Art Vandelay wrote: Like I've been saying, drunk driving (in most instances) is already covered by other laws,
So by this logic, you're also against the new "hate crimes"? I mean murder is murder, yet now we have added "hate crimes" to murder when it's proven that something was done to someone simply due to their race, religion, sexual preferance, etc. Since murder, torture, etc, is already against the law, you don't think additional punishment, or a harsher punishment should be given to those who do it out of hate?
If somone chooses to drink and drive, I believe the punishment should be worse than simply a "reckless driving" charge. That person chose to put other people's lives in danger, buy putting themselves in a position that impaired their ability to handle a car.
Can't wait to see what you have to say when you have to blow into a machine before being allowed to leave a bar, and your blood alcohol level has to be below .08 in order for you to leave. And yes, that will be here relatively soon.
I don't think comparing drunk driving to a hate crime is really accurate, and to be completely honest, I haven't quite made up my mind on hate crime legislation yet. But the more I read and hear about it, the more I think it's BS. Although there are exceptions, for instance, I wouldn't mind someone facing an extra penalty for a "hate crime" if their hatred (racism, sexism, anti-semitism, what have you) is found to have definitely been a motive for the crime. But now we're going off on a totally different tangent.
As to your final paragraph: That's one of the reasons why we should stand up to this non-sense now. It's a slippery slope. I would refer you to one of the statements in the essay I posted:
What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians.
Although I don't think we will actually see that situation come to fruition. I can't see bars being allowed to hold somebody against their will when they wish to leave.
Art Vandelay wrote:Although there are exceptions, for instance, I wouldn't mind someone facing an extra penalty for a "hate crime" if their hatred (racism, sexism, anti-semitism, what have you) is found to have definitely been a motive for the crime.
I don't see why it's different. Why is the motive, or what caused the crime to happen important in this case, but not drunk driving?
If someone committed a crime because of their hatred, why should they be punished more severly then someone who committed a crime for no reason? Just like how you don't think someone who's driving is reckless because they're drunk should be punished any more than someone who's driving is reckless because they're a bad driver.
Art Vandelay wrote:I don't think comparing drunk driving to a hate crime is really accurate, and to be completely honest,
I'm not comparing the two as far as level of bad, as you're right, they deal with different levels of crimes.
What I am saying is that there are additional punishments beyond what we already have in place to deal with the actual crimes, which is the same thing. Murder is murder, but if it's done because of hate towards a specific race for example, the punishment is harsher. No different than a reckless driving charge being worse if that person happens to be drunk.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
teddy ballgame wrote:If someone committed a crime because of their hatred, why should they be punished more severly then someone who committed a crime for no reason? Just like how you don't think someone who's driving is reckless because they're drunk should be punished any more than someone who's driving is reckless because they're a bad driver.
If hatred for someone's race, gender, creed, etc. is found to certainly be a motive in a crime committed against them, then it's logical to infer intent. Someone who is recklessly driving drunk has no more intention to commit a crime against anyone than someone who is recklessly speeding soberly.
I'll have to pick this discussion back up on Monday if it's still active...taking off to go camping for the weekend.
I know I haven't really been part of the conversation on this one, but I just wanted to chime in anyway.
I agree that .08 is a very low BAC as far as driving safety, especially for a guy or a person that drinks pretty regularly. In my state the level is .02 for persons under 21 while driving. So pretty much if you're 19 and you have a 1/2 of a keystone light you are breaking the law which is pretty absurd and I don't really see how they can get away with giving away DUI's for a .02. I had two friends get DUI's for blowing a .03 and a .04, does that seem right to anyone else on this board? Granted technically they shouldn't have been drinking by law, but I mean c'mon that is such a double standard. They get to have that on their record for thier whole lives for a decision that they made when they were 19 and if they were 21 or older they would have just been able to drive away perfectly fine. These instances did happen in more rural towns where police tend to be more strict probably for the simple fact that they have nothing better to do. Is this the same in other states?
I have never recieved a DUI, but I have been pulled over twice while drinking. Once probably just under the .08 limit and once probably just over the .08 limit, both times were when I was under 21; I have since graduated into full adulthood. This stops were in a more urban area, so the cops are more forgiving. The best advice I can give if you get pulled over is to not lie about whether you drank or not- they can almost always tell. I passed both sobriety tests. If you don't seem up and don't mess up bad on the tests then you should be alright even if you are over the limit becuse they will just let you go without the breatholizer.
Oh yeah, and don't get me started on the if you don't get the breatholizer you automatically lose your liscense. I totally agree with AV on some of this issues.
But the laws do work in some sense, I know for me that I definitely pull in the reigns on myself when I drink and drive.
Last edited by Field on Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Field wrote:So pretty much if you're 19 and you have a 1/2 of a keystone light you are breaking the law which is pretty absurd
Remind me why it's absurd, again? Underage drinking (which is illegal) and driving should be anything other than zero tolerance?
Did you really just pull out the zero tolerance card on this one? I mean no one has pulled out the if you can go to war in Iraq and die for your country but you still can't drink a legal beer one yet.
If you are 19 and have one beer and drive are you more of a danger than a 21 year old and have one beer and drive? Or even a person who just took a prescribed pill of some sort or a 40 year old who's losing his vision and forgets to wear his glasses?
I hate the whole idea of "underage drinking." If we only lived in a society where parents assumed the responsibility of teaching their children the importance of responsibility while consuming alcohol, our society would be much better off. If a 16 year old living at home were given the privilage of a glass of wine here and a bottle of beer there, realization of the effects of alcohol would be much more widespread and DUI's would go down on their own while teenagers entering their college years would have a certain respect for alcohol rather than a ridiculous and unfettered fascination. Instead of demonizing alcohol to all people under 21 (while bombarding them with beer commercials about how cool it is to drunk) we should be laying a foundation for awareness.
My parents let me drink when I was under 21, in very limited and supervised amounts, and I'm better off for it. Then I go to college and Joe Schmo whose parents wouldn't let him touch booze get's trashed every night and drops out. I've seen it first hand.
Too bad America is way to irresponsible as a whole to adhere to such a simple concept.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....