Fair point, that’s why I made reference to the “bobbleheads” - the legions of talk radio sycophants who dare not disagree with their overmasters on supporting the GOP and its candidates, no questions asked.
1 Like
In a court of law you would be fucked, because the intent is the same.
Getting behind the wheel of a car impaired is the same action as getting behind the wheel of a car sober. The state of mind is not the same.
1 Like
Certainly, but this is merely a matter of a large number of local police officers(I doubt you’ve seen many state or federal officers using any sort of discretion whatsoever) and sheriff’s deputies being far better people than those passing laws(because those that catch a break ARE breaking the law). I’ve seen it more than a handful of times(however, I’ve also seen people who were not impaired in any meaningful way arrested because they performed field tests in a manner that would satisfy 98% of officers but happened to run into one of the sacks of shit that night).
I’d certainly agree, if either the road were private OR people could decline to have their tax money used for the road(of course, they would also likely have to agree to not drive on said road sober).
I know this has gone off on a tangent here, but to be clear, I was referring to the harsh penalties some people get for DUI or other drug offenses, AND the idea that once people have “paid their debt to society” we continue to make them pay, and pay, and pay. Many become homeless. These laws vary by state, but making people come out of prison and then require that they owe thousands of dollars for fees and fines. AZ requires a series of classes which cost around $1000, when that could been provided as part of their time in prison, for example. Why in the world are we making it so hard for people to get back to work and family?
We had a program here with youths who had been involved in the criminal justice system. They came to my daughter’s school and helped the disabled kids in the therapy pool. It was great for them, and great for the special ed kids. There was supervision of course, but it was pretty touching to see some of these young men holding my daughter so gently and carefully. I think there are so many non-violent people who could be doing this sort of thing, and getting some job skills in the process.
We’re doing a terrible job at helping people move on, and integrate back into society. I heard today that we’ve had the number of homeless people in my county has tripled over the past two years. I know a large proportion of them have had alcohol or drug related charges, etc…
2 Likes
I wanted to add some data to what Puff said. The prison system works very well at keeping those who have been incarcerated in the system. CCA and various corporations make a lot of money off these people after all.
Begin data dump.
(Number Of People Serving Time For Drug, Violent, Property, and Other Offenses In US Prisons)
Almost 50% (92,000 prisoners) of sentenced federal prisoners on September 30, 2015 (the most recent date for which federal offense data are available) were serving time for drug offenses
(Number of People in State Prisons in the US Whose Most Serious Offense was Possession of a Drug)
The US Dept. of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2011, 1,341,797 people were serving sentences in state prisons in the US, of whom 222,738 (16.6%) had as their most serious offence a drug charge: 55,013 for drug possession (4.1% of all state prison inmates), and 167,725 for “other” drug offences, including manufacturing and sale (12.5% of all state prison inmates).
(Number of People Sentenced to Federal Prison in the US for whom a Drug Offence was the most serious charge)
The US Dept. of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that on Sept. 30, 2012, there were a total of 187,773 people sentenced and serving time in US federal prison for any offense. Of those, 97,214 people (51.8% of the total) had as their most serious charge a drug offense: 96,907 of them for drug trafficking or manufacture (51.6% of the total), 296 for drug possession (0.16% of the total), and 11 for “other”* drug offenses. (* “Other” includes investing illegal drug profits, operating a commercial carrier under the influence, and drug offenses that involve using the U.S. Postal Service.)
(Cost Effectiveness of Prison Compared With Treatment)
"Substance-involved people have come to compose a large portion of the prison population. Substance use may play a role in the commission of certain crimes: approximately 16 percent of people in state prison and 18 percent of people in federal prison reported committing their crimes to obtain money for drugs.21 Treatment delivered in the community is one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent such crimes and costs approximately $20,000 less than incarceration per person per year.22 A study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community yields over $18 in cost savings related to crime.23 In comparison, prisons only yield $.37 in public safety benefit per dollar spent. Releasing people to supervision and making treatment accessible is an effective way of reducing problematic drug use, reducing crime associated with drug use and reducing the number of people
(Local Jail Inmates)
According to a federal survey of jail inmates, of the total 440,670 jail inmates in the US in 2002, 112,447 (25.5%) were drug offenders: 48,823 (11.1%) for possession and 56,574 (12.8%) for trafficking.
(People On Probation For Drug Offenses In The US, 2013)
Of the 3,910,647 adults on probation in the US at the end of 2013, 25% (approximately 977,662 people) had a drug charge as their most serious offense.
(People On Parole For Drug Offenses In The US, 2013)
Of the 853,215 people on parole at the end of 2013, 32% (approximately 273,029 people) had a drug charge as their most serious offense.
1 Like
This. There would be little objection to DUI laws if the punishment fit the crime(as it does for drunk in public-put the offender in a safe place for a few hours until his state of mind is back to normal and the danger to the rest of the public goes back to a normal level) and merely allowed police/sheriff’s departments to exercise their “public caretaker” duties. The problem is most certainly the MADD-inspired-and-backed penalties.
Puff, as for making it more difficult for offenders to reintegrate with society and their families, I suspect that is done for the same reason the welfare state exists: to weaken the institution of family(mainly by removing men from it). That is always a goal of the state, as all other institutions(especially that one and the church-see applying the first amendment to the states for an example of that one) weaken it.
2 Likes
I wish that were the truth. Maybe they are in theory, but certainly not in practice.
If "The right’ is Fox news and Breitbart then sure.
1 Like
Thumbs up times a million.
I’ve never heard of anyone becoming homeless because they were bagged for DWI. But there might be one or two out there.
This is all about personal responsibility. They know the laws just like you and I do. If I am at a party and I decide to have a beer or two…just one or two I refuse to get behind the wheel of my car. Even though I know (in my own mind) that my thought process is sound and my reflexes have not been harmed I will not drive. I try not to set myself up for failure. If I’m with my wife and she has not been drinking she drives. If I am alone I will hitch a ride with a friend. If no one is going my way I will call a taxi. A taxi ride might cost me $20. A DWI might cost me thousands and someone else their life!
We all know the penalties. Those who want to risk it deserve what they get. Unfortunately those who are involved in a car accident with someone who was drinking did not even get a warning. They should have the expectation to be able to drive with no one driving toward them who has been drinking. They are the true victims.
This makes no sense. If only the act of ultimate harm was punishable, we couldn’t stop anyone we discover plotting to kill a bunch of people but who hasn’t pulled tne trigger yet.
And no, there is no automatic distinction for crimes of intent and crimes of recklessness - we’ve recognized that engaging in recklessness, even negligent, conduct that could cause harm or death is criminally punishable since before the days of horse and buggy.
2 Likes
Agree with TB on this, plotting to commit a crime is still considered a crime, though maybe not as harshly punishable as actually committing the crime.
There are also things that are obviously punishable without direct harm. Being the head of a terrorist organisation, or a crime syndicate. Yet it is readily accepted that we don’t need them holding a smoking gun to send them to the dock.
The DWI laws are actually quite fair as they stand.
There is a good chart that you can see here
If you weigh 250 pounds you can certainly drink a bit more than a person who weighs 100 pounds. So, it fits pretty well based on body weight.
This is a good point, but do we stop them for the content of their blood? That is the problem with DUI laws as currently written: they rest entirely on the content of a person’s blood(not to say that with a good enough lawyer or connections other things can’t be challenged to have that content thrown out).
If only the act of ultimate harm were punishable, a man would not be justified in killing another man who was standing in front of and pointing a gun at him.
Make crossing the double-yellow lines a jailable offense that carries the same penalties as DUI. Leave enforcement of such up to officers/deputies. I’m on board. Make driving with expired tags a jailable offense and leave the decision regarding enforcement up to officers/deputies. I have no problem with that.
But plotting to commit a crime requires a state of mind. It can’t be said(in most cases-I’m sure a few people have acted on their desires to carry out a criminal act while driving under the influence) that DUI requires such.
Driving under the influence is certainly negligent, but how often can negligence be punished in the absence of harm? I can’t think of any other instance(although I may very well be wrong).
DUI is reckless, not negligent. In both, the accused has harmed another (or put others at risk of harm). However, recklessness is indicated when the accused knew (or should have known) that their action could cause harm. A reckless act is more serious than a negligent one (but not as serious as an act committed with intent):
http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/recklessness.html
In addition to reckless driving (drunk or otherwise)…Disregarding construction-site safety rules, child endangerment, and hospital malpractice may all be actionable under reckless endangerment laws.
Why does DUI exist separately from reckless driving laws?
Why do checkpoints exist for the purpose of detecting this form of recklessness?
How is it that even a DUI that would have been undetected by the rest of society if not for a checkpoint can be(and is) punished in a harsher manner than failure to maintain proper control resulting a crash?
It is reckless to wildly spray bullets in a crowded room, whether sober or drunk. Is it reckless to shoot a gun at a target with a .08 BAC?
Because DUI is, of itself, an act of reckless endangerment.
Yes, because the target may be too drunk to get out of the way. 
1 Like