Posted on 11/09/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
It is time to separate fact from fiction about our drunken driving laws. It is time to stop deluding ourselves into believing that stricter penalties are the solution. It is also time to start promulgating laws that attack the core problem, including creating a bright line that even an intoxicated person can walk.
Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts. It is also a problem in New York, Texas and every other state in the country. Statistically, Massachusetts’ roads are not the most dangerous in the country. There is also no proof that Massachusetts drivers are more likely to drive impaired.
-snip-
Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Actions which unreasonably endanger other people are mala in se (bad in and of themselves); actions that don't endanger or harm other people are mala prohibitum (bad merely in that they are prohibited).
If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed an act that was mala in se, then it is just and proper that such a person should be punished.
Driving on public rights of way with a BAC of 0.15 unreasonably endangers other people; I don't think there is anyone who can drive safely at that level of intoxication. Thus, if someone is found to have been driving with such a BAC, that pretty well proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they were unreasonably endangering other people. On the other hand, even if some people would not capable capable of driving effectively at a 0.08, others would. Thus, a BAC of 0.08 in and of itself does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's actions posed an unreasonable risk to others.
If someone blows a 0.07 three hours after a crash, that would tend to provide substantial evidence that their BAC was much higher at the time of the crash, and (absent some substantial rebuttal evidence) tend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions endangered others. But if someone boards his car with a 0.080 and does not show any outward signs of difficulty driving, the 0.080 would not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's actions unreasonably endangered anyone.
No it doesn't. It defines probable cause to make the arrest, and then later, at trial, because of the excellent job that MADD and other folks have done brainwashing people to think that anything BAC over an arbitrary number is BAD, it's an automatic conviction.
You want to talk checks and balances? Are you serious? The use of an arbitrary BAC "intoxication" level completely destroys the concept.
And by the way, just in the spirit of full disclosure: I don't drink. Never touch the stuff. But .08? Small minded and stupid. But, then again, that's how people are.
I see these threads all of the time, and I am sick of them. Will someone here please outline to me why drunk driving laws are stupid and intrusive?
Just so ya know, a drunk driver killed a couple of relatives of mine. His nth time he was caught, hard telling how many times he wasn't caught. They were killed one Labor Day weekend, he was home long before Christmas.
I would agree with your suggesting, I feel the more information that is available to a jury the better informed their decision will be.
"the reduction in fatal crashes by those who habitually drive severely intoxicated could easily account for the entire observed phenomenon."
I would offer that the study showed that reduction applied to both and it took a harsher revokation/suspension penalty to be used in combination.
I think it shows that both used in comination with each other reduced the deaths. It appears that you aim to say it was punishment alone that accomidated the reduction and that would be as untrue as to say that reducing from .10 to .08 casued the reduction alone.
Major problems require multiple pronged approaches to effectively deal with them.
I think the study(ies) show quite conclusive backing that this was effective. I would offer that further reduction to a .06 or lower would not have the same effect as the drop toi .08 did. But that is just imho.
"Driving on public rights of way with a BAC of 0.15 unreasonably endangers other people; "
SO does .08 as function is shown to be deminished at that level. This makes it a will danger imposed upon others that drive on the same roads.
It is entirely unreasonable to willfully endanger another person. I do not see how that statement can be doubted.
"Thus, a BAC of 0.08 in and of itself does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's actions posed an unreasonable risk to others."
Being that it is a willful act, and it is known that almost all people show signs of decreased capability, I would argue that the risk in unreasonable beyond doubt.
"If someone blows a 0.07 three hours after a crash, that would tend to provide substantial evidence that their BAC was much higher at the time of the crash"
If the guy that hit me blew a .07 when tested he would not have been charged with DUI. (had he been 21 that is)
My brother was stopped and he blew something just over a .07 and he was released without charge. Yes he was arrested, yes he was detained, that has been found to be a proper action by law enforcement to take.
Denying the people that are harmed or killed by drivers between .08 and .10 is what I would offer as unreasonable.
That number is not insignificant being that one number I found was over 3 thousand people in a year.
"hard telling how many times he wasn't caught."
Some use that right there to defend why it isn't a big deal.
Some subscribe to the notion that if they got home and didn't harm anyone that what they did was ok.
That seems a bit to me like shooting at someone and not hitting them being used a reason to offer why a person shouldn't be punished for that crime.
I offer my deepest sympathy for your loss. Take solice that here in Illinois if you kill someone when you drink too much and drive you can spend up to 14 years in prison. ALl I can say to that is ITS ABOUT TIME.
Because fatalities per 100 million miles driven have remained fairly constant for as long as records have been kept, (even before the current DWI laws were conceived) and will continue to do so.
Another reason is that we have always had laws against murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc., etc.
We don't need a subset for DWI.
Then there is the damage done to the U.S. Constitution
"The DUI Exception to the Constitution"
A long read, but worth it. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now.
Sorry for your loss.
The majority of crashes where the driver's BAC is >0.00 are the result of drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or more. Some stats are linked in posts 105-108. Most of the people who are complaining about drunk-driving laws have no objection to the arrest and prosecution of people who are just plain sloshed.
The problem is that reducing the legal BAC throws the concept of probable cause out the window. It used to be that for someone to be pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, the person had to be driving in a manner generally inconsistent with safe and sober drivers. But since many people can drive perfectly normally at 0.08 (an otherwise-good driver with a 0.08 BAC can drive better than an inept driver at 0.00 BAC), the police argue that they need the ability to pull over even good drivers at "sobriety checkpoints".
Unfortunately, the government collects more revenue from conducting bogus "sobriety checkpoints" than from targeting drivers with BAC >0.15 even though getting the latter off the road would save far more lives than getting the former off.
Interesting read. Is that the position of most here - random checkpoints are unconstitutional so we should throw out all DWI laws?
I agree we can throw them out if someone driving recklessly and endangering others on public roads can be arrested and charged with that crime.
For now I will continue to call state troopers when I see a drunk on the roads. There are other options, but I don't have my conceal carry permit yet...
Without knowing what specific measures were implemented when, and in what states, it's impossible to assign any meaningful cause-and-effect.
BTW, I would further suggest that if the state were to pass and enforce a law against driving with fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view mirror, that would probably result in a reduction in the number of fatal crashes by drivers with such fuzzy dice. Such reduction, however, would not mean that such a law saved even one life.
I would say that the law should be such that, had he blown a 0.07 THREE HOURS AFTER THE ACCIDENT he should have been charged with DUI unless he could show via scientific test that his alcohol metabolism was so slow that he need not have consumed enough alcohol prior to the crash to elevate his BAC above 0.100.
If we could have DWI/DUI laws enforced as they used to be--a cop pulls someone over when he's observed not to have effective control of his vehicle--I think people would be happy with that.
Unfortunately, what has happened is that groups like MADD find objectionable the number of people who were driving with a 0.08BAC, not causing accidents, and not drawing enough attention to themselves to get caught. Thus, they argued, the only way to enforce the 0.08BAC is to have "sobriety checkpoints" and the like.
I agree we can throw them out if someone driving recklessly and endangering others on public roads can be arrested and charged with that crime.
Is there any problem prosecuting people for observable reckless driving?
For now I will continue to call state troopers when I see a drunk on the roads. There are other options, but I don't have my conceal carry permit yet...
If you see a drunk on the road, the driver isn't going to blow a 0.08 terribly soon.
I couldn't have said it better. Good post.
Not a problem with me. And I am OK with profiling. If police want to line up cruisers outside bars like taxi's at the airport, I dont have a problem with that. If this behavior didn't cause injury/death to others, I wouldn't care much at all about legistlation surrounding it.
"I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don’t think it’s from North Korea. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.
This is the guy you quote and who's argument you emulate?
WOW.
A Berkley and UCLA graduate.
"I do not, by the way, for a moment suggest that we should legalize drunk driving". HE says.
He just refuses to accept any way to measure it, thus removing any way to prosecute it.
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a very effective, very well financed organization"
Oppose what there is and make millions doing so ( isn't that what he claims MADD is so foul for doing) all the while admitting he doesn't have any better Idea. That is very telling imho.
I would offer their financing comes as a result of the HUGE scope of this issue and how many people really DO want to see alcohol induced deaths and injuries curtailed.
"In California, our Supreme Court, which is slightly to the right of the U.S. Supreme Court" He Says.
Ok Sure. And I suppose the 9th circuit is to the right of George W Bush too.
