Posted on 04/16/2008 8:55:21 AM PDT by mowowie
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled today that convictions for drunken driving do not count as violent felonies for enhancing prison sentences.
The justices, by a 6-3 vote, said that even though great harm can result from drunken driving, it is different from other crimes that involve purposeful action. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion.
Larry Begay had three felony convictions for drunken driving in New Mexico. He pleaded guilty to possessing a gun, which is illegal after having been convicted of a felony.
The Armed Career Criminal Act makes defendants eligible for longer prison terms if they have three prior criminal convictions for crimes that are either violent felonies or serious drug offenses.
Justices Samuel Alito, David Souter and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The case is Begay v. U.S., 06-11543.
So why do people get pulled over and cited for not wearing a seatbelt?
Which is your MADD chapter?
It's based on statutory reasoning more than anything else. The opinion was on a narrow definition of "violent felony." The dissent was on deference to the state's definition. Scalia was somewhere in between.
I'm torn on this one. To me, violent felony is based on the old terms before it was expanded. Felony used to mean the major crimes - murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Now it's been expanded to include sometimes even carrying a concealed knife over 3 inches. But the dissent has a good point here too. We have legislators for a reason. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, however. I'm with Scalia on this.
"We" is society. We have legislatures that pass laws. If you don't like it, there's a ballot box at which you can show your displeasure.
So why do people get pulled over and cited for not wearing a seatbelt?
In a vacuum, I would oppose mandatory seat belt laws. However, as I've expressed on this forum many times, in the society in which we live, non-seat belt users pass the cost of their failure to wear seat belts onto the general public. When a person is severely injured by his failure to wear a seat belt, the public is forced to bear a portion of that cost in things like response by police, fire, and ambulance, hospital stays, increased insurance premiums, etc. If society is going to have a policy that requires me to subsidize part of the cost of not wearing a seat belt, then the only fair trade is that we have laws requiring their use. To be clear, this is not my ideal; I would much prefer a system in which society did not subsidize the behavior of non-seat belt users, and then I'd be perfectly comfortable with allowing people to wear or not wear seat belts as they choose. But life isn't that way.
Which is your MADD chapter?
I don't have anything to do with MADD, and, frankly, I really don't care for it as an organization. All the same, though, I really don't have any particular desire to die at the hands of a drunk driver. Do you?
I will admit that I am troubled by random checkpoints, not so much because of the fourth amendment violation—I’m not so sure that the temporary seizure rises to the level of a constitutional violation (but maybe it does)—but more from a fifth amendment self-incrimination standpoint. I really don’t buy into the “implied consent” argument, but on the other hand, I really don’t see any other workable way around the problem.
For instance, I think that were police to be barred from using DWI checkpoints, I think that police would be much more inclined to stop drivers for trivial violations—especially on Friday or Saturday nights, say—which would increase costs for the rest of society. Clearly these would be “sham” stops, and I’m not sure that’s better policy. Do you?
Knee jerk, smarmy little liberal statements do not anecdotal make...
I was and know many, many people who spent continuous months/years in a 'legally' drunk condition...personally, I have had a couple of 18+ month periods of what I would guarentee 'waking BAC of over .08' ...I drove more carefully in regards to speed, signaling, full stops etc during those periods than I normally do now...
Yes there were many times when I was intoxicated and had much less control over my vehicle, and knew it...one of which I pulled off the road to sleep... and was charged dui for sleeping in the car [so much for doing the right thing huh? NEVER made that mistake again ]
Point is that when I was 'sober' [< .08] I felt ABnormal and had a difficult time focusing on the road and driving...
Lumping all humans into such compartments are a revenue device, just the same as the speed limit...
Forget the clear correlation between lower accident and death rates and enforcement of 0.08% BAC laws..
which funding agency issued those numbers ??? Probably the one that witholds $$$ unless the conviction numbers are reached in each state,county,city...same as the seatbelt numbers ???
/rant...
LFOD...
Yeah that pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' thingy is a real pain in the a@@ to $$$grubbing political whores...
That's not true in my State.
I pushed my last one to the point of pooling a jury, and ended up having to pay the lot of em their $12/head for their time...Ky podunkville...
For instance, I think that were police to be barred from using DWI checkpoints, I think that police would be much more inclined to stop drivers for trivial violations—especially on Friday or Saturday nights, say—which would increase costs for the rest of society. Clearly these would be “sham” stops, and I’m not sure that’s better policy. Do you?
geez man, IF it were about public safety, you might have an argument [un Constitutional as it is]...
The last 'checkpoint' I encountered the cop asked me 3 times in three different ways if I had been drinking...we both had a questioning feel about the others face, when he remembered that we formerly worked for the same company a couple years earlier [during his trainee period] he IMMEDIATELY said 'have a safe trip' and sent me on my way...
Q?...how many cops get dui unless they are involved in an accident???
What exactly is "the problem" here?
For instance, I think that were police to be barred from using DWI checkpoints, I think that police would be much more inclined to stop drivers for trivial violations -- especially on Friday or Saturday nights, say -- which would increase costs for the rest of society. Clearly these would be "sham" stops, and I’m not sure that’s better policy. Do you?
Why would the police need to do anything at all? In most metro areas there are enough incompetent drivers to keep any police force busy pulling people over for legitimate offenses and writing them tickets all day long.
> Knee jerk, smarmy little liberal statements do not anecdotal make...
It's called sarcasm. And yes, your post was about an anecdote. Look up the word.
Here, I'll even help you:
an·ec·doteI was and know many, many people who spent continuous months/years in a 'legally' drunk condition...personally, I have had a couple of 18+ month periods of what I would guarentee 'waking BAC of over .08' ...I drove more carefully in regards to speed, signaling, full stops etc during those periods than I normally do now...
-noun
a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.
"many, many people" - How many, many? Enough to constitute a statistically significant portion of the tens of millions of US drivers? I'm guessing not.
If those "many, many" people have chosen to remain in a >0.08 BAC condition, that's their prerogative. But they--and you, apparently--should certainly not drive in that condition and then be surprised/shocked/angry when you're arrested.
Driving more carefully because you're aware of your inebriated condition doesn't change its effect on you. You can be a driving hazard at a slow speed too.
Yes there were many times when I was intoxicated and had much less control over my vehicle, and knew it...one of which I pulled off the road to sleep... and was charged dui for sleeping in the car [so much for doing the right thing huh? NEVER made that mistake again]
You're like a poster child for bad judgment, man. That kind of decision-making is exactly why most of us want drivers like you off the road!
Point is that when I was 'sober' [< .08] I felt ABnormal and had a difficult time focusing on the road and driving...
No, the point is that how you "feel" is completely irrelevant.
Drivers with BAC >0.08 cause more accidents than those below. The law has to draw a line somewhere, and that's where it is.
Lumping all humans into such compartments are a revenue device, just the same as the speed limit...
Yeah, that's it. Keep ignoring the bodies. You'll feel better about your bad judgment.
> Forget the clear correlation between lower accident and death rates and enforcement of 0.08% BAC laws..
which funding agency issued those numbers ???
What agency would you believe? Every agency has to be funded by someone. Do you think they're all out to get you?
Do you have any evidence that the numbers are false? ...or just your paranoid conjectures?
Probably the one that witholds $$$ unless the conviction numbers are reached in each state,county,city...same as the seatbelt numbers ???
And, of course, if they actually want the program to be implemented and enforced by the states, with penalties if they don't, then their motives must be eeeeeevil, right?
A good government agency would not make sure their policies were implemented. A good government agency wouldn't care if the law was enforced or not. Is that your position?
Look, I used to be a LEO. I got to see and clean up the results of thinking like yours. I'm going to make a wild guess that you have never been in or at an accident scene with fatalities.
It was very hard to tell who was more deeply affected by the accident, whether the family of the victim who was split into a dozen bloody pieces, or the idiot driver who "felt" like he was more in control when he had a few beers in him, but now wants to blow his head off because he can't take back his stupid decision.
Not many. But I'm not sure what your point is. Unfortunately, a lot of policemen aren't arrested or ticketed for things that members of the general public are cited for; that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws prohibiting, say, DWI.
Are you being serious? The problem is with drunk drivers being a greater danger than their sober counterparts to their fellow motorists.
Why would the police need to do anything at all? In most metro areas there are enough incompetent drivers to keep any police force busy pulling people over for legitimate offenses and writing them tickets all day long.
I'm still not sure why you think DWI is an "illegitimate" offense. Can you explain that to me?
I'm not sure that you understand my argument. It has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty;" rather, it addresses the need of society to pass laws of general applicability.
Here in MA a state Rep who also happens to be a defense Atty
has actually proposed lowering the limit to .02 recently.
That sure would be good for his business!
Our society is being misled into tyranny by false statistics wielded by career bureaucrats with an agenda who are never weeded out by elected representatives.
in the society in which we live, non-seat belt users pass the cost of their failure to wear seat belts onto the general public.
This is a problem associated with socialism, not a problem associated with liberty.
Congratulations on making the right decision physically. Here's hoping you can make the transition intellectually.
All hail the mighty former leo itall...
and why not ??? maybe because its about $$$ ya think, or is it just cause cops, like our omnipotent Chris, are so much better than thou ???
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.