Posted on 03/21/2008 2:58:26 AM PDT by don-o
Edited on 03/21/2008 11:44:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at johnsoncitypress.com ...
When it gets down to 0.02, I think we’re talking about nanny-statism.
I’m not sure what the numbers are, but I have been reading about an awful lot of illegal aliens involved in DUIs. I wonder if this issue is important enough for that to be addressed. I doubt it. And if this issue isn’t important enough to address, then don’t bother me with other necessary fixes. I’m kindof tired of smoke and mirrors.
It’s not DUI. Current terminology is OUIL.
Defending drunk drivers is a major breadwinner for the parasite class of our nation, the lawyers who make up all too many of the legislators.
(Personally, I find North Carolina's willingness to hang murder convictions on those who kill while DUI a hopeful sign. Now if we could just make that a capital offense, our roads would become a lot safer very quickly.)
It appears to me to be a desperate measure to try and stem the damage from Mexillegals.
I think this is an absolutely legitimate problem that should’ve been dealt with a long time ago, but they’ll have to go way beyond DL revocation to start making a difference. In Mississippi (and other states, no doubt), there are a stunning number of people on the road who haven’t had a license in years, many of them because of repeated DUIs. Unfortunately, the lack of a license doesn’t stop them from driving and when they get caught the penalties are so insignificant as to be meaningless.
I would wholeheartedly support draconian penalties for DUI. For once, this is an issue the government actually SHOULD be involved in.
MM
The .02 mention was to apply to repeat offenders. I have heard of some cultures who have branded convicts. Is a special license tag simply a "branding"?
fwi: When I was a regular drinker, such attempts as this made me bristle. Now, 16 months past my last drink, I'm thinking there may be some worth in getting draconian on the problem.
The only way to eliminate DUI offenders is to outlaw the sale and consumption of all alcohol. Unfortunately, that was tried on a national level during Prohibition and was a monumental disaster. It caused everyone who drank alcohol to be classified a criminal and created an enormous and illegal industry of bootlegging which made, among others, bootlegger Joseph Kennedy a very rich man and connected him with a wide enough number of organized criminals to get one of his sons elected President of the United States.
I read one ridiculous editorial by a TN legislator that said, in effect, saving one life is worth all the effort to pass more legislation. By that measure, we should close all the Interstate highways, prohibit the manufacture of automobiles and make it a crime for any citizen to drive a vehicle on a highway.
We could save thousands of innocent lives. If one life saved is the overriding objective, we MUST prohibit all driving.
The history of tyranny is a sickening repeat of do-gooders gone wild. Take what starts as a good idea and ride it relentlessly like a good horse until it collapses.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You can save the lives of all the children by never letting them ride as a passenger in an automobile and certainly never letting them drive a vehicle.
I'll go even farther. We can save the lives of our children by never letting them leave the house nor be exposed to ANY risks in the society.
That is the world these DUI fanatics want for us. Is that the world WE want? If not, we can stop this insanity and simply declare "freedom creates an inherent safety risk for everyone."
There must be balance in restricting our actions and freedom or we will live under such tyranny as to make a "safe life" not worth living.
“I would wholeheartedly support draconian penalties for DUI. For once, this is an issue the government actually SHOULD be involved in.”
So you are okay with DL revocation just because someone is accused of DUI? What about false positives for alcohol testing or crooked cops?
With such draconian measures there should be a chance to state your case in court. After all, that’s what the justice system is founded on. And you are proposing to take away someone’s rights simply because they are accused? That’s exactly what made our system of criminal justice such a great system — the protection of the rights of the accused — but that has been whittled away to the point that everyone is pretty much guilty until proven innocent and an accusation is as good as a conviction.
Drunks tend to have no respect for the law and drive with or without licenses or proper registration or even insurance. The public has no real defense.
Third offenders should be put out of society on drunk farms where they are given some work to do. They could be segregated from criminals but out of harms way.
This kind of approach tells me that government wants to treat DUI as being more of a profit center than an actual serious crime. That being said, why doesn't someone just propose that a 3 time DUI offender simply be sent to jail for life? Oh, and raise the BAC to something reasonable, like 0.15%.
Yep. It's also an "unintended consequence" of issuing driver's licenses to criminal illegal aliens. No real ID proving citizenship is required in TN, only a phone bill or something similar to prove "residency". We can thank our glorious Tennessee State Legislature for that one.....and the result is dozens of otherwise innocent Tennesseans dead at the hands of drunk illegals driving on our roads.....
It would be interesting to see how many accidents are caused by people with .02 blood alcohol levels vs people with a .2 level.
When did I ever say I supported the draconian measures for ACCUSATION of DUI? I did not. I support them upon CONVICTION of DUI.
MM
bump for more discussion
I don’t mean to say that I disagree with going draconian in the proper way. I just think lowering the bar on repeat offenders doesn’t do anyone any good.
Show me a person who can’t operate a car safely with a blood alcohol of 0.2 and I’ll show you a person who shouldn’t have a license to begin with.
What concerns me the most is those who operate their car in an unsafe manner whether the blood alcohol level is 0.0 or 2.0.
If the state law says 0.8 is illegal, I’m okay with it. Those who break this law should have a serious wake up call. Those who do it for the second time should spend some serious time behind bars for it. The third time should have a manditory five years. If a person does it a fouth time, they should simply be placed behind bars for the duration.
I’ve heard case after case about people who have ten or more DUIs. What’s up with that? If I had two I’d have my license revoked and would be spending time behind bars, while others seem to get off with a slap on the wrist time after time.
It’s amazing what little value liberals put on state documents and human life.
“When did I ever say I supported the draconian measures for ACCUSATION of DUI? I did not. I support them upon CONVICTION of DUI.”
Your previous comment:
“I think this is an absolutely legitimate problem that should’ve been dealt with a long time ago, but they’ll have to go way beyond DL revocation to start making a difference.”
The reference to DL revocation in the article says that it will be automatically revoked anytime you are accused of DUI and refuse to submit to a drug test. So in this case you have to prove your innocence instead of evidence being presented that you are guilty.
I’m all for getting drunks off the road, as they are the main cause of fatalities, but I don’t think we should give up rights to ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Many on FR disagree and think it’s a good trade-off, though.
Many states are trying recovery programs and other measures to try and change these habitual behaviors, and those programs have much better success than just incarceration.
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.