"Do I have an answer? No, I don’t." He Says.
Imagine that.
"Immediate seizure of the license in 48 of the states today. On the spot. Justice administered by the police officer. No judge. No jury. You are presumed guilty. Your license is confiscated and you are given a notice of suspension. What happened to the presumption of innocence"
I suppose he would say it is wrong to remove the passport of a person that shows some evidence of terrorism that is enough to qualify charging him and hold it until he reaches trial. His position there is laughable. You will not have your license taken based on no evidence whatsoever. OH WAIT, I guess you must prove guilt without being allowed to investigate in any way prior to charging someone. that is what I see in his opposition about this one.
I see a bunch of what 'if's' in his posting, except of course the 'what if' as it pertains to someone DYING! Somehow that FACT is disregarded completely.
Seems to me that practices what he preaches when he says this: ""like most zealots, have a rigid and narrow focus and are ignorant of the harm they cause to others."
But hey, you , with his aid in this posting, have totally convinced me that DUI deaths and injuries are just an overhyped Myth. I musta imagined what happened to me.It is totally an unprovable issue in any sense. No technology is allowable due to the fact it may have a margin of error. Not to mention if something better comes out, then all prior usage of said technology is nullififed. It isn't that I drank too much and chose to drive at all, it is just that the machine was in error, and my rights were violated.
I have been convinced that it is a violation of my rights to tell me I cannot get smashed (a little or alot) and go operate a motor vehicle. I have learned that I can use it however I want to with impunity. I have learned from you it is a right that noone can infringe upon, and if I infringe upon someone else's rights when I crash into them it is somehow their fault or someone else's cuz I didn't intend to harm them. Regardless of the fact I made the decision to do something that is well known to cause people harm.
Fact is, I think I'll go drink a twelve a pack right now and go riding for some kicks. If I crash or if I get caught I will just refuse a breath test,refuse sobriety tests in the field, refuse to answer questions and then hire this lawyer(providing he can practice here) to muddy the waters soooo much with claims of "what if's" and equipment being falable that no "clear" evidence can be made against me and so long as I pay a lawyer enough money I can get off!
Hey I'll pay a lawyer 5 grand to make the truth go away instead of 3 thousand dollar fine, so I can say my 'rights' have been protected, never mind everyone elses rights MINE are the ONLY ones that matter!
So much for personal responsibility Heck who needs THAT!
/sarcasm off/
Maybe you should read a little more about the fella that ELK posted. He makes the opposite case you just did, her name is sarah and she had a glass of wine with dinner and then finished another after her dinner, one more quick drink and she noticed the time and had to go.
Then she gets pulled over down the block and the time it takes to get to the cop shop and take the BAC level it is actually MORE than what it was when she was arrested.
Seems I made that case a while back in this thread didn't I?
The truth is there is no way to know all the factors that need to be known to figure such a thing. Thus there is no way to apply a law equally to all people. That I think is one of the factors that justifies .08.
Such things can be pretty well estimated. My understanding is that a rapidly-rising BAC will have a much greater effect on a person's abilities than would a stable BAC, and I would see nothing wrong with declaring that a person who has consumed enough alcohol recently to raise his BAC measurably above 0.10 (by whatever the +/- uncertainty is on the instrument used). If someone who is driving very poorly (so poorly that he'd be deemed unsafe to drive even if sober) and blows a 0.07, then fifteen minutes later blows a 0.13, I would argue such a person should be prosecuted for DUI even though--at the time he was driving--his BAC was below 0.10, since such a person would have consumed enough alcohol before driving to raise his BAC well above that limit.
The biggest argument I've heard in support of 0.08 is that it's necessary to prevent the really dangerous drivers from getting off on 'technicalities'. I'd suggest that there are better ways than the 0.08 standard to identify the dangerous drivers.
Both those sources are good, Thanks.
What struck me about the first source was not just the number of suicide, but the number of deaths from all causes that follow incarceration for DUI. Appalling.
The book in your second link looks interesting. I have long doubted the typical DUI statistics. "Alcohol associated" is a long way from "alcohol caused," and the book seems to try to quantify that. I suspect that the truth is hard to sell to the MADDing crowd. (Sorry.)
One drink does not make one drunk... BLUENOSE... evidently you should feel right at home in your blue state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.