• 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
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.

Yeah, I like how you use stereotypes to excuse further government involvement in singling out people who may have committed a crime (or plead down to one because the cops said they'd ruin their lives if not). Maybe everyone who got in a fight should have to wear a special identifier too, cause they can be trouble. Anyone who committed disorderly conduct, you know in case your kids are around you'll want to know who is most prone to breaking out into a long string of curse words. Yes? Why not?

Or maybe instead of using the judicial system to exact our retribution and allow us to single out individuals and forever punish them, we use it for it's actual purpose of blind, impartial justice. Either or.
 
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.

Exactly. As far as I know, I've never driven while intoxicated, but I can't say that with any certainty. I don't think anyone who has consumed more than a beer and then gotten in a car knows for sure. I certainly don't consider myself morally superior to people who have made a mistake and done something irresponsible behind the wheel...I think all of us have been less-than-ideal drivers at some point in our lives, whether it's because of alcohol or because of something else.
 
Around a year ago some guy slammed into the back of a motorcycle while he was drunk, killed the lady passenger and the man is a quadriplegic. Turns out this guy had like 3 DUI arrest but somehow still had a license. For the life of me I can't imagine why this guy had a license to drive, he should have been in jail, he is now but it's kinda to late.
 
Yeah, I like how you use stereotypes to excuse further government involvement in singling out people who may have committed a crime (or plead down to one because the cops said they'd ruin their lives if not).

What's wrong with "singling out" people convicted of crimes? That's the whole basis for criminal justice, broadly speaking.

Maybe everyone who got in a fight should have to wear a special identifier too, cause they can be trouble. Anyone who committed disorderly conduct, you know in case your kids are around you'll want to know who is most prone to breaking out into a long string of curse words. Yes? Why not?

If there are effective ways of publicly humiliating people for other crimes, which could serve as a substitute for prison / massive fines / otherwise ruining their lives, and which would still deter the behavior, then I'm all for looking into it. I think that this can be a far more effective punishment than people often give it credit for.

Or maybe instead of using the judicial system to exact our retribution and allow us to single out individuals

Well, they HAVE been caught for drunk driving if the judicial system is "exacting retribution and singling them out." So it's just a question of how they should be punished (unless of course we're talking about getting rid of DUI laws entirely, which I'm against).

and forever punish them,

I think a prison sentence, a massive fine, and a felony on their record contributes a lot more to "forever punishing them" than having to affix a yellow license plate to their car for a couple years to embarrass them does.

we use it for it's actual purpose of blind, impartial justice. Either or.

How is the "scarlet letter" approach not blind, impartial justice? It doesn't target anyone without due process, it imposes less hardship on the guilty party, and the punishment fits the crime.
 
Last edited:
Around a year ago some guy slammed into the back of a motorcycle while he was drunk, killed the lady passenger and the man is a quadriplegic. Turns out this guy had like 3 DUI arrest but somehow still had a license. For the life of me I can't imagine why this guy had a license to drive, he should have been in jail, he is now but it's kinda to late.

Right, the justice system is to flawed. The plea-bargain system is a broken system that is used way to often to try and clear out the court systems. A fair trial doesn't mean you get a light sentence, a fair trial means you get the correct sentence.
 
Around a year ago some guy slammed into the back of a motorcycle while he was drunk, killed the lady passenger and the man is a quadriplegic. Turns out this guy had like 3 DUI arrest but somehow still had a license. For the life of me I can't imagine why this guy had a license to drive, he should have been in jail, he is now but it's kinda to late.

He had a license because of the attitude that some people display in this thread. Go light on them. Rehabilitation.

Even though it is easy to find story after story of repeat offenders killing innocent people.
 
He had a license because of the attitude that some people display in this thread. Go light on them. Rehabilitation.

Even though it is easy to find story after story of repeat offenders killing innocent people.

Well, I guess I should clarify. People should be rehabilitated who truly want to be rehabilitated and not just because it is a lighter sentence. No one can force you to want to make lifestyle changes, and this certainly includes the government. The problem is that lawyers just lie and tell the judge that their defendant truly wants to change...
 
Drunk driving is dangerous and idiotic. If you want to talk about creating stiffer penalties for offenses, fine, but to redefine the language, that's something different.

People who drive drunk do not do so in order to get into an accident that will result in someone's death, which would constitute first degree murder.

Poor decisions that result in death are deemed manslaughter. If getting drunk and driving was 100% guaranteed to result in death, then, yes, drunk driving would be a first degree murder offense.
 
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.
One person's scarlet letter is another person's badge of honor.
 
