• 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
Gipper said:
Really?

If anything, I think drunk driving laws need much more harsh punishments. Far too many times I've seen people get picked up for a DUI and get off with a fine and a night in the drunk tank.

Now, murder is too much because drunk driving lacks mens rea. I don't think anyone knocks back a six-pack and gets in the car with the intention of killing someone. However, as Arcana mentioned, involuntary manslaughter sounds about right.

I'd like to know what you view as "appropriate punishment" for intentionally incapacitating yourself and gaining control of a 2,000 pound weapon capable of endangering countless lives. You may as well have an uzi on a crowded subway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the "fine" usually is about 7-10K along with classes, therapy, etc.

Your other question could be answered if you took the time to read my posts.
 
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...


Emotionalized drivel, hardly, it is a matter of public safety. Here is a history of California's drunk driving laws:

California's Drunk Driving Statutory Historical Scheme.

California's first drunk driving statute, enacted in 1913, prohibited any "intoxicated person" from driving a motor vehicle on a public highway. (Stats.1913, ch. 326, § 17, p. 646; see Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 257, 262. The prohibition was later redefined as driving "under the influence" of alcohol. "To be ‘under the influence' within the meaning of the Vehicle Code, the liquor or liquor and drug(s) must have so far affected the nervous system, the brain, or muscles as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties. In 1969 the Legislature enacted a statutory presumption that a driver was under the influence if the driver's blood contained 0.10 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol. The ultimate question was defined in terms of the defendant's subjective behavior and condition. These difficulties led the Legislature to create a new crime.
Click to expand...

California DUI Legal History
 
Ikari said:
It's fairly well emotionalized in order to continually increase punishment past reasonable boundaries.
Click to expand...

Based on your opinion or do have some factual basis to espouse this position?
 
The level of hypocrisy on this thread is astounding.

The overgeneralization of "drunk driver" is very misleading. I don't gamble often, but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the people that are wailing so hard against drunk drivers have in, fact, done it themselves. I'm not talking about's not swinging, commode hugging, knee crawling drunk... I am talking about two glasses of wine at dinner and have a slight buzz but actually over the legal limit in most states.

Lumping all drivers who have been arrested for driving under the influence under one giant umbrella is the same to me as lumping all sex offenders under the child molester, rapist umbrella.

A politician that wants to appear to be "tough on crime" can always fall back onto the generalization of tougher penalties for drunk drivers or sex offenders. No one will oppose him, because then it will appear that they are encouraging abhorrent behavior.
 
Chiefgator said:
The level of hypocrisy on this thread is astounding.

The overgeneralization of "drunk driver" is very misleading. I don't gamble often, but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the people that are wailing so hard against drunk drivers have in, fact, done it themselves. I'm not talking about's not swinging, commode hugging, knee crawling drunk... I am talking about two glasses of wine at dinner and have a slight buzz but actually over the legal limit in most states.

Lumping all drivers who have been arrested for driving under the influence under one giant umbrella is the same to me as lumping all sex offenders under the child molester, rapist umbrella.

A politician that wants to appear to be "tough on crime" can always fall back onto the generalization of tougher penalties for drunk drivers or sex offenders. No one will oppose him, because then it will appear that they are encouraging abhorrent behavior.
Click to expand...

I do not drink or take drugs nor am I fun at parties.
 
Connery said:
What is your problem with my assertion Chief?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
But these are accidents, and these particular cases are not the norm. In that, punishments are generally very severe and held. Now I don’t know about his prior DUIs. I in general do not support jail time for DUI alone. 3 years in prison is a long time; but this isn’t murder either. There was no intent to kill, it was an accident.
Click to expand...
See i feel three years is not long enough Ikari. This guy had 2 priors and he chose to drink and drive again. It was no accident, it was only a matter of time. I'm going to bow out if you don't mind, i am too emotionally involved in the topic to offer a fair debate with you.
 
Serenity said:
See i feel three years is not long enough Ikari. This guy had 2 priors and he chose to drink and drive again. It was no accident, it was only a matter of time. I'm going to bow out if you don't mind, i am too emotionally involved in the topic to offer a fair debate with you.
Click to expand...

It was an accident. Even if people have problems and can't control their drinking or whatever, less they are going out with the mindset to kill, it's accidental. Not a lot of drunk drivers are getting drunk so they can kill. Maybe 3 years is "too little", but I fear a lot of people are trying to attach first and second degree murder times to punishment; and it just doesn't fit the mechanics of the crime. I do not think that we should increase punishments just because we can emotionalize a topic so much as to throw out reason and logic. Crimes must be weighed by their functional effects and similar crime is punished similarly. Under most circumstances I would say DUI resulting in death is likely manslaughter.
 
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...


LOL now I am an extremeist...:lol::lol::lol: Anything else you want to tell me about myself as you rub your crystal balls.
 
Connery said:
The reference I cited spoke of laws enacted in 1913. MADD was not around then.
Click to expand...

Your reference was the initiation of Drunk Driving Laws. You'll have to show me where I said that we shouldn't have drunk driving laws.
 
Ikari said:
Your reference was the initiation of Drunk Driving Laws. You'll have to show me where I said that we shouldn't have drunk driving laws.
Click to expand...

Nope you said "emotionalized" I am showed you the theory behind it that counters you position which started in 1913 in California.
 
Serenity said:
Death Mickey, sentenced in Australia. Penalties probably differ where you are.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Causing the death of others in a traffic fatality while drunk is vehicular homicide in Texas. Causing the same while sober is vehicular manslaughter.

I think I'm right. <crosses fingers>
 
Connery said:
Nope you said "emotionalized" I am showed you the theory behind it that counters you position which started in 1913 in California.
Click to expand...

I think perchance you don’t understand. I am saying the current level of over punishment is caused through emotionalized pleas. I am not saying that fundamentally Drinking and Driving shouldn’t be a crime, or that fundamentally there isn’t a problem with it. It should be illegal. But the punishments need to be appropriate. We currently have emotionalized drinking and driving to such a level as to excuse any level of punishment.
 
In my younger days I used to go to the bars drink beer and shoot pool until I couldn't see straight, then I would drive home. A couple of mornings I actually went out to see if my pickup was there because I had no memory of driving home. I just thank God I never hurt anybody and now I never ever drive drunk. I think society at large has finally learned drunk driving is serious business and not the funny story we used to think it was.
 
Depends....
manslaughter comes the closest.....
We must do the thing that has the more positive long term results...that benefits society in general.
I for one have driven drunk, even recently (10 years ago)...Drinking establishments can do a few things to alleviate this situation...For instance, have ones vehicle in a gated secured area, with a "guard".....be able to walk that line or walk home !
 
sawyerloggingon said:
In my younger days I used to go to the bars drink beer and shoot pool until I couldn't see straight, then I would drive home. A couple of mornings I actually went out to see if my pickup was there because I had no memory of driving home. I just thank God I never hurt anybody and now I never ever drive drunk. I think society at large has finally learned drunk driving is serious business and not the funny story we used to think it was.
Click to expand...

There are many, many rings of truth in this post...
And there but for the Grace of God, go I...
 
Second degree murder is either intentional killing without premeditation, or an unintended killing caused by a dangerous action that demonstrates an obvious lack of concern for human life. That second type is also known as a "depraved heart murder". Drunk driving fits this description exactly. Car crashes are the single most dangerous thing we face in our everyday lives. No one can exist in this society and not know that. And to willingly expose others to the heightened danger that drunken driving causes is exactly the kind of callous action that fits a depraved heart murder. If you drink, drive, and kill someone, you should be convicted of second degree murder.

And, since simply taking away someone's license doesn't usually stop them from driving, a DUI should be a felony, with at least a year in jail for it. Maybe that will teach people that it's not okay to risk the lives of others just because they're too cheap to call a cab, or to arrange for a DD, or just not get so drunk if they can't manage to get home safely.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
In my younger days I used to go to the bars drink beer and shoot pool until I couldn't see straight, then I would drive home. A couple of mornings I actually went out to see if my pickup was there because I had no memory of driving home. I just thank God I never hurt anybody and now I never ever drive drunk. I think society at large has finally learned drunk driving is serious business and not the funny story we used to think it was.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Paschendale said:
Second degree murder is either intentional killing without premeditation, or an unintended killing caused by a dangerous action that demonstrates an obvious lack of concern for human life. That second type is also known as a "depraved heart murder". Drunk driving fits this description exactly. Car crashes are the single most dangerous thing we face in our everyday lives. No one can exist in this society and not know that. And to willingly expose others to the heightened danger that drunken driving causes is exactly the kind of callous action that fits a depraved heart murder. If you drink, drive, and kill someone, you should be convicted of second degree murder.

And, since simply taking away someone's license doesn't usually stop them from driving, a DUI should be a felony, with at least a year in jail for it. Maybe that will teach people that it's not okay to risk the lives of others just because they're too cheap to call a cab, or to arrange for a DD, or just not get so drunk if they can't manage to get home safely.
Click to expand...

This is just assinine punishment. Felony? Year in jail?

Most DUI does not end in property or personal damage. Any crime which does not should not be a felony. This is just ridiculous.
 
I agree with Sawyer and earworm on this one. Locking the guy up for a long time only assures he won't drive during that period. Nowadays, people are required to attend AA, put locking devices in their cars, etc; just for DUII's alone.

When the young alcoholic stops by for a beer on his way home, hours (an beers) later he has no idea what he's doing. To an alcoholic "one beer" usually refers to several. There's no easy solution, some people have to learn the hard way, others don't learn, even as their liver starts to fail.

When I was a teen, one of my early memories was cruising town with my Mom, finding Dad at a beer joint, then I was assigned to drive him home. I was 16 and hadn't had my license very long. I remember Dad fumbling for cigs and droppiing them on the floor of the passenger seat. He wizened up in later, thank God. So, my tolerance of drinking is not real high, LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom