Are the DUI laws a joke? (1 Viewer)

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Because no two situations are alike

Explain to me how they are different? Again, if no accident occurs.

 

[Christo]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Because no two situations are alike

Explain to me how they are different? Again, if no accident occurs.

Speeding/reckless driving/checkpoint/highway/surface street/crowded/not crowded/city/country/first offense/second offense/school zone/etc/etc/etc

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Because no two situations are alike

Explain to me how they are different? Again, if no accident occurs.

Speeding/reckless driving/checkpoint/highway/surface street/crowded/not crowded/city/country/first offense/second offense/school zone/etc/etc/etc

Speeding, Reckless Driving are both their own offense.

Why is the school zone important?

All of it is operating a motor vehicle while impaired, you don't know where the person came from, or where they were going to go. Eliminate it and stick to a flat punishment.

 

[Zow]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

 

[Christo]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

 

[dparker713]

By comparison, driving drunk is something that has only garnered societies attention recently. Until 70% of the population finds the act of driving drunk to be socially unacceptable and warranting severe penalties, we will continue to see 3rd offense shoplifters behind bars and 3rd offense drunk drivers behind the wheel.

I really can't sign onto this. I'm not so sure about other states, but the two states I've practiced in (Minnesota and Arizona) I can confidently say that 3rd time DUI offenders are treated substantially harsher than your third time shoplifters. You are correct in that lots of state laws permit 3rd time shoplifters to be charged as a felony and imprisoned, but that does not mean that prosecutors implement that. Using my current jurisdiction as an example, where I represent many people charged with a 3rd shoplift and DUI, I would "expect" a plea offer for a 3rd time shoplifter to include a misdemeanor, a minor fine, restitution and maybe a few days jail (if that). In contrast, I would expect an offer on a third time DUI to include a felony conviction and at least 4 months in jail along with 5 years of supervised probation with alcohol monitoring and no license. If the guy has a felony history unrelated to DUI, I'd expect an offer of 2.5 prison. If the person has some potential favorable issue in his case, he might be fortunate enough to get an offer to a misdemeanor with at least 4 months jail, gobs of fines, and license revocation.

I know this is only one jurisdiction amongst many in our country, but I still have serious doubts to your hyperbole.

The reason I chose shoplifting, is because I spent nearly a decade working in retail loss prevention. I've seen the results first hand. If someone gave me a choice, I would rather take my chances with the 3rd offense DUI, than the 3rd offense shoplifting.

I do agree, it may not be the same in all states. Maybe I need to move.

2nd DUI offenses are felonies in Indiana, New York, Minnesota and Oklahoma.

In North Dakota it's not until the 5th. Unbelievably, DUI's are NEVER a felony in CO, D.C., ME, MD, NJ, PA and RI.

I'm fully in favor of making 2nd DUI's a felony. The first could possibly be a mistake but if you can't learn from that I don't have a problem with the book being thrown at you.

Cause what this country needs is a bunch more people locked up.

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

Stop my father from what?

If you are asking why I don't stop my Father in Law, I can't. As a society, we have established rules that are deemed as acceptable. I can't do anything to him physically to keep him from driving. That would fall under kidnapping or false imprisonment laws.

There are people that have the authority to do this.

At least 5 different family members have tried to convince my FIL to get help for his drinking. It doesn't work.

BTW, you never explained why a driving drunk in a school zone made a difference in terms of sentence.

 

[KCitons]

By comparison, driving drunk is something that has only garnered societies attention recently. Until 70% of the population finds the act of driving drunk to be socially unacceptable and warranting severe penalties, we will continue to see 3rd offense shoplifters behind bars and 3rd offense drunk drivers behind the wheel.

I really can't sign onto this. I'm not so sure about other states, but the two states I've practiced in (Minnesota and Arizona) I can confidently say that 3rd time DUI offenders are treated substantially harsher than your third time shoplifters. You are correct in that lots of state laws permit 3rd time shoplifters to be charged as a felony and imprisoned, but that does not mean that prosecutors implement that. Using my current jurisdiction as an example, where I represent many people charged with a 3rd shoplift and DUI, I would "expect" a plea offer for a 3rd time shoplifter to include a misdemeanor, a minor fine, restitution and maybe a few days jail (if that). In contrast, I would expect an offer on a third time DUI to include a felony conviction and at least 4 months in jail along with 5 years of supervised probation with alcohol monitoring and no license. If the guy has a felony history unrelated to DUI, I'd expect an offer of 2.5 prison. If the person has some potential favorable issue in his case, he might be fortunate enough to get an offer to a misdemeanor with at least 4 months jail, gobs of fines, and license revocation.

I know this is only one jurisdiction amongst many in our country, but I still have serious doubts to your hyperbole.

The reason I chose shoplifting, is because I spent nearly a decade working in retail loss prevention. I've seen the results first hand. If someone gave me a choice, I would rather take my chances with the 3rd offense DUI, than the 3rd offense shoplifting.

I do agree, it may not be the same in all states. Maybe I need to move.

2nd DUI offenses are felonies in Indiana, New York, Minnesota and Oklahoma.

In North Dakota it's not until the 5th. Unbelievably, DUI's are NEVER a felony in CO, D.C., ME, MD, NJ, PA and RI.

I'm fully in favor of making 2nd DUI's a felony. The first could possibly be a mistake but if you can't learn from that I don't have a problem with the book being thrown at you.

Cause what this country needs is a bunch more people locked up.

You are correct. What we need is a bunch more dead people.

Locking people up, may not be the answer. But, there needs to be a proactive approach to solving this problem.

 

[dparker713]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

So, you want people to have to pay for their right to a trial? How much should I have to pay to vote? To participate in a protest march?

Trials are VERY expensive. Most people cannot afford just their own attorney's costs, let alone the trial fees and/or prosecution costs on top of that. I've heard this stupidity ventured regarding civil trials, but I've never heard even the most loony people suggest similar for criminal cases. Why do you hate poor people so much?

 

[dparker713]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

Stop my father from what?

If you are asking why I don't stop my Father in Law, I can't. As a society, we have established rules that are deemed as acceptable. I can't do anything to him physically to keep him from driving. That would fall under kidnapping or false imprisonment laws.

There are people that have the authority to do this.

At least 5 different family members have tried to convince my FIL to get help for his drinking. It doesn't work.

BTW, you never explained why a driving drunk in a school zone made a difference in terms of sentence.

Can't? What is he an ex-Marine or something? You're physically unable to stop him? Cause legal ramifications don't make anything impossible. BTW, you've incorrectly stated those as well.

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

So, you want people to have to pay for their right to a trial? How much should I have to pay to vote? To participate in a protest march?

Trials are VERY expensive. Most people cannot afford just their own attorney's costs, let alone the trial fees and/or prosecution costs on top of that. I've heard this stupidity ventured regarding civil trials, but I've near heard even the most loony people suggest similar for criminal cases. Why do you hate poor people so much?

I don't hate poor people. I consider myself one.

What I do hate is people that have no respect for the law. Even though they know full well what the consequences are for a DUI.

Again, you people obviously can't read.

1st offense = moderate fine + 1 year probation + optional alcohol program + reminder that you will not get a second chance.

2nd offense = throw the book at them. If they want a trial and lose, they foot the bill for trial.

Why do we continue to give people multi opportunities to commit the same crime over and over again.

If your wife or husband cheated on you, would you divorce them? Maybe not the first time. But, if they did it again, would you give them another chance or do everything you can to wreck their life?

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

Stop my father from what?

If you are asking why I don't stop my Father in Law, I can't. As a society, we have established rules that are deemed as acceptable. I can't do anything to him physically to keep him from driving. That would fall under kidnapping or false imprisonment laws.

There are people that have the authority to do this.

At least 5 different family members have tried to convince my FIL to get help for his drinking. It doesn't work.

BTW, you never explained why a driving drunk in a school zone made a difference in terms of sentence.

Can't? What is he an ex-Marine or something? You're physically unable to stop him? Cause legal ramifications don't make anything impossible. BTW, you've incorrectly stated those as well.

Yeah, because in addition to posting on this message board, I have other things in my life. I can't watch him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

And yes, if I locked him in a cage in the basement, I could be in trouble.

 

[Johnny Bing]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

Stop my father from what?

If you are asking why I don't stop my Father in Law, I can't. As a society, we have established rules that are deemed as acceptable. I can't do anything to him physically to keep him from driving. That would fall under kidnapping or false imprisonment laws.

There are people that have the authority to do this.

At least 5 different family members have tried to convince my FIL to get help for his drinking. It doesn't work.

BTW, you never explained why a driving drunk in a school zone made a difference in terms of sentence.

Good lord man, call you congressman if you want some stricter law enforcement on drinking and driving. Or if your that passionate about it why don't you sit outside your local establishment and call people in as they are leaving. For someone that is that focused on saving lives, this is the last place to spend your energy is in this forum as nothing will get done here.

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

Stop my father from what?

If you are asking why I don't stop my Father in Law, I can't. As a society, we have established rules that are deemed as acceptable. I can't do anything to him physically to keep him from driving. That would fall under kidnapping or false imprisonment laws.

There are people that have the authority to do this.

At least 5 different family members have tried to convince my FIL to get help for his drinking. It doesn't work.

BTW, you never explained why a driving drunk in a school zone made a difference in terms of sentence.

Good lord man, call you congressman if you want some stricter law enforcement on drinking and driving. Or if your that passionate about it why don't you sit outside your local establishment and call people in as they are leaving. For someone that is that focused on saving lives, this is the last place to spend your energy is in this forum as nothing will get done here.

Wow. I guess you should go through every thread in FFA.

What are you the forum police?

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

 

[dparker713]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

So, you want people to have to pay for their right to a trial? How much should I have to pay to vote? To participate in a protest march?

Trials are VERY expensive. Most people cannot afford just their own attorney's costs, let alone the trial fees and/or prosecution costs on top of that. I've heard this stupidity ventured regarding civil trials, but I've near heard even the most loony people suggest similar for criminal cases. Why do you hate poor people so much?

I don't hate poor people. I consider myself one.

What I do hate is people that have no respect for the law. Even though they know full well what the consequences are for a DUI.

Again, you people obviously can't read.

1st offense = moderate fine + 1 year probation + optional alcohol program + reminder that you will not get a second chance.

2nd offense = throw the book at them. If they want a trial and lose, they foot the bill for trial.

Why do we continue to give people multi opportunities to commit the same crime over and over again.

If your wife or husband cheated on you, would you divorce them? Maybe not the first time. But, if they did it again, would you give them another chance or do everything you can to wreck their life?

You're all over the place, irrational, and full of poor comparisons.

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

So, you want people to have to pay for their right to a trial? How much should I have to pay to vote? To participate in a protest march?

Trials are VERY expensive. Most people cannot afford just their own attorney's costs, let alone the trial fees and/or prosecution costs on top of that. I've heard this stupidity ventured regarding civil trials, but I've near heard even the most loony people suggest similar for criminal cases. Why do you hate poor people so much?

I don't hate poor people. I consider myself one.

What I do hate is people that have no respect for the law. Even though they know full well what the consequences are for a DUI.

Again, you people obviously can't read.

1st offense = moderate fine + 1 year probation + optional alcohol program + reminder that you will not get a second chance.

2nd offense = throw the book at them. If they want a trial and lose, they foot the bill for trial.

Why do we continue to give people multi opportunities to commit the same crime over and over again.

If your wife or husband cheated on you, would you divorce them? Maybe not the first time. But, if they did it again, would you give them another chance or do everything you can to wreck their life?

You're all over the place, irrational, and full of poor comparisons.

Must have hit a nerve. How long you been divorced?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

did this guy happen to start drinking the day his daughter married you?

 

[Christo]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

Stop my father from what?

If you are asking why I don't stop my Father in Law, I can't. As a society, we have established rules that are deemed as acceptable. I can't do anything to him physically to keep him from driving. That would fall under kidnapping or false imprisonment laws.

There are people that have the authority to do this.

At least 5 different family members have tried to convince my FIL to get help for his drinking. It doesn't work.

BTW, you never explained why a driving drunk in a school zone made a difference in terms of sentence.

Good lord man, call you congressman if you want some stricter law enforcement on drinking and driving. Or if your that passionate about it why don't you sit outside your local establishment and call people in as they are leaving. For someone that is that focused on saving lives, this is the last place to spend your energy is in this forum as nothing will get done here.

Wow. I guess you should go through every thread in FFA.

What are you the forum police?

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

You realize your Congressman has nothing to do with the DUI laws in your state, right?

 

[KCitons]

did this guy happen to start drinking the day his daughter married you?

Now that you mention it.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So 3 pages later and the thread is still just KCitons being a tool? Good progress here.

 

[[icon]]

did this guy happen to start drinking the day his daughter married you?

Holy crap this guy is an insufferable *******. Wow.

Thankfully the most important thing this guy is likely to be in charge of us how much bleach to add to the diswasher at a local Dennys... judging by his logic/reasoning skills displayed in here.

Someone wanna inter-sleuth his home address so I can get drunk and go do donuts in his front yard tonight?

 

[KCitons]

The penalty for each offense should be clear cut. No room for bargaining.

Removing discretion from the equation is a horrible idea.

Why would you need it?. If there is no victim in the crime of drunk driving, then every offense is exactly the same. BAC of .08 =X penalty. BAC of .16 or greater = Y Penalty.

Arizona essentially works this way in that .08 = 1 day jail (plus a bunch of other penalties), .15 = 30 days jail (plus penalties), .20 = 45 days (plus penalties). Regardless, there's still plea bargaining to be had for many legitimate reasons, most commonly the following three:

1. Caseload efficiency (if no defendant has an incentive to not go to trial we'd spend thousands paying for trials where 6 random citizens may wind up randomly acquitting people).

2. Legal issues in the case may give the Defendant legitimate trial arguments so the State wants to still get a conviction but compromises by offering a lesser charge (i.e. giving someone who blew a .15 into a machine but who may have been stopped unlawfully a .08 plea agreement).

3. Mitigating individual circumstances in a person's case. E.G. Susie spends her days saving orphans and doing homecare for nuns but has a bit too much to drink after her mother's funeral and is stopped for a minor traffic violation driving the ten blocks on a non-busy street to her home and, because she's honest, openly admits to the officer she drank too much and she blows a .081.

1 - JOKE. I've discussed this already. Pass the cost of trials down to the offender. If I'm not mistaken, people have a right to a jury trial. If they are innocent, then they are innocent. If not, pay the price.

2 - JOKE. See point one. If the Defendant has a legitimate argument that would lessen the charge, let it go to trial. He wins or he pays the price.

3 - JOKE. Susie gets the standard first offense penalty. A moderate fine, 1 year probation, and avenues to alcohol treatment programs that could address an underlying problem. Susie is also notified that his is her final warning. Regardless of circumstances, if she is pulled over and has a BAC over .80, she will be sentenced to X penalty.

Evidently, Susie is fooling people. If she is a good person, she should be able to learn from her mistakes. I would expect Susie, to either never drink again if she she must drive home. Or make arrangements for a designated drive or taxi.

If she is truly honest, then she knows she made a mistake and will to everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Too many people keep bringing up first offenders. Throw that out and look at how we are handling 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders.

Why don't you stop your father?

Stop my father from what?

If you are asking why I don't stop my Father in Law, I can't. As a society, we have established rules that are deemed as acceptable. I can't do anything to him physically to keep him from driving. That would fall under kidnapping or false imprisonment laws.

There are people that have the authority to do this.

At least 5 different family members have tried to convince my FIL to get help for his drinking. It doesn't work.

BTW, you never explained why a driving drunk in a school zone made a difference in terms of sentence.

Good lord man, call you congressman if you want some stricter law enforcement on drinking and driving. Or if your that passionate about it why don't you sit outside your local establishment and call people in as they are leaving. For someone that is that focused on saving lives, this is the last place to spend your energy is in this forum as nothing will get done here.

Wow. I guess you should go through every thread in FFA.

What are you the forum police?

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

You realize your Congressman has nothing to do with the DUI laws in your state, right?

Much like this forum. I sent emails to anyone I thought would listen and learn from my FIL history.

I guess you're not going to appease me and tell me why driving in a school zone would make a difference in the minimum or maximum sentence. Maybe you realized your error after you posted that. If not, let me point it out.

If driving on a highway, school zone, or heavily populated area, there could be a greater potential for danger. But, as you pointed out, driving drunk is a victim less crime. Since there is no accident. If this is the case, then driving in a school zone or a heavily populated area, then you are punishing based on potential. Which is exactly my point of this entire thread. Driving drunk has the potential to hurt innocent people. And therefor people that choose to do it, should be punished as such.

 

[KCitons]

So 3 pages later and the thread is still just KCitons being a tool? Good progress here.

Thanks.

Don't wait so long to come back.

 

[KCitons]

did this guy happen to start drinking the day his daughter married you?

Holy crap this guy is an insufferable *******. Wow.

Thankfully the most important thing this guy is likely to be in charge of us how much bleach to add to the diswasher at a local Dennys... judging by his logic/reasoning skills displayed in here.

Someone wanna inter-sleuth his home address so I can get drunk and go do donuts in his front yard tonight?

Not sure if your calling me the ******* or Fat Juice Larry (since you quoted him)

I prefer Cracker Barrel over Denny's

 

[Christo]

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

You realize your Congressman has nothing to do with the DUI laws in your state, right?

Much like this forum. I sent emails to anyone I thought would listen and learn from my FIL history.

I guess you're not going to appease me and tell me why driving in a school zone would make a difference in the minimum or maximum sentence. Maybe you realized your error after you posted that. If not, let me point it out.

If driving on a highway, school zone, or heavily populated area, there could be a greater potential for danger. But, as you pointed out, driving drunk is a victim less crime. Since there is no accident. If this is the case, then driving in a school zone or a heavily populated area, then you are punishing based on potential. Which is exactly my point of this entire thread. Driving drunk has the potential to hurt innocent people. And therefor people that choose to do it, should be punished as such.

There is a greater potential for danger driving drunk than not driving drunk, that's why there are laws against it. I am not arguing that there should be no laws against drunk driving. But different circumstances call for different outcomes. Driving drunk in a school zone at 3:00 p.m. has a greater potential for danger than driving drunk down a country road at 3:00 a.m. And the law should be able to take the different circumstances into account when handing out punishments. No matter how much you disagree.

 

[[icon]]

Not sure if your calling me the ******* or Fat Juice Larry

This isn't terribly surprising.

 

[KCitons]

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

You realize your Congressman has nothing to do with the DUI laws in your state, right?

Much like this forum. I sent emails to anyone I thought would listen and learn from my FIL history.

I guess you're not going to appease me and tell me why driving in a school zone would make a difference in the minimum or maximum sentence. Maybe you realized your error after you posted that. If not, let me point it out.

If driving on a highway, school zone, or heavily populated area, there could be a greater potential for danger. But, as you pointed out, driving drunk is a victim less crime. Since there is no accident. If this is the case, then driving in a school zone or a heavily populated area, then you are punishing based on potential. Which is exactly my point of this entire thread. Driving drunk has the potential to hurt innocent people. And therefor people that choose to do it, should be punished as such.

There is a greater potential for danger driving drunk than not driving drunk, that's why there are laws against it. I am not arguing that there should be no laws against drunk driving. But different circumstances call for different outcomes. Driving drunk in a school zone at 3:00 p.m. has a greater potential for danger than driving drunk down a country road at 3:00 a.m. And the law should be able to take the different circumstances into account when handing out punishments. No matter how much you disagree.

Sure, but as I already pointed out, you don't know where the driver came from. Did he drive through a heavily populated area or school zone before he was stopped?

 

[Christo]

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

You realize your Congressman has nothing to do with the DUI laws in your state, right?

Much like this forum. I sent emails to anyone I thought would listen and learn from my FIL history.

I guess you're not going to appease me and tell me why driving in a school zone would make a difference in the minimum or maximum sentence. Maybe you realized your error after you posted that. If not, let me point it out.

If driving on a highway, school zone, or heavily populated area, there could be a greater potential for danger. But, as you pointed out, driving drunk is a victim less crime. Since there is no accident. If this is the case, then driving in a school zone or a heavily populated area, then you are punishing based on potential. Which is exactly my point of this entire thread. Driving drunk has the potential to hurt innocent people. And therefor people that choose to do it, should be punished as such.

There is a greater potential for danger driving drunk than not driving drunk, that's why there are laws against it. I am not arguing that there should be no laws against drunk driving. But different circumstances call for different outcomes. Driving drunk in a school zone at 3:00 p.m. has a greater potential for danger than driving drunk down a country road at 3:00 a.m. And the law should be able to take the different circumstances into account when handing out punishments. No matter how much you disagree.

Sure, but as I already pointed out, you don't know where the driver came from. Did he drive through a heavily populated area or school zone before he was stopped?

If the prosecution can prove it, great. If not, they're stuck with what they can prove. Like most people, I don't like my government incarcerating people for crimes they can't prove.

 

[KCitons]

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

You realize your Congressman has nothing to do with the DUI laws in your state, right?

Much like this forum. I sent emails to anyone I thought would listen and learn from my FIL history.

I guess you're not going to appease me and tell me why driving in a school zone would make a difference in the minimum or maximum sentence. Maybe you realized your error after you posted that. If not, let me point it out.

If driving on a highway, school zone, or heavily populated area, there could be a greater potential for danger. But, as you pointed out, driving drunk is a victim less crime. Since there is no accident. If this is the case, then driving in a school zone or a heavily populated area, then you are punishing based on potential. Which is exactly my point of this entire thread. Driving drunk has the potential to hurt innocent people. And therefor people that choose to do it, should be punished as such.

There is a greater potential for danger driving drunk than not driving drunk, that's why there are laws against it. I am not arguing that there should be no laws against drunk driving. But different circumstances call for different outcomes. Driving drunk in a school zone at 3:00 p.m. has a greater potential for danger than driving drunk down a country road at 3:00 a.m. And the law should be able to take the different circumstances into account when handing out punishments. No matter how much you disagree.

Sure, but as I already pointed out, you don't know where the driver came from. Did he drive through a heavily populated area or school zone before he was stopped?

If the prosecution can prove it, great. If not, they're stuck with what they can prove. Like most people, I don't like my government incarcerating people for crimes they can't prove.

Fair enough. But, can you prove that a drunk driver is more likely to get into an accident based on the number of other cars or pedestrians around him/her? You're still sentencing based on assumption and not proof of an actual crime committed. Just a greater opportunity. Which brings us full circle to my point of repeat DUI offenders. If someone has 2, 3, or 4 DUI convictions, their opportunity to hurt someone has increased and so should the penalty.

 

[Christo]

BTW, letter to Congressman was sent months ago. Some of the laws are already there. Why can't people police themselves?

You realize your Congressman has nothing to do with the DUI laws in your state, right?

Much like this forum. I sent emails to anyone I thought would listen and learn from my FIL history.

I guess you're not going to appease me and tell me why driving in a school zone would make a difference in the minimum or maximum sentence. Maybe you realized your error after you posted that. If not, let me point it out.

If driving on a highway, school zone, or heavily populated area, there could be a greater potential for danger. But, as you pointed out, driving drunk is a victim less crime. Since there is no accident. If this is the case, then driving in a school zone or a heavily populated area, then you are punishing based on potential. Which is exactly my point of this entire thread. Driving drunk has the potential to hurt innocent people. And therefor people that choose to do it, should be punished as such.

There is a greater potential for danger driving drunk than not driving drunk, that's why there are laws against it. I am not arguing that there should be no laws against drunk driving. But different circumstances call for different outcomes. Driving drunk in a school zone at 3:00 p.m. has a greater potential for danger than driving drunk down a country road at 3:00 a.m. And the law should be able to take the different circumstances into account when handing out punishments. No matter how much you disagree.

Sure, but as I already pointed out, you don't know where the driver came from. Did he drive through a heavily populated area or school zone before he was stopped?

If the prosecution can prove it, great. If not, they're stuck with what they can prove. Like most people, I don't like my government incarcerating people for crimes they can't prove.

Fair enough. But, can you prove that a drunk driver is more likely to get into an accident based on the number of other cars or pedestrians around him/her? You're still sentencing based on assumption and not proof of an actual crime committed. Just a greater opportunity. Which brings us full circle to my point of repeat DUI offenders. If someone has 2, 3, or 4 DUI convictions, their opportunity to hurt someone has increased and so should the penalty.

No one's arguing that the penalty shouldn't increase as the number of convictions increase.

 

[KCitons]

Correct. BTW, I'm not arguing. (well, maybe a little with Kool Aid Larry, but he started it) Just debating.

I think the laws should be much stricter, a few people agree with me, a lot of people don't.

I don't expect any of those that disagree to change their opinions. Much the way I'm not planning on changing mine.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Correct. BTW, I'm not arguing. (well, maybe a little with Kool Aid Larry, but he started it) Just debating.

I think the laws should be much stricter, a few people agree with me, a lot of people don't.

I don't expect any of those that disagree to change their opinions. Much the way I'm not planning on changing mine.

You've said repeatedly in this thread that you're open to adjusting your stance based upon other's input. But you're just like Timmy.

 

[Zow]

Correct. BTW, I'm not arguing. (well, maybe a little with Kool Aid Larry, but he started it) Just debating.

I think the laws should be much stricter, a few people agree with me, a lot of people don't.

I don't expect any of those that disagree to change their opinions. Much the way I'm not planning on changing mine.

1. You accused me of having blood on my hands and asked how I sleep at night. Interesting debate tactic.

2. Your proposed sentence for a first time DUI (apparently regardless of BAC) is far more lenient than the standard first time sentence for DUI in just about any state.

3. I think the laws are near as strict as you want them. You're just not grasping the extraneous factors of the criminal process and have instead taken a myopic view based on one case you've seen and been so blinded by it you won't listen to anyone else.

4. I haven't seen anyone here really clamoring for more lenient DUI sentences. Again and ironically the most lenient sentence I've seen posed in this thread was by you.

 

[KCitons]

Correct. BTW, I'm not arguing. (well, maybe a little with Kool Aid Larry, but he started it) Just debating.

I think the laws should be much stricter, a few people agree with me, a lot of people don't.

I don't expect any of those that disagree to change their opinions. Much the way I'm not planning on changing mine.

You've said repeatedly in this thread that you're open to adjusting your stance based upon other's input. But you're just like Timmy.

Actually, that is incorrect. When I started this thread, I had an idea of stricter penalties for anyone convicted of DUI. Just go back and look at the rash of crap that Kool Aid Larry gave me due to my being honest about drinking and driving in my younger days.

Others have have pointed out that it is hypocritical of me to have a chance at making a mistake without penalty. Because of them, I can see the validity of a less severe penalty for 1st offenders. I won't however budge on my belief that after the first time, there should be no option. The penalty should be severe.

 

[KCitons]

Correct. BTW, I'm not arguing. (well, maybe a little with Kool Aid Larry, but he started it) Just debating.

I think the laws should be much stricter, a few people agree with me, a lot of people don't.

I don't expect any of those that disagree to change their opinions. Much the way I'm not planning on changing mine.

1. You accused me of having blood on my hands and asked how I sleep at night. Interesting debate tactic.

2. Your proposed sentence for a first time DUI (apparently regardless of BAC) is far more lenient than the standard first time sentence for DUI in just about any state.

3. I think the laws are near as strict as you want them. You're just not grasping the extraneous factors of the criminal process and have instead taken a myopic view based on one case you've seen and been so blinded by it you won't listen to anyone else.

4. I haven't seen anyone here really clamoring for more lenient DUI sentences. Again and ironically the most lenient sentence I've seen posed in this thread was by you.

Zow, we were having a respectful discussion about DUI laws. You asked me a question about my kids, and I gave you an honest answer. From there, I was called a liar. I never made statements to you personally prior to that. I may have thought it, but I kept it to myself.

A lot of people have mentioned how they think my approach to this subject is strange. Why would it be so hard to believe that I would agree with a long prison sentence if my kid was convicted on a 3rd offense DUI?

I agree. Perhaps I don't fully understand the laws and how they are carried out. And I obviously am drawing my information from my FIL's case. I already mentioned in an earlier thread that I am too close to this fire. But, I don't think I would change my stance as time goes by.

Again, you seem to miss the point in my original post. This thread should have been a discussion of 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenses. And why we feel the need to give people so many chances to make the same mistake over and over again.

I'm willing to discuss or debate the topic with anyone. Some feel the need to attack me personally, usually I just shrug it off an move on. Most of them have little else to add to the conversation.

I could just stop posting, but I started the thread to have this discussion. If other people don't like it, why do they feel the need to post?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Correct. BTW, I'm not arguing. (well, maybe a little with Kool Aid Larry, but he started it) Just debating.

I think the laws should be much stricter, a few people agree with me, a lot of people don't.

I don't expect any of those that disagree to change their opinions. Much the way I'm not planning on changing mine.

You've said repeatedly in this thread that you're open to adjusting your stance based upon other's input. But you're just like Timmy.

Actually, that is incorrect. When I started this thread, I had an idea of stricter penalties for anyone convicted of DUI. Just go back and look at the rash of crap that Kool Aid Larry gave me due to my being honest about drinking and driving in my younger days.

Others have have pointed out that it is hypocritical of me to have a chance at making a mistake without penalty. Because of them, I can see the validity of a less severe penalty for 1st offenders. I won't however budge on my belief that after the first time, there should be no option. The penalty should be severe.

Looked back through this thread. You're right, you haven't budged at all. Must have gotten this confused with the LAST person who started a holier than thou DUI thread.

 

[dparker713]

Must have hit a nerve. How long you been divorced?

Delusional too. The one most invested in this topic is obviously yourself.

 

[dparker713]

4. I haven't seen anyone here really clamoring for more lenient DUI sentences. Again and ironically the most lenient sentence I've seen posed in this thread was by you.

Wouldn't say I'm clamoring, but I find DUI laws draconian for all offenses. We have other laws that sufficiently punish bodily harm and property damage. As the laws are presently constructed, they're mainly just a means to raise revenue in most jurisdictions.

 

[pittstownkiller]

KC, do you speed; (or distracted driving) have you ever? I could make an argument that speeding (or DD) contributes to more accidents and fatalities than drunk driving, especially if you could ever break apart a "drunk driving while speeding" accident statistic; should speeding and other reckless driving acts carry the two-strikes and "you are out" (w/ jail) penalties. You do realize that the vast majority of drunk driving episodes result in absolutely no incidence. What difference is there to a dead person, if the person who hit them was sober or drunk? Have you ever thought what other problems draconian laws present to the people who enforce them? Could you see a person possibly getting into a high-speed-chase, because of fear of their punishment, for a typically mundane DUI charge? You are also aware that your State also handles the alcohol distributed to stores rather closely; why would they deliver to bars or restaurants, especially ones with no public transportation or cab service? Why have BAC anyway; it is an almost impossible line to "feel" for a person to make a decision and there are so many factor that go into it, that "counting drinks" is next to worthless. I drive frequently late at night (usually in the bewitching hours of 1am-4am), I do not need to see anymore drunks on the road but the ratio of drunks I see, to accidents I see, is great. I also think that FIL's problem is his; stop trying to pretend that it exists because there isn't some magical law to prevent him from hurting himself, or that everyone else is just like him. Your FIL probably would drink himself to death, if it wasn't for the State extending his life by locking him up. Being simplistic and acting the simpleton, are not the same thing but they frequently go hand-in-hand. If there was some "magic law" that prevented drunk driving, I am sure everyone would support it, but laws that are written as preventative measures generally are misguided.

 

[KCitons]

KC, do you speed; (or distracted driving) have you ever? I could make an argument that speeding (or DD) contributes to more accidents and fatalities than drunk driving, especially if you could ever break apart a "drunk driving while speeding" accident statistic; should speeding and other reckless driving acts carry the two-strikes and "you are out" (w/ jail) penalties. You do realize that the vast majority of drunk driving episodes result in absolutely no incidence. What difference is there to a dead person, if the person who hit them was sober or drunk? Have you ever thought what other problems draconian laws present to the people who enforce them? Could you see a person possibly getting into a high-speed-chase, because of fear of their punishment, for a typically mundane DUI charge? You are also aware that your State also handles the alcohol distributed to stores rather closely; why would they deliver to bars or restaurants, especially ones with no public transportation or cab service? Why have BAC anyway; it is an almost impossible line to "feel" for a person to make a decision and there are so many factor that go into it, that "counting drinks" is next to worthless. I drive frequently late at night (usually in the bewitching hours of 1am-4am), I do not need to see anymore drunks on the road but the ratio of drunks I see, to accidents I see, is great. I also think that FIL's problem is his; stop trying to pretend that it exists because there isn't some magical law to prevent him from hurting himself, or that everyone else is just like him. Your FIL probably would drink himself to death, if it wasn't for the State extending his life by locking him up. Being simplistic and acting the simpleton, are not the same thing but they frequently go hand-in-hand. If there was some "magic law" that prevented drunk driving, I am sure everyone would support it, but laws that are written as preventative measures generally are misguided.

I'm sure this will be met with the "holier than though" responses. No, I don't speed. I just took the family on a 3500 mile trip and didn't speed. Again, not trying to show anyone up, but I understand what you are saying about speeding be a cause of accidents. Therefor I choose not to. Did I do it for all the other drivers? No, I did it because I had my entire family in the car. I will say driving through parts of Maryland, Virginia and NY, people do drive like idiots and need to think about other people.

You are correct that speed is a factor in a lot of accidents. To answer your question about the two strikes rule for speeders. Yes, throw the book at them the second time as well. I honestly believe that our laws coddle people and allow them to continue to make mistakes. This country lives by the motto "It's easier to say I'm sorry, than it is to ask for permission" This carries over to following rules that are in place to benefit everyone in society. I see it as being nothing but selfish.

I fully understand that my state benefits from liquor sold to stores. I also understand that there is a lot of money pumped into the economy through things like liquor, cigarettes and gasoline. This is part of the problem. With liquor and cigarettes, they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of peoples lives for the revenue. Nearly every state has adopted some smoking laws to protect non smokers from second hand smoke. If smoking is so bad, why not ban cigarettes completely? Because of the loss of revenue. While the smoking ban protects non smokers, the drunk driving laws do little to protect the non drunk drivers. (the gasoline argument is for another thread)

As far as understanding how your body reacts to X amount of alcohol, I have a simple solution. Stick to Zero. I get the feeling that people are upset about this thread because it infringes on their right to be irresponsible and drink as much as they want. Again, I am going to get the riot act and the holier than though statements. But, my wife and I are going out tonight. I will be driving and I am not going to drink. Not even one. Why? Because one beer can lead to two and then you start to lose your ability to think rationally. We are going out with my wife's friends, so I will let her drink this time. Most people don't want to, or can't make responsible decisions like this.

Looking back, this thread should have been split into two. One being, how to deal with my FIL alcohol abuse problem and another on the selfishness of people towards their fellow man. See, I'm not perfect. I made a mistake.

 

[pittstownkiller]

KC, do you speed; (or distracted driving) have you ever? I could make an argument that speeding (or DD) contributes to more accidents and fatalities than drunk driving, especially if you could ever break apart a "drunk driving while speeding" accident statistic; should speeding and other reckless driving acts carry the two-strikes and "you are out" (w/ jail) penalties. You do realize that the vast majority of drunk driving episodes result in absolutely no incidence. What difference is there to a dead person, if the person who hit them was sober or drunk? Have you ever thought what other problems draconian laws present to the people who enforce them? Could you see a person possibly getting into a high-speed-chase, because of fear of their punishment, for a typically mundane DUI charge? You are also aware that your State also handles the alcohol distributed to stores rather closely; why would they deliver to bars or restaurants, especially ones with no public transportation or cab service? Why have BAC anyway; it is an almost impossible line to "feel" for a person to make a decision and there are so many factor that go into it, that "counting drinks" is next to worthless. I drive frequently late at night (usually in the bewitching hours of 1am-4am), I do not need to see anymore drunks on the road but the ratio of drunks I see, to accidents I see, is great. I also think that FIL's problem is his; stop trying to pretend that it exists because there isn't some magical law to prevent him from hurting himself, or that everyone else is just like him. Your FIL probably would drink himself to death, if it wasn't for the State extending his life by locking him up. Being simplistic and acting the simpleton, are not the same thing but they frequently go hand-in-hand. If there was some "magic law" that prevented drunk driving, I am sure everyone would support it, but laws that are written as preventative measures generally are misguided.

I'm sure this will be met with the "holier than though" responses. No, I don't speed. I just took the family on a 3500 mile trip and didn't speed. Again, not trying to show anyone up, but I understand what you are saying about speeding be a cause of accidents. Therefor I choose not to. Did I do it for all the other drivers? No, I did it because I had my entire family in the car. I will say driving through parts of Maryland, Virginia and NY, people do drive like idiots and need to think about other people.You are correct that speed is a factor in a lot of accidents. To answer your question about the two strikes rule for speeders. Yes, throw the book at them the second time as well. I honestly believe that our laws coddle people and allow them to continue to make mistakes. This country lives by the motto "It's easier to say I'm sorry, than it is to ask for permission" This carries over to following rules that are in place to benefit everyone in society. I see it as being nothing but selfish.

I fully understand that my state benefits from liquor sold to stores. I also understand that there is a lot of money pumped into the economy through things like liquor, cigarettes and gasoline. This is part of the problem. With liquor and cigarettes, they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of peoples lives for the revenue. Nearly every state has adopted some smoking laws to protect non smokers from second hand smoke. If smoking is so bad, why not ban cigarettes completely? Because of the loss of revenue. While the smoking ban protects non smokers, the drunk driving laws do little to protect the non drunk drivers. (the gasoline argument is for another thread)

As far as understanding how your body reacts to X amount of alcohol, I have a simple solution. Stick to Zero. I get the feeling that people are upset about this thread because it infringes on their right to be irresponsible and drink as much as they want. Again, I am going to get the riot act and the holier than though statements. But, my wife and I are going out tonight. I will be driving and I am not going to drink. Not even one. Why? Because one beer can lead to two and then you start to lose your ability to think rationally. We are going out with my wife's friends, so I will let her drink this time. Most people don't want to, or can't make responsible decisions like this.

Looking back, this thread should have been split into two. One being, how to deal with my FIL alcohol abuse problem and another on the selfishness of people towards their fellow man. See, I'm not perfect. I made a mistake.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope you realize that you are in support of a police state; why not mandate governors on the engine of cars and ban troublesome products? Why not build roads that make it impossible to speed?

 

[KCitons]

KC, do you speed; (or distracted driving) have you ever? I could make an argument that speeding (or DD) contributes to more accidents and fatalities than drunk driving, especially if you could ever break apart a "drunk driving while speeding" accident statistic; should speeding and other reckless driving acts carry the two-strikes and "you are out" (w/ jail) penalties. You do realize that the vast majority of drunk driving episodes result in absolutely no incidence. What difference is there to a dead person, if the person who hit them was sober or drunk? Have you ever thought what other problems draconian laws present to the people who enforce them? Could you see a person possibly getting into a high-speed-chase, because of fear of their punishment, for a typically mundane DUI charge? You are also aware that your State also handles the alcohol distributed to stores rather closely; why would they deliver to bars or restaurants, especially ones with no public transportation or cab service? Why have BAC anyway; it is an almost impossible line to "feel" for a person to make a decision and there are so many factor that go into it, that "counting drinks" is next to worthless. I drive frequently late at night (usually in the bewitching hours of 1am-4am), I do not need to see anymore drunks on the road but the ratio of drunks I see, to accidents I see, is great. I also think that FIL's problem is his; stop trying to pretend that it exists because there isn't some magical law to prevent him from hurting himself, or that everyone else is just like him. Your FIL probably would drink himself to death, if it wasn't for the State extending his life by locking him up. Being simplistic and acting the simpleton, are not the same thing but they frequently go hand-in-hand. If there was some "magic law" that prevented drunk driving, I am sure everyone would support it, but laws that are written as preventative measures generally are misguided.

I'm sure this will be met with the "holier than though" responses. No, I don't speed. I just took the family on a 3500 mile trip and didn't speed. Again, not trying to show anyone up, but I understand what you are saying about speeding be a cause of accidents. Therefor I choose not to. Did I do it for all the other drivers? No, I did it because I had my entire family in the car. I will say driving through parts of Maryland, Virginia and NY, people do drive like idiots and need to think about other people.You are correct that speed is a factor in a lot of accidents. To answer your question about the two strikes rule for speeders. Yes, throw the book at them the second time as well. I honestly believe that our laws coddle people and allow them to continue to make mistakes. This country lives by the motto "It's easier to say I'm sorry, than it is to ask for permission" This carries over to following rules that are in place to benefit everyone in society. I see it as being nothing but selfish.

I fully understand that my state benefits from liquor sold to stores. I also understand that there is a lot of money pumped into the economy through things like liquor, cigarettes and gasoline. This is part of the problem. With liquor and cigarettes, they are willing to sacrifice a certain number of peoples lives for the revenue. Nearly every state has adopted some smoking laws to protect non smokers from second hand smoke. If smoking is so bad, why not ban cigarettes completely? Because of the loss of revenue. While the smoking ban protects non smokers, the drunk driving laws do little to protect the non drunk drivers. (the gasoline argument is for another thread)

As far as understanding how your body reacts to X amount of alcohol, I have a simple solution. Stick to Zero. I get the feeling that people are upset about this thread because it infringes on their right to be irresponsible and drink as much as they want. Again, I am going to get the riot act and the holier than though statements. But, my wife and I are going out tonight. I will be driving and I am not going to drink. Not even one. Why? Because one beer can lead to two and then you start to lose your ability to think rationally. We are going out with my wife's friends, so I will let her drink this time. Most people don't want to, or can't make responsible decisions like this.

Looking back, this thread should have been split into two. One being, how to deal with my FIL alcohol abuse problem and another on the selfishness of people towards their fellow man. See, I'm not perfect. I made a mistake.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope you realize that you are in support of a police state; why not mandate governors on the engine of cars and ban troublesome products? Why not build roads that make it impossible to speed?

And there you have it. If I point out the problems with people failing to follow laws and expect a stricter penalty for repeat offenders, then I must be in favor of a police state. How about just a state where people take the well being of others into consideration instead their own selfish desires?

I know it's completely impossible, I'm delusional and it would never happen. But, I could argue, why do we have laws at all? If people did the right thing every time, we wouldn't need them.

But since you mentioned it. Why do cars go 100 miles an hour? No state has a speed limit above 75? Is it necessary? Does it serve any purpose other than tempting someone with no self control to speed?

It's the same as putting a plate of cookies in front of a 3 year old. If you tell him he can have "some" and then walk away, the kid will eat all but one. If you tell him he can have two, then he knows the limits that he needs to stay within. Why can't adults understand limits and rules if a 3 year old can?

 

[pittstownkiller]

And there you have it. If I point out the problems with people failing to follow laws and expect a stricter penalty for repeat offenders, then I must be in favor of a police state. How about just a state where people take the well being of others into consideration instead their own selfish desires?

I know it's completely impossible, I'm delusional and it would never happen. But, I could argue, why do we have laws at all? If people did the right thing every time, we wouldn't need them.

But since you mentioned it. Why do cars go 100 miles an hour? No state has a speed limit above 75? Is it necessary? Does it serve any purpose other than tempting someone with no self control to speed?

It's the same as putting a plate of cookies in front of a 3 year old. If you tell him he can have "some" and then walk away, the kid will eat all but one. If you tell him he can have two, then he knows the limits that he needs to stay within. Why can't adults understand limits and rules if a 3 year old can?

If your desire is to create a society where it is nearly impossible to transgress upon it, then I think you are firmly inside the definition of a "police state". I think the consideration of others should take into account their desires, not just yours.

 

[12punch]

Dude, the art of the troll is minimal effort for maximum return.

When you end up putting out more effort than the ppl you're trolling you just end up trolling yourself

 

[KCitons]

And there you have it. If I point out the problems with people failing to follow laws and expect a stricter penalty for repeat offenders, then I must be in favor of a police state. How about just a state where people take the well being of others into consideration instead their own selfish desires?

I know it's completely impossible, I'm delusional and it would never happen. But, I could argue, why do we have laws at all? If people did the right thing every time, we wouldn't need them.

But since you mentioned it. Why do cars go 100 miles an hour? No state has a speed limit above 75? Is it necessary? Does it serve any purpose other than tempting someone with no self control to speed?

It's the same as putting a plate of cookies in front of a 3 year old. If you tell him he can have "some" and then walk away, the kid will eat all but one. If you tell him he can have two, then he knows the limits that he needs to stay within. Why can't adults understand limits and rules if a 3 year old can?

If your desire is to create a society where it is nearly impossible to transgress upon it, then I think you are firmly inside the definition of a "police state". I think the consideration of others should take into account their desires, not just yours.

I think it is everyone's desire to live a long and prosperous life. So how is living in an unselfish world a police state? I could turn this back on you and say that you want to eliminate all laws and live in country/state were people are free to do as they please without penalty. You also keep ignoring the point about the severity of the penalty being increase for second offenses? Your statement about a society where being impossible to transgress upon, is incorrect. People make mistakes, if it happens a second time, it's no longer a mistake. I would call it intentional.

Or perhaps it should be each person decides their own laws. As I already mentioned, if your spouse cheats on you once, you may try to work things out. But if he/she cheats a second time, the gloves are off. Why is this acceptable behavior between two people, but we don't expect the same between repeat offenders within our justice system?

The other thread about the teacher kissing girls on the forehead at camp discusses vigilante justice. Some suggest that the father kick the teachers a$$. Strange how we choose to go overboard in punishment without the guidance of the legal system. But when we have an ability to inform, rehabilitate or discipline through the legal system, everyone becomes offended.

 

[KCitons]

Dude, the art of the troll is minimal effort for maximum return.

When you end up putting out more effort than the ppl you're trolling you just end up trolling yourself

For some reason people think I am trolling or lying. Sorry to disappoint you.

So shhhhhh, the grown ups are talking.

 

[pittstownkiller]

And there you have it. If I point out the problems with people failing to follow laws and expect a stricter penalty for repeat offenders, then I must be in favor of a police state. How about just a state where people take the well being of others into consideration instead their own selfish desires?

I know it's completely impossible, I'm delusional and it would never happen. But, I could argue, why do we have laws at all? If people did the right thing every time, we wouldn't need them.

But since you mentioned it. Why do cars go 100 miles an hour? No state has a speed limit above 75? Is it necessary? Does it serve any purpose other than tempting someone with no self control to speed?

It's the same as putting a plate of cookies in front of a 3 year old. If you tell him he can have "some" and then walk away, the kid will eat all but one. If you tell him he can have two, then he knows the limits that he needs to stay within. Why can't adults understand limits and rules if a 3 year old can?

If your desire is to create a society where it is nearly impossible to transgress upon it, then I think you are firmly inside the definition of a "police state". I think the consideration of others should take into account their desires, not just yours.

I think it is everyone's desire to live a long and prosperous life. So how is living in an unselfish world a police state? I could turn this back on you and say that you want to eliminate all laws and live in country/state were people are free to do as they please without penalty. You also keep ignoring the point about the severity of the penalty being increase for second offenses? Your statement about a society where being impossible to transgress upon, is incorrect. People make mistakes, if it happens a second time, it's no longer a mistake. I would call it intentional. Or perhaps it should be each person decides their own laws. As I already mentioned, if your spouse cheats on you once, you may try to work things out. But if he/she cheats a second time, the gloves are off. Why is this acceptable behavior between two people, but we don't expect the same between repeat offenders within our justice system?

The other thread about the teacher kissing girls on the forehead at camp discusses vigilante justice. Some suggest that the father kick the teachers ###. Strange how we choose to go overboard in punishment without the guidance of the legal system. But when we have an ability to inform, rehabilitate or discipline through the legal system, everyone becomes offended.

This is where my simplistic/simpleton comment comes in to play. Who said there should be no laws or punishments; I said trying to force a "civilized" society is akin to a police state. Why not have monitors everywhere to keep you in line by your thinking? I am glad that you are so open to inspection of your conduct, that you do not mind any sort of limitations on intrusive government, but what is so "unselfish" about that when you want to dictate it to others?

 

[KCitons]

And there you have it. If I point out the problems with people failing to follow laws and expect a stricter penalty for repeat offenders, then I must be in favor of a police state. How about just a state where people take the well being of others into consideration instead their own selfish desires?

I know it's completely impossible, I'm delusional and it would never happen. But, I could argue, why do we have laws at all? If people did the right thing every time, we wouldn't need them.

But since you mentioned it. Why do cars go 100 miles an hour? No state has a speed limit above 75? Is it necessary? Does it serve any purpose other than tempting someone with no self control to speed?

It's the same as putting a plate of cookies in front of a 3 year old. If you tell him he can have "some" and then walk away, the kid will eat all but one. If you tell him he can have two, then he knows the limits that he needs to stay within. Why can't adults understand limits and rules if a 3 year old can?

If your desire is to create a society where it is nearly impossible to transgress upon it, then I think you are firmly inside the definition of a "police state". I think the consideration of others should take into account their desires, not just yours.

I think it is everyone's desire to live a long and prosperous life. So how is living in an unselfish world a police state? I could turn this back on you and say that you want to eliminate all laws and live in country/state were people are free to do as they please without penalty. You also keep ignoring the point about the severity of the penalty being increase for second offenses? Your statement about a society where being impossible to transgress upon, is incorrect. People make mistakes, if it happens a second time, it's no longer a mistake. I would call it intentional. Or perhaps it should be each person decides their own laws. As I already mentioned, if your spouse cheats on you once, you may try to work things out. But if he/she cheats a second time, the gloves are off. Why is this acceptable behavior between two people, but we don't expect the same between repeat offenders within our justice system?

The other thread about the teacher kissing girls on the forehead at camp discusses vigilante justice. Some suggest that the father kick the teachers ###. Strange how we choose to go overboard in punishment without the guidance of the legal system. But when we have an ability to inform, rehabilitate or discipline through the legal system, everyone becomes offended.

This is where my simplistic/simpleton comment comes in to play. Who said there should be no laws or punishments; I said trying to force a "civilized" society is akin to a police state. Why not have monitors everywhere to keep you in line by your thinking? I am glad that you are so open to inspection of your conduct, that you do not mind any sort of limitations on intrusive government, but what is so "unselfish" about that when you want to dictate it to others?

Gotcha, I misunderstood what you were saying. I can't argue with you on the fact that I am a simpleton. I was raised with the belief in helping other people, just for the sake of helping other people. Oddly, those qualities are believed to be a sign of weakness or "simple" using your word.

Would the world be a better place if everyone did the right thing all the time? I'm sure some would argue that it wouldn't be a very fun place. But all to often, the fun comes at the expense of other people.

The thing that you keep forgetting, is that we are not discussing whether or not there should be laws for DUI, or speeding, or texting and driving. What we are discussing is the penalties for those people that refuse to follow the laws that are already established. I'm not being selfish to expect second offenders to learn from their prior mistakes.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

And there you have it. If I point out the problems with people failing to follow laws and expect a stricter penalty for repeat offenders, then I must be in favor of a police state. How about just a state where people take the well being of others into consideration instead their own selfish desires?

I know it's completely impossible, I'm delusional and it would never happen. But, I could argue, why do we have laws at all? If people did the right thing every time, we wouldn't need them.

But since you mentioned it. Why do cars go 100 miles an hour? No state has a speed limit above 75? Is it necessary? Does it serve any purpose other than tempting someone with no self control to speed?

It's the same as putting a plate of cookies in front of a 3 year old. If you tell him he can have "some" and then walk away, the kid will eat all but one. If you tell him he can have two, then he knows the limits that he needs to stay within. Why can't adults understand limits and rules if a 3 year old can?

If your desire is to create a society where it is nearly impossible to transgress upon it, then I think you are firmly inside the definition of a "police state". I think the consideration of others should take into account their desires, not just yours.

I think it is everyone's desire to live a long and prosperous life. So how is living in an unselfish world a police state? I could turn this back on you and say that you want to eliminate all laws and live in country/state were people are free to do as they please without penalty. You also keep ignoring the point about the severity of the penalty being increase for second offenses? Your statement about a society where being impossible to transgress upon, is incorrect. People make mistakes, if it happens a second time, it's no longer a mistake. I would call it intentional. Or perhaps it should be each person decides their own laws. As I already mentioned, if your spouse cheats on you once, you may try to work things out. But if he/she cheats a second time, the gloves are off. Why is this acceptable behavior between two people, but we don't expect the same between repeat offenders within our justice system?

The other thread about the teacher kissing girls on the forehead at camp discusses vigilante justice. Some suggest that the father kick the teachers ###. Strange how we choose to go overboard in punishment without the guidance of the legal system. But when we have an ability to inform, rehabilitate or discipline through the legal system, everyone becomes offended.

This is where my simplistic/simpleton comment comes in to play. Who said there should be no laws or punishments; I said trying to force a "civilized" society is akin to a police state. Why not have monitors everywhere to keep you in line by your thinking? I am glad that you are so open to inspection of your conduct, that you do not mind any sort of limitations on intrusive government, but what is so "unselfish" about that when you want to dictate it to others?

Gotcha, I misunderstood what you were saying. I can't argue with you on the fact that I am a simpleton. I was raised with the belief in helping other people, just for the sake of helping other people. Oddly, those qualities are believed to be a sign of weakness or "simple" using your word.

Would the world be a better place if everyone did the right thing all the time? I'm sure some would argue that it wouldn't be a very fun place. But all to often, the fun comes at the expense of other people.

The thing that you keep forgetting, is that we are not discussing whether or not there should be laws for DUI, or speeding, or texting and driving. What we are discussing is the penalties for those people that refuse to follow the laws that are already established. I'm not being selfish to expect second offenders to learn from their prior mistakes.

no, it means you're dumb