• 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!

Canadian Gets Life for Driving Drunk

Yeah, you would think so. The great God advertising tells us this.

I am even worse for doing it, time and time again.

Still, for some mysterious reason I am a better driver than the rest of you.

God is great, or not.

Take your pick.
Most people in prison didn't plan on getting caught either. I think you fail to analyze the cost benefit ratio of drunk driving. Large fines, jail time, suspended license, increased insurance, reduced employment oppurtunities,and prison are some things to consider. It only takes one.
 
Don't drive drunk.

Jesus H ****ing Christ.

This is a matter of common sense, and punishment being in proportion of the crime. You propose a position - drive drunk = no ability to drive ever again ever, ignoring the ability for rehab, doubting the average intelligence of human beings and their ability to learn from mistakes, not to mention ignoring the concept of punishment fitting the crime. Seriously, if you drive drunk and don't hurt/kill anybody, the logical thing is to make the punishment less severe than if somebody were hurt/killed before getting caught (but still more than enough of a shell shock to deter further drunk driving)... and that is without factoring in past history, prior convictions/arrests, etc... and all you can do to justify such a radical position is to say "Don't drive drunk" as if it were already law?

Thank god you aren't in a position of power - or at least one without checks & balances.
 
Last edited:
Jesus H ****ing Christ.

This is a matter of common sense, and punishment being in proportion of the crime. You propose a position - drive drunk = no ability to drive ever again ever, ignoring the ability for rehab, doubting the average intelligence of human beings and their ability to learn from mistakes, not to mention ignoring the concept of punishment fitting the crime. Seriously, if you drive drunk and don't hurt/kill anybody, the logical thing is to make the punishment less severe than if somebody were hurt/killed before getting caught (but still more than enough of a shell shock to deter further drunk driving)... and that is without factoring in past history, prior convictions/arrests, etc... and all you can do to justify such a radical position is to say "Don't drive drunk" as if it were already law?

Thank god you aren't in a position of power - or at least one without checks & balances.

I take consideration of punishment fitting the crime. I'm not calling for the same punishment as vehicular homicide caused by one driving drunk. I think fines, and pleas aren't working, and the punishment needs to be harsher to fit the crime. Why wait until some is killed to get harsh? If the punishment isn't already a deterrent, then the punishment needs to be more harsh. It's obvious that the current DUI laws aren't enough of a deterrent for many people. Some people learn, some don't. It's a weak argument that is easily refuted.
 
I take consideration of punishment fitting the crime. I'm not calling for the same punishment as vehicular homicide caused by one driving drunk. I think fines, and pleas aren't working, and the punishment needs to be harsher to fit the crime. Why wait until some is killed to get harsh? If the punishment isn't already a deterrent, then the punishment needs to be more harsh. It's obvious that the current DUI laws aren't enough of a deterrent for many people. Some people learn, some don't. It's a weak argument that is easily refuted.

if the death penalty is not a deterent what makes you think anything lesser will be?"
 
if the death penalty is not a deterent what makes you think anything lesser will be?"

You assume I agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I don't. I think the lack of actually applying the death penalty in a timely manner when warranted is the reason the deterrent factor is reduced so greatly. Do away with the 15-20 years worth of appeals, and death sentences being commuted to life without parole, and I think we can get a more accurate indication of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent or not.
 
In Texas, your first two convictions are misdemeanors. Three or more are felonies, with up to 10 years in prison. On your third felony conviction, the sentence can be 25 years to life in prison.
 
In Texas, your first two convictions are misdemeanors. Three or more are felonies, with up to 10 years in prison. On your third felony conviction, the sentence can be 25 years to life in prison.

Thanks for the post danarhea. It show how laxed the DUI laws are. A misdemeanor for DUI is ridiculous, especially twice.
 
video of road side tests
I failed 2 of the 7 I was given due to neuropathy in my feet and my amputated right great toe.

I will never again do any tests in any stops. I did not blow, as every attorney has told me, but my poor balance due to injuries/medical conditions caused visuals the DA can take advantage of, and I am not willing to go to jail in an effort to prove myself right.

I'm sorry but something here just isn't falling in line right with the story. If they didn't give you a breathalyzer than how do they know you were DUI or DWI?

I have yet to see someone on this charge without being given the breathalyzer at some point to determine the extent they are intoxicated because most states have DUI and DWI limits.
 
I take consideration of punishment fitting the crime. I'm not calling for the same punishment as vehicular homicide caused by one driving drunk. I think fines, and pleas aren't working, and the punishment needs to be harsher to fit the crime. Why wait until some is killed to get harsh? If the punishment isn't already a deterrent, then the punishment needs to be more harsh. It's obvious that the current DUI laws aren't enough of a deterrent for many people. Some people learn, some don't. It's a weak argument that is easily refuted.

I would bet that a majority of people who are arrested for drunk driving learn from their mistakes and never do it again. Yes, some people are repeat offenders, but that's no reason to ruin the lives of the majority that are not.
 
I would bet that a majority of people who are arrested for drunk driving learn from their mistakes and never do it again. Yes, some people are repeat offenders, but that's no reason to ruin the lives of the majority that are not.

That argument can easily be made for most crimes. It's a choice they make. No one is forcing them to drive drunk. I would bet that the majority of people arrested for DUI are already repeat offenders. They just pushed their luck until they were caught. Why don't more people rob banks? Maybe the first offense should be a misdemeanor as well. Of course providing they don't harm anyone in the process. I'm sure once they are caught, they'll learn from their mistakes as well. Of course the 20 year plus prison threat, and the idea of having their lives ruined, is a deterrent for many.
 
I'm sorry but something here just isn't falling in line right with the story. If they didn't give you a breathalyzer than how do they know you were DUI or DWI?

I have yet to see someone on this charge without being given the breathalyzer at some point to determine the extent they are intoxicated because most states have DUI and DWI limits.

I can understand your suspicion
But I, upon advice of any lawyer I ever knew, never blew. In florida it is an automatic 1 year suspension of DRinving priveliges for not complying with state statute to blow.. It is a revenue genrator
 
That argument can easily be made for most crimes. It's a choice they make. No one is forcing them to drive drunk. I would bet that the majority of people arrested for DUI are already repeat offenders. They just pushed their luck until they were caught. Why don't more people rob banks? Maybe the first offense should be a misdemeanor as well. Of course providing they don't harm anyone in the process. I'm sure once they are caught, they'll learn from their mistakes as well. Of course the 20 year plus prison threat, and the idea of having their lives ruined, is a deterrent for many.

Robbing a bank always harms someone. Even with it being one of the leading causes of motor vehicle accidents, comparatively drunk driving rarely harms anyone. When it does of course they should be punished. But when most drunk drivers are pulled over they are fully capable of driving a vehicle, they are simply over an arbitrary limit placed at .08 just for the hell of it.
 
I do not. Do you also believe that people who shoplift should have their extremities amputated, thus taking away their ability to steal again? :doh

Nope. But shop lifting doesn't cause hundreds or thousand of deaths each year.
 
Nope. But shop lifting doesn't cause hundreds or thousand of deaths each year.
Cigarettes do. Let's kill all the people who work for cigarette companies. :roll:

Your position is a joke.
 
]Robbing a bank always harms someone. Even with it being one of the leading causes of motor vehicle accidents, comparatively drunk driving rarely harms anyone. When it does of course they should be punished. But when most drunk drivers are pulled over they are fully capable of driving a vehicle, they are simply over an arbitrary limit placed at .08 just for the hell of it.

How does robbing a bank always harm someone? The funds are insured. I don't disagree that the .08 is an arbitrary limit. I wouldn't be opposed to raising the BAC for DUI. I don't know what a more realistic BAC would be, but I agree that most people with a drink or two can safely operate a motor vehicle. I'm referring to people that are obviously drunk, and pose a danger.
 
Last edited:
Cigarettes do. Let's kill all the people who work for cigarette companies. :roll:

Your position is a joke.

The last time I checked, cigarettes are legal. That is a really weak argument. But calling my position a joke, well clearly I have no defense for such a well thought out response. I concede to your obviously superior intellect. Sheesh...:roll:
 
Which has what to do with DUI exactly? :2wave:
Nothing, unless you consider the fact that they both kill people. I know I'm getting off-topic here, I just find your position on punishments for crimes to be quite amusing/sad/pathetic all at the same time.
 
Nothing, unless you consider the fact that they both kill people. I know I'm getting off-topic here, I just find your position on punishments for crimes to be quite amusing/sad/pathetic all at the same time.

Again to be clear, I don't consider someone having a glass of wine, or a beer or two with dinner to be a problem. I even stated earlier that I would be OK with raising the BAC requirement for DUI. I'm referring to people that are drunk, and pose a danger to others. There is NO excuse to ever drive drunk. Call a cab. If the penalty was more harsh, many thousand lives could be saved.

Smoking most dangerous to the person actually doing the smoking. I know second hand smoke poses a danger, but I can walk away, and generally avoid it. With a drunk driver, not so much.
 
Again to be clear, I don't consider someone having a glass of wine, or a beer or two with dinner to be a problem. I even stated earlier that I would be OK with raising the BAC requirement for DUI. I'm referring to people that are drunk, and pose a danger to others. There is NO excuse to ever drive drunk. Call a cab. If the penalty was more harsh, many thousand lives could be saved.
I agree that there is no need to drive drunk and no excuse for doing so. However, your suggestion that one's ability to ever own, operate or register a car for the rest of their life be taken away is absurdly harsh. People make mistakes and I certainly believe in second chances.

Smoking most dangerous to the person actually doing the smoking. I know second hand smoke poses a danger, but I can walk away, and generally avoid it. With a drunk driver, not so much.
Actually, second hand smoke poses virtually no danger. The idea that it does is merely ignorant propaganda that people continue to perpetuate.

The Facts about second hand smoke - Home
 
I agree that there is no need to drive drunk and no excuse for doing so. However, your suggestion that one's ability to ever own, operate or register a car for the rest of their life be taken away is absurdly harsh. People make mistakes and I certainly believe in second chances.


Actually, second hand smoke poses virtually no danger. The idea that it does is merely ignorant propaganda that people continue to perpetuate.

The Facts about second hand smoke - Home

LOL... Wow, I'm impressed. Most people don't know that about second hand smoke. I was aware of it, but really didn't want to debate second hand smoke, so I just went with the status quo there. And I don't smoke cigarettes.

OK, on the harshness of my position. Maybe we could agree for it on the 2nd offense?

I still think the first offense should be more harsh than it currently is in most states. Can we agree on that?
 
Back
Top Bottom