Drinking and driving...?

[Beam]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The problem is, that when the license is taken away, they still drive their cars.

Which is absolutely stupid because a) any applicable insurance coverage is gone in the case something happens and b) if the authorities catch you things go from bad to worse.

At least that is in Europe, how about US. And stupids are everywhere.

 

[allan2]

Not to downplay drunk driving--I think it's a bad idea, and immoral to put other drivers around you at so much additional risk--but do people realize that cell phone use while driving is responsible for more road deaths than DWI? And eating while driving--i.e. munching on that Egg Mc Muffin and fumbling for the coffee cup while commuting--is responsible for more traffic deaths than either of those other things.

Although I'm not dead-set against DWI laws, I'd say it might be better to look at how the drivers ARE driving. I.e. if you're driving all over the road, the cops should stop and arrest you for driving all over the road! WHY you are isn't as important as the fact that you are--you shouldn't be driving if you drive that way.

Just my two pesos worth....



P.S. (edit): I DO agree that if you cause your vehicle to maim/kill someone (i.e. you did SOMETHING to distract you from driving), you are responsible and should either pay restitution or face jail. Far more accountability than what we have now.

If you accidentally shoot someone with a gun, you are liable. The same should go for a car--it can be, after all, just as deadly a weapon. Japan has strict laws about liability for damage or death you cause people on the highways--whether or not you impaired yourself intentionally or negligently--and guess what? There are WAY fewer traffic fatalities there, even though the traffic can be just as thick as in the US (and speeds driven are generally faster on open highways). Drivers are far more courteous to each other too.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by allan2
P.S. (edit): I DO agree that if you cause your vehicle to maim/kill someone (i.e. you did SOMETHING to distract you from driving), you are responsible and should either pay restitution or face jail. Far more accountability than what we have now.

If you accidentally shoot someone with a gun, you are liable. The same should go for a car--it can be, after all, just as deadly a weapon.

Of course you are responsible, that was never in question. The question of whether it is murder was asked. The answer is no. Murder requires intent to kill. If you are driving while impaired, and kill someone, it's manslaughter. If you are not impaired, but are somehow otherwise "distracted" then that could be manslaughter too, depending on circumstances.

Of course, that didn't stop North Carolina from trying to apply the felony murder rule to a drunk driver, Thomas Richard Jones, and asking for the death penalty. The jury convicted Jones of murder, and sentenced him to life. The murder conviction was overturned by the State Supreme Court.

According to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision at that time, "allowing the felony-murder rule to be used in drunk driving cases would set a dangerous precedent, possibly resulting in capital charges in other cases of criminal negligence that resulted in death."

http://www.madd.org/victims/0,1056,3689,00.html

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by allan2
Not to downplay drunk driving--I think it's a bad idea, and immoral to put other drivers around you at so much additional risk--but do people realize that cell phone use while driving is responsible for more road deaths than DWI

I wonder if hands-free cell phone use will solve this. In most european countries you are only allowed to use your cell phone if you use it hands-free. I think it's a bad idea to do anything else but driving when you're behind the wheel. Traffic can be busy enough without any distractions.....

 

[Bamspeedy]

Which is absolutely stupid because a) any applicable insurance coverage is gone in the case something happens and b) if the authorities catch you things go from bad to worse.

A DWI doesn't stop some people with some serious problems. I always hear of someone being charged with their fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. DWI charge. Things are getting better, though. In the last few years, they now put a breathalyzer in these people's vehicles that requires them to use before the vehicle will start. If they are over .10 BAC, the vehicle simply will not start. Of course, then some people just get other people to blow into the breathalyzer . Or they just use a different vehicle. Alot of people with several DWIs, I doubt even have insurance, they don't care....

People with a DWI, still have access to a car, because some NEED them to work. If they can't work, they can't pay for the fine(s), and with no money, they would all end up being a burden to society (welfare, unemployment). They get an 'occupational' license that is supposed to only be used for driving to and from work and to run some errands, and can only drive during certain hours, usually during the day unless they work a night shift. Obviously there are people who violate the conditions of their occupational license.

And now, the amount of jailtime spent increases as you get more charges. First offense doesn't require any jailtime (unless you can't pay the fine, then it is 30 days), but the second charge is a mandatory 6 month jail term, IIRC, here in Wisconsin. A person with several DWIs would spend several years in jail, whereas in the past (several years ago), every charge got the same sentence.

I agree with the more crimes/the harsher the penalty, as alot of people can make a mistake once (if they hadn't harmed or killed anyone), the big question is whether or not they learn from their mistakes. Obviously if they get a 2nd and 3rd DWI, they haven't learned and need to be locked up.

A DWI is a misdemeanor, but I believe I just read that in Minnesota, they are now making multiple DWIs (3 or more?) a felony.