I cannot imagine that a "guilty mind" or intent could ever be established as intoxication is a bar against such a determination. However, reckless or disregard for human life could be attached.
It is vehicular homicide. Not manslaughter. If I wield a loaded gun, and accidently blow your head off because I believed it was unloaded, that could be manslaughter. But if I play Russian Roulete and blow your head off, I have not only willfully risked your life, but I have done so with the foreknowledge of that risk. If I cause your death, I have done so with intent.

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.

Ironically, many of your posts in this thread are emotional. And reverse DUI laws and punishments? Lol don’t be silly.

But then, no surprise there- you take a very lax view of child molestation and rape as well. No need to get emotional about things that destroy lives, I guess.


Oh yeah, sorry. I mean we sure would be better off if we just totally destroyed them instead. I mean, they're drunk drivers, it's not like they're human!

Another emotive response. Interesting coming from someone who claims that emotion has no place in this discussion.

And what if it is not recitivism? What if someone had never been arrested before and lived a good, law abiding life otherwise. Drunk driving seems to be the catch all offense that many try to display their moral superiority about. "We don't just punish them, we bury them". Making a general statement that all people who are involved in drunk driving are scum is ridiculous and irresponsible. Considering all of the horrible premeditated crimes that happen this is amazingly harsh and unfair. Life is not foolproof. Most everyone makes wrong decisions and judgements. I am all for being harsh for repeat offenders who have demonstrated that they disregard the danger to other people on the road. That is more like premeditation. But your poll cannot be answered as written.

In the OP, I obviously wasn’t specific enough since certain people couldn’t even follow it. I thought the title, op, and poll made it clear. I was tired.

For repeat offenses: first degree murder (If you seriously injure or kill someone and then do it again, this shows malice of forethought).
First time offense: second degree murder or vehicular homicide.

And no, just because someone misjudges, it doesn’t excuse their actions. Most everyone understands that driving drunk can kill someone. It is up to them to provide for their safe return home from the bar, party. . . where ever. It amazes me that people actually buy an argument where someone shouldn’t have to call a cab beforehand because “they don’t want to leave their car in the parking lot overnight.” Seriously? An inconvenience is worth risking someone’s life.??
And let’s say someone goes out and kills someone while driving drunk for the first time. Should they be able to simply move on with their lives after destroying someone else’s? No. Absolutely not. I wouldn’t allow that if it were me in such a horrible situation.

To those in this thread who support lighter consequences for drunk drivers: Human lives, especially the arbitrary lives of families unrelated to you, clearly have very little value in your opinions. If you were to kill someone while driving drunk, I’m sure you’d feel entitled to move on with your life afterwards. You’re wrong.





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.

Uh huh.. well I’m talking about drunk drivers who KILL people.
 
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.

Bull scat. It’s not an accident at all. If someone drinks, they are still responsible for the result. Everyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence knows that driving under the influence of alcohol risk lives and can and often does cause death and destruction. They have the foreknowledge of those facts. That alone makes them responsible. If they continue to drink and drive, their culpability increases.

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.

I haven’t noticed reason and logic from the pro-drunk- driving crowd. All I see are excuses.

Crimes must be weighed by their functional effects and similar crime is punished similarly.

Fuctional effects? Like- -Killing someone?.. Just as long as they’ve poured some alcohol down their throats, it’s no biggie. The families devastated—nevermind that—god forbid we express concern for actual justice. That is emotional. :roll: Preventing repeat offenses with manslaughter charges is unlikely. You’re making excuses for them. Just like you make excuses for child molesters and other scum. Sad, really. For every low life, dirt bag, people like you make up excuses.

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.

And if you had killed someone, do you believe that you would have had a right to go on with your life afterwards because: oh well, you made a mistake?



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.

Nonsense. Was he in a coma? Unless this person was unconscious, he was aware of his actions. He got out of his car, walked into a bar, and began drinking. No one had a gun to his head. HIS CHOICE. Stop making excuses .

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.

No excuse. None whatsoever. I’ve been drinking myself to sleep for months now. I’m responsible for everything that happens. So are other alcoholics. It’s not a disease. I’ve made a choice to quit drinking. There’s a bottle of liquor downstairs. If I drink it, who should I blame?

Yeah, manslaughter is really a slap on the wrist :roll:

Depends on what state...

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.

I don’t give a damn. They are still responsible. Before they get drunk, it is THEIR responsibility to make provisions for their ride home. If they don’t, they’re culpable. Quit making excuses for killers.

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:

Intent is when someone makes a decision knowing the consequences beforehand. That is what is happening in these instances. They know they’re going to drink, they know that drinking leads to poor decisions, and they know that those poor decisions risk lives. They just don’t give a crap. And you kicking the can down the road with such a pointless, say-nothing response is almost as bad a Ikari’s pro drunk emotional tantrums.

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.

Yes they are. See above response.

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?

Drunks aren’t accidentally killing someone through negligence so your example is moot.



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.

God damn. So now it’s not even manslaughter, it’s involuntary manslaughter. Well. Let’s not inconvenience them too much.

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 ?

Meh weed is too difficult to pin point. Even if it is as dangerous as alcohol, and it’s not, there is no real way to prove that it is the cause of an accident UNLESS the person is caught with it on his person and it is clear that he was actually smoking it at the time of the collision. For example, if someone quits smoking pot and a month later gets into a car accident and is tested, thc is still found in his system. Because it’s fat soluble, it stays in the tissues for several weeks, long after it’s metabolized. The “high” may only last a few hours depending on quality and a person’s tolerance. Alcohol is completely different/.
Not sure about texting.
 
How should they be charged?

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


You didnt answer this question before...ill try again...should people that kill people driving that are high on weed...be charged the same as a drunk driver all the reasons you gave or people that text and cause fatal accidents...
I say your right about Drunk Drivers...but your leaving out all the others that deserve to be treated the same way..
A drunk may very well have emotional or alcohol problems...but that doesnt make the victims family feel any better, when an emotionally stable individual with no addictions is just a plain IDIOT and texts while driving and kills someone that doesnt make them feel any better either.
 
Last edited:
You didnt answer this question before...ill try again...should people that kill people driving that are high on weed...be charged the same as a drunk driver all the reasons you gave or people that text and cause fatal accidents...
I say your right about Drunk Drivers...but your leaving out all the others that deserve to be treated the same way..
A drunk may very well have emotional or alcohol problems...but that doesnt make the victims family feel any better, when an emotionally stable individual with no addictions is just a plain IDIOT and texts while driving and kills someone that doesnt make them feel any better either.

Most states cover driving under the influence of either drugs or alcohol to be DWI... Driving While Impaired. The fines and sentences are similar, IIRC. DUI laws almost always refer to both drugs and alcohol, I believe.

Some states are adding texting or using a cellphone while driving to the list, and if they kill someone in the process, it's vehicular homicide.
 
You didnt answer this question before...ill try again...should people that kill people driving that are high on weed...be charged the same as a drunk driver all the reasons you gave or people that text and cause fatal accidents...
I say your right about Drunk Drivers...but your leaving out all the others that deserve to be treated the same way..
A drunk may very well have emotional or alcohol problems...but that doesnt make the victims family feel any better, when an emotionally stable individual with no addictions is just a plain IDIOT and texts while driving and kills someone that doesnt make them feel any better either.

i don't know how i feel yet when it comes to text messaging. I'm leaning towards charging them the same way because the message is out there. People are aware of its danger. I answered your question about weed.
 
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?

Drunks aren’t accidentally killing someone through negligence so your example is moot.

So you honestly don't think that a guy who intentionally mows someone down with his car because he wants to kill them, is any more morally culpable than a drunk driver? Really? :shock:

Even if I were to grant you that drunk drivers know that their actions MIGHT kill someone (which isn't always the case), that is still a far cry from actually INTENDING to kill someone. Most drunk drivers (if they're even aware that they are too drunk to be driving) believe that they will make it home safely without getting into an accident...and they're usually right. That isn't premeditated murder; that's just stupid.

God damn. So now it’s not even manslaughter, it’s involuntary manslaughter. Well. Let’s not inconvenience them too much.

This mindset is exactly the problem. You are arguing about how much it "inconveniences" them rather than actually addressing the fact that it doesn't meet the criminal definition of anything else. In other words, you're arguing out of raw emotion: you don't like drunk drivers, so you want to throw the book at them regardless of the costs/benefits of actually doing so.
 
But it's still defined as "murder" which assumes malicious intent. I did say premeditation or malice.

Well murder is defined as the illegal taking of human life. Malicious yes, but I wasn't meaning to argue, I was just providing a clear definition.
 
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.
I don’t give a damn. They are still responsible. Before they get drunk, it is THEIR responsibility to make provisions for their ride home. If they don’t, they’re culpable. Quit making excuses for killers.
PERFECT example of how your emotions are clouding any rational judgement from creeping in. So much so, you are utterly incapable of comprehending what you're reading (regarding this issue). In no way, shape, or form, was I making excuses. If you had actually slowed down to read and comprehend what was being said, in context, you would have known that I was merely making an observation, and there was absolutely no hint whatsoever of approval of said actions in that observation.
 
i don't know how i feel yet when it comes to text messaging. I'm leaning towards charging them the same way because the message is out there. People are aware of its danger. I answered your question about weed.

How about people who exceed the speed limit? Or people who try to make it to the intersection when the light turns yellow? Or people who fail to check their blind spots before merging? Basically, anyone who breaks almost ANY traffic law knows that they could potentially kill someone. Or for that matter, anyone who drives at all, even obeying all the traffic laws, knows that they could potentially kill someone. Do you think that they should ALL be charged the same as cold-blooded murderers if they're in an accident that kills someone?

This standard is ridiculous. "Knowing your actions might potentially kill someone" =/= "Intending to kill someone."
 
Last edited:
i don't know how i feel yet when it comes to text messaging. I'm leaning towards charging them the same way because the message is out there. People are aware of its danger. I answered your question about weed.

Companies across the country are firmly ordering all their employee drivers not only not to text but to not use Cellphones at all while driving.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-03-27/fleet-managers-distracted-drivers/54299824/1

Auto insurance is going to soar before too long if cellphone usage isnt totally banned throughout the country....cellphones are no longer a luxury...they are no longer just a business tool for traveling salesman...damn near everyone has them...and they are killing people and costing us all....

A young mother two days ago, sitting in a parking slot of a supermarket...with her two kids in the back seat on the cell phone...I watched her laughing and waving her hands as she backed <without looking> into my front fender...totally oblivious of my horn BLASTING....I got out of my vehicle and stood at the door thinking I may frighten or upset her by approaching her vehicle...she gets out of her car and says to me...dont you look where your going.....I just laughed at her and called 911...
 
So you honestly don't think that a guy who intentionally mows someone down with his car because he wants to kill them, is any more morally culpable than a drunk driver? Really? :shock:

That's not what i specifically said, but i will agree that someone who repeatedly drives drunk is culpable on that level. You people are excusing drunk drivers who kill because you are claiming that they are not at fault. I am arguing that they are.

Even if I were to grant you that drunk drivers know that their actions MIGHT kill someone (which isn't always the case),

They do realize that. They don't care, just like you don't care.

that is still a far cry from actually INTENDING to kill someone. Most drunk drivers (if they're even aware that they are too drunk to be driving) believe that they will make it home safely without getting into an accident...and they're usually right. That isn't premeditated murder; that's just stupid.

Repeat offenders who willingly disregard the lives of others are operating on that level. They know exactly what they are doing.




This mindset is exactly the problem. You are arguing about how much it "inconveniences" them rather than actually addressing the fact that it doesn't meet the criminal definition of anything else. In other words, you're arguing out of raw emotion: you don't like drunk drivers, so you want to throw the book at them regardless of the costs/benefits of actually doing so.

No. I am arguing on the basis that repeat offenders are fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and yet drive drunk anyhow. You and other drunk driver supporters are making excuses for their actions. "they were drunk. they didn't know what they were doing." Blah- Horse manure. Utterly vile, excuse-making nonsense.

PERFECT example of how your emotions are clouding any rational judgement from creeping in. So much so, you are utterly incapable of comprehending what you're reading (regarding this issue).

Such as? I have logically demonstrated how these people are responsible for their actions. I don't deny that the INTERPRETATION of the law is opposed to my view.

In no way, shape, or form, was I making excuses. If you had actually slowed down to read and comprehend what was being said, in context, you would have known that I was merely making an observation, and there was absolutely no hint whatsoever of approval of said actions in that observation.

You are making excuses for them. You claim that they are killing on accident and therefore are not responsible.
 
Such as? I have logically demonstrated how these people are responsible for their actions. I don't deny that the INTERPRETATION of the law is opposed to my view.

You are making excuses for them. You claim that they are killing on accident and therefore are not responsible.
You are completely, totally, 100%, wrong in your interpretation of what I said AND what I meant. But it's clear that you only read/hear what you want to read/hear, so carry on.

"Logically" = :lamo
 
You are completely, totally, 100%, wrong in your interpretation of what I said AND what I meant. But it's clear that you only read/hear what you want to read/hear, so carry on.

"Logically" = :lamo

All you have done in your last two posts is exclaim that you are misunderstood. But you aren't.
 
That's not what i specifically said, but i will agree that someone who repeatedly drives drunk is culpable on that level. You people are excusing drunk drivers who kill because you are claiming that they are not at fault. I am arguing that they are.



They do realize that. They don't care, just like you don't care.



Repeat offenders who willingly disregard the lives of others are operating on that level. They know exactly what they are doing.






No. I am arguing on the basis that repeat offenders are fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and yet drive drunk anyhow. You and other drunk driver supporters are making excuses for their actions. "they were drunk. they didn't know what they were doing." Blah- Horse manure. Utterly vile, excuse-making nonsense.



Such as? I have logically demonstrated how these people are responsible for their actions. I don't deny that the INTERPRETATION of the law is opposed to my view.



You are making excuses for them. You claim that they are killing on accident and therefore are not responsible.

Well obviously you aren't interested in discussing the issue in any sort of rational, intelligent way. Sounds like you're looking for an echo chamber to tell you how wonderful your "logical" opinions are. So I'll bow out now. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom