is the difference between the various murder charges (i.e. manslaughter, first degree, second degree, etc)? | Answerbag
First Degree Murder is the deliberate, planned act of Murder. One must have thought about it, (even for a short time) planned the murder and executed it. FDM are often proven not only because of planning of the murder itself, but also other factors like having a place to hide or get rid of the body, having an escape planned, ETC.

A First Degree Felony murder is a murder that takes place while committing a felony, even if the murder is accidental. This happens most often in things like Arson, Kidnapping, Rape, ETC.

Second Degree Murder appears to be any other type of murder (Other then Capital Murder) Generally speaking, an example of this would be a murder that happened very quickly without fore-thought. (IE; a verbal fight that escalates to a fist fight that escalates to murder) It�s very similar to Manslaughter, and some States do not differentiate between SDM and Manslaughter.

Manslaughter is broken in to two parts.

Voluntary Manslaughter is when a murder is committed in the �Heat of the moment.� That is, there is no fore-thought and usually no attempt to hide after the fact. The intent to kill was present at the time of the killing, but in no way planned.

Involuntary Manslaughter is when a murder is committed with no fore-thought and again, usually no attempt to hide after the fact, and the intent to murder was not present. Such as getting in to a bar fight and punching someone in the nose, there by sending bone fragments in to their brain and killing them, ETC. It is also most often used as a charge in cases of Negligence. (Careless Driving, ETC)

radcen · Apr 13, 2012

If I had to venture a guess, I would suspect that part of the reason that DUIs are still so emotional for us is precisely the lack of consistency in dealing with them. The punishments really run the gamut. I have no doubt that we have heard of the person who was just arrested for their 19th DUI... 19!!!!... and we wonder, "Why the eff are they not in prison, let alone still driving at all?". At the other end of the spectrum, we've all probably also heard of the person who got their first DUI and got a year or two in jail. And every conceivable level of punishment in between.

Luna Tick · Apr 14, 2012

If they kill someone, that's involuntary manslaughter. If they didn't kill or injure anyone, that's a DUI and they should be charged as such.

The legal limit should also be changed from .08 in most places to .12. Impairment begins at .12 to .15. The changing to .08 was nothing more than "feel like we're doing something" legislation and has done nothing at all to catch more drunks.

Aderleth · Apr 14, 2012

jamesrage said:
A First Degree Felony murder is a murder that takes place while committing a felony, even if the murder is accidental. This happens most often in things like Arson, Kidnapping, Rape, ETC.

I largely agree with everything you said in the post to which I'm responding (which is why I "liked" it), but wanted to talk a little about felony murder. You're right about all of the above quoted text, but to be clear, felony murder also includes murders committed by bystanders and victims of certain crimes.

For example, say a guy walks into a convenience store with a gun, holds up the shopkeeper and demands the money in the register (which is, obviously, armed robbery). The shopkeeper pulls out a gun of his own and shoots at the robber, but accidentally hits and kills his own wife, who had been shelving magazines on the other side of the store. The robber is on the hook for felony murder of the shopkeeper's wife, even though the shopkeeper fired the gun that killed her.

Connery · Apr 14, 2012

MaggieD said:
I vote we require all three-time DUI offenders' cars like pink zebras. Oooo! And with reflective paint. We may as well know what we're dealing with.

Looks like you won.......Ohio's DUI plate.

Regular Ohio License plate

lpast · Apr 14, 2012

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.

I have a question for you If I may, should people that kill driving that are high on weed be charged the same as drunk drivers and individuals that kill while texting while driving....should they be charged the same as well....after all murder is murder right ?

Jryan · Apr 14, 2012

Well seeing as how justice departments vary state by state, I would consider Manslaughter a proper charge, whether it be vehicular or involuntary. I also believe that, maybe, these sentences should be reworked. Instead of sending a person to prison, for a maximum of 10 years in Idaho's law, we should take a look at the individual and if he is an alcoholic, he should resolve his issues before returning to society.

Jryan · Apr 14, 2012

radcen said:
If I had to venture a guess, I would suspect that part of the reason that DUIs are still so emotional for us is precisely the lack of consistency in dealing with them. The punishments really run the gamut. I have no doubt that we have heard of the person who was just arrested for their 19th DUI... 19!!!!... and we wonder, "Why the eff are they not in prison, let alone still driving at all?". At the other end of the spectrum, we've all probably also heard of the person who got their first DUI and got a year or two in jail. And every conceivable level of punishment in between.

Right, I also find that we don't take a look at the individual when finding an appropriate punishment. Obviously someone that has two DUI's has an alcohol problem (Nevermind 19).

Ikari · Apr 14, 2012

MaggieD said:
I vote we require all three-time DUI offenders' cars like pink zebras. Oooo! And with reflective paint. We may as well know what we're dealing with.

Ahh, the ol' scarlet letter huh?

I vote we don't implement such silly nonsense.

Ikari · Apr 14, 2012

Kandahar said:
Just want to make sure that none of the people calling for the heads of drunk drivers have ever done it themselves.

0.05 BAC. In most states that kicks off the bottom rung DUI charges. Lots of people like to think that they've never drank and drive, but many of those people have driven drunk.

Drunk Drivers

How should drunks be charged?

First degree murder

Second degree murder

manslaughter

Other

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Hooter Babe

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Hooter Babe

Well-known member

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Phonetic Mnemonic ©