"Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on behavior, where it belongs. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum."
A daring suggestion. Is alcohol different from distractions like cell phone use, adjusting the radio, eating, and interacting with passengers? Yes, it's not really a distraction. You probably pay more attention when you know your reaction time is impaired by alcohol. But your judgment is bad too. If there's not a specific rule against drinking and driving and people are expected to make nuanced decisions about what they can do, the drunk is making that decision with a drunken brain.
November 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
87 comments:
Strikes me as a non-starter.
If there's not a specific rule against drinking and driving and people are expected to make nuanced decisions about what they can do, the drunk is making that decision with a drunken brain.
They are still making the same decision with the same drunk brain. I don't think you should be able to pull someone over unless they are breaking the law. And any punishment should make sense, depending on which law you broke. I don't think you should get a dui for not putting on a blinker or something stupid like that.
I've floated this argument among friends for a while now. Maybe that's why I've been forced to hang out at Althouse.
Anyway, the impaired-judgment argument is ok ex post, but not ex ante. That is, with sufficient penalties for any type of negligence, people would (try, anyway) to limit their drinking appropriately.
Try restating the question this way: Why should we impose lower penalties for non-alcohol-related driver error?
Cell phone use is illegal while driving in a whole lot of places.
But whatev'
I'll go for no DWI laws (and legal texting on the freeway) if anyone who has a fender bender while doing them be tried for attempted murder.
(My "libertarian" answer is... I'm allowed to defend myself with lethal force against anyone trying to kill, maim or rape me... if a reasonable person would perceive a threat. So-and-so gets an open container in his truck. I get a gun.)
The law *should* be repealed, but it never will be. We've still got that prohibitionist streak in us.
I think checkpoints should be abolished, however. That's a drunk driving law enforcement practice that needs to go.
So-and-so gets an open container in his truck. I get a gun.
Does that apply to soccer moms with kids in the car? Like the article notes, children in the car are a greater impairment on the driver than a 0.08 BAC is.
How do prescription medicines fit in with how they enforce drunk driving laws.
It's not illegal to drive on oxycontin, right?
"Try restating the question this way: Why should we impose lower penalties for non-alcohol-related driver error?"
Because of premeditation.
Someone who knows they have a medical condition, epilepsy or similar, is told not to drive and loses their license, don't they?
But someone who had no idea, who has an episode behind the wheel, is treated differently.
There are any number of reasons to end up with an accident, even simply misjudgement or a distraction. It's why we call it an accident.
Sleep deprivation. Someday there'll be tickets for Driving While Tired.
Because of premeditation.
So if you knowingly bring your kids with you to the supermarket and get in an accident, should you be jailed? You could have hired a babysitter and left them at home; instead, you chose to put others' lives at risk by bringing them with you.
"Does that apply to soccer moms with kids in the car? Like the article notes, children in the car are a greater impairment on the driver than a 0.08 BAC is."
True.
Although transporting people (or stuff) is the whole purpose. If using a vehicle for its intended purpose counts, then we probably ought to all walk.
I would be happy just reverting to a more reasonable BAC. .08 is a ridiculous standard, one dreamed up by teetotalers rather than people honestly concerned with highway safety.
"Does that apply to soccer moms with kids in the car? Like the article notes, children in the car are a greater impairment on the driver than a 0.08 BAC is."
So if that and other distractions are equally or more dangerous, how DO you justify only the DUI having draconian punishment for actually hurting no one?
Using your phone while driving is a ticket, but a DUI is serious punishment, not to mention making you automatically responsible for any accident regardless of if it was your fault or not. You can be sitting still and get broadsided, but if you are 0.08% you're gonna pay.
I have friend that after having a few drinks had a very minor bump with another car on a side street at under 5 mph. No damage at all to her car and just a broken light on the other. The "victim" immediately lawyer-ed up and claimed all kinds of injuries. Despite having a history of disability fraud, this chronically unemployed person got 50 grand from my friend's insurance company (the policy's limit). My friend at 50 years old had never had an accident, ticket or claim. Two glasses of wine can get very expensive with lawyers around.
Although transporting people (or stuff) is the whole purpose. If using a vehicle for its intended purpose counts, then we probably ought to all walk.
Drivers with a 0.08 BAC are using the vehicle for its intended purpose of transportation, too.
If you want them to walk (or take the bus, or whatever), why can't people with little kids do the same? It is no skin off my nose whether the little rug rats make it to Chuck E Cheese on time...
Drunks already drive even with the utterly draconian penalties we have now, so the notional encouragement of bad decisions by a lack of draconian "specific rules" against drunk driving seems like it must be thoroughly marginal, and of low import.
Arguing against nuance because people can't handle nuance, well... unconvincing.
Pointing out that drunks make bad decisions because they're drunk doesn't explain why a hard ban that doesn't stop them already is preferable to a soft ban that would equally not stop them... and won't put people who don't actually drive dangerously in jail.
I don't give a damn if someone is drunk, if they can keep the car between the lines and not hit things.
And if they can't, I don't care what the reason is, I want them to not drive.
MayBee: As far as I know, every state has a "driving while impaired" statute; even OTC cold medicine that "impairs" your ability makes you a lawbreaker.
Which is more fair, actually, than a .08 limit that gets you sent to jail via a checkpoint with no obvious impairment; being impaired enough on OTC meds (to pick the most egregious example) to get pulled over for it is more impaired than a whole lot of people are at .08 BAC.
I'd rather have no BAC limit than the crap we have now, if only to poke MADD and the New Prohibitionists in the eyes.
"If using a vehicle for its intended purpose counts, then we probably ought to all walk."
What if driving home from the bar, or a party is the intended purpose of you getting a car? I bet there are more trips to and from those activities than for soccer.
Also, what is the purpose of cars being able to go over 55 mph?
I would be happy just reverting to a more reasonable BAC. .08 is a ridiculous standard
With the caveats I mentioned above that no one should be pulled over unless they are driving illegally/recklessly, I would be ok with harsher terms when an accident occurs that involves death if impairment can be proved at a much higher limit than .08.
I would favor a small portable driving test device that test reaction time and accuracy. If you drive erratically or the cop suspects impairment then you must pass a test on the device. It does not matter why you fail, you just proved you can't drive right now. You can be tested if you are caught on the phone too. If you can pass while talking on your phone you go free.
MayBee: As far as I know, every state has a "driving while impaired" statute; even OTC cold medicine that "impairs" your ability makes you a lawbreaker.
Which is more fair, actually, than a .08 limit that gets you sent to jail via a checkpoint with no obvious impairment; being impaired enough on OTC meds (to pick the most egregious example) to get pulled over for it is more impaired than a whole lot of people are at .08 BAC.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm thinking.
I made the same argument about Wisconsin's new no-texting law. It's just more extraneous paper, since distracted driving was already an offense. Punish the results, so we don't have to codify each and every cause.
The blood alcohol content to be presumed intoxicated should be made 1.5 and not the 0.8 that MADD and the DUI industry has continued to get re-set to fleece folks.
The problem with so much legislating is that much of it becomes an industry like DUI is. Big money being made by all kinds of people, but when as in this case lawyers get a big big benefit, it becomes impossible to undo. Which is exactly why we say "First, kill all the lawyers". You can't get anything fixed without that first step. When do we start?
It is a fact that some folks get looped on a half-glass of wine, while others can drink a liter with less than the same impairment.
What we need is a steering wheel or somesuch that measures the degree of impairment or inattention due to texting, etc.
The law of unintended consequences is alive and well: Here in Texas, some 25 years ago, we could drink while driving. We got off work, bought a six-pack, opened one and drank it all the way home. We couldn't possibly end up impaired by alcohol in the 20 minute drive home.
Now, since we can't drink while driving, we stop off for happy hour near work, drink one, two, ..., and then drive home. And we don't mind if we end up running over a liberal.
When some drunk plows into you at 80 mph because he didn't quite see the medial strip, then it's OK.
Revenant likes playing the contrarian, but anyone who wants to give drunks free access to the roads with no penalty for the damage they cause is welcome to do so.
But allow the rest of the human race the opportunity to defend themselves.
Like the potheads use the "medical" marijuana angle, I support medical open container as the best means to assist me with my driving disability.
Before I make a road trip, I would stop at a depensory to pick up my medical beer for the drive.
@Joanna: NJ passed a law in 2003 that explicitly makes it a crime to drive while drowsy. Same penalties as DUI. Of course, commercial drivers have long had laws that would pull their licenses if they drive while overly tired.
Most states will hit someone who falls asleep while driving with a DWI, explicit law or not
I'm all for abolishing a lot of laws, but this isn't where I'd start.
First, we have to stop the idiots that keep trying to make more laws, like the prosecuter and former chief of police in Butler County, Ohio, just north of Cincinnati, who want to require you have a permit to have a party for 10 people or more.
Seems like the police most often think a police state is the answer to our problems.
Drunk driving wasn't a public problem until the 70s.
It was a personal moral failing.
Joseph Gusfield has a book on it.
Discovering and taking ownership of new public problems is a route to political power.
His later books formalize the procedure as a matter of rhetorical moves.
As I recall, drinking and driving isn't particularly dangerous - most of the time most of the drunks make it home just fine, as an occasional talk show host will still remark on, talking about his mis-spent youth.
The political advantages of a new public problem are too great to resist though, and so we get more and more of them.
A friend's remark about MADD: if it weren't for the drunks, most of them wouldn't even be mothers.
When some drunk plows into you at 80 mph because he didn't quite see the medial strip, then it's OK.
I don't think it's ok if anyone plows into me at 80 mph for any reason.
It will be hard to change our current DWI laws (though I think the current .08BAC is ridiculous). BAC is objectively measurable with reasonable accuracy. It's a nice bright line law.
Nonetheless, it's a bad law because BAC is not perfectly correlated with judgement and reaction time. It's not like .08 has the same effect on everyone.
Maybe when we get to the day when everything a cop sees while on duty is recorded and there is a visual record of the entire observation and arrest we could use a standard based purely on behavior. Until then I don't think there is a chance.
I'm sure the downside of drunk driving laws far outweighs the upside in pure economic terms but what about the children?
I agree DWI is about pandering to the Christian Right's alcohol/drug-phobia then about any kind of logic.
Putting people in jail for increasing risk to other people in somewhat difficult to define ways is worse than making free riders pay for their healthcare.
This is insane. The US has some of the most liberal DUI laws in the world. And Wisconsin..the alcoholic capital of US has the most liberal laws in this country. Why the fuck is this even a topic for discussion? We need to crack down hard in the US and even harder in Wisconsin.
And yes, there are many other distractions. I'm a walker and if I'm on a road sans sidewalk I ALWAYS walk facing traffic so I can see what's coming toward me. But DUI is a different ballgame.
Good idea or not it ain't gonna happen, so next subject please.
When some drunk plows into you at 80 mph because he didn't quite see the medial strip, then it's OK.
It is neither more nor less "ok" then when some distracted mommy plows into me at 80mph because she was distracted by her toddler's screaming fit. Both people should go to prison, or neither. Both, obviously, are civilly liable for hurting me.
People should be responsible for the harm they do, not the harm you imagine them doing. That's the difference between freedom and the nanny state of the Bush/Obama crowd.
"But DUI is a different ballgame."
The validity of that assertion is the whole point of the discussion.
The US has some of the most liberal DUI laws in the world.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy. "Everyone else is does X" does not imply "X is a good idea".
A .08 level and checkpoints is a different issue isn't it?
I do agree that there should be no ticket whatsoever unless someone has done something that they'd get pulled over for.
But the idea that it's all the same if someone drinks or if they are old or if they are distracted by another person in the car or if they know they have seizures and decide to drive anyway or if they are texting, doesn't make much sense to me.
And no doubt someone with young, noisy, active children in the car is more impaired than the normal person is at .08 blood alcohol.
The problem that I have with that argument is that choosing to drink and then drive or choosing text while driving is a very different thing than having children. You can, after all, decide not to text *this time* when you're on the road. You can decide not to have a couple of drinks *this time* before you drive someplace. Children can't be put off until later. Children are also human members of the community and have a right to be where people have a right to be.
This opinion is based on anecdotal evidence collected by me over a 45 year period of dealing, one way or another, with owi laws. A 'given' BAC reading of a woman has 3.5 times the accident result [and resulting charges] of a man. Women, as a rule, have less tolerance for alcohol than men. A 'non drinker' at 0.05 is more likely to cause an accident than a heavy drinker at 0.15. So you end up with the female consuming 3 glasses of wine rear-ending someone. Deal with it, smile.
I think MADD will be against it.
Children can't be put off until later.
They can be left at home until later.
Parents bring them with them because it is convenient to the parents, not because society needs them out and about in public.
Children are also human members of the community and have a right to be where people have a right to be.
Well, no, not really. If they did, parents could be thrown in jail for refusing to give their kids a ride to the movie theater.
Because drunk people think, "Gosh, my blood alcohol is over .08; I ought not to drive this eve."
So, even instaidiot was shown that drunk driving caused three times as many accidents as sober drivers, he still considers it an infringement on his rights not to be able to drive drunk.
What a moron.
And showing that talking on the cell phone, even hands free, is about the same as driving legally drunk, is an argument for banning talking on the phone while driving, not for eliminating drunk driving laws.
My attorney has advised me not to comment on this blog post. D'oh!
Drunks already drive even with the utterly draconian penalties we have now, so the notional encouragement of bad decisions by a lack of draconian "specific rules" against drunk driving seems like it must be thoroughly marginal, and of low import.
Except for the inconvenient fact that we have cut the rate of alcohol related accident deaths from 25,000 to 10,000, which accounts for 3/4 of the overall drop in highway deaths (from about 50,000 to 30,000).
You can, after all, decide not to text *this time* when you're on the road. You can decide not to have a couple of drinks *this time* before you drive someplace. Children can't be put off until later.
You can also teach your children not to be disruptive in the car.
You don't have to give little Lola her juicebox *this time*.
A .08 level and checkpoints is a different issue isn't it?
I do agree that there should be no ticket whatsoever unless someone has done something that they'd get pulled over for.
We agree on this.
I'm not against drunk driving laws, really. Just the way they are enforced and the way the limits are set.
I also don't think someone who is caught driving over the legal limit should have his life ruined by overly punitive laws.
"Well, no, not really. If they did, parents could be thrown in jail for refusing to give their kids a ride to the movie theater."
More likely parents will be thrown in jail for leaving them home.
Trust me, really, parents do NOT bring their small children with them because it's convenient. Are you insane?
"You can also teach your children not to be disruptive in the car.
You don't have to give little Lola her juicebox *this time*."
I'm a car nazi. Not only does Lola not get her juice box, little Lola had darn well better not kick the seat or thump the door or fight with darling Cedric. My kids weren't particularly well behaved, but the car rules were absolute.
I'm a car nazi. Not only does Lola not get her juice box, little Lola had darn well better not kick the seat or thump the door or fight with darling Cedric. My kids weren't particularly well behaved, but the car rules were absolute.
Then people who choose not to so raise their kids are making a choice to be distracted, no? Making a choice to drive more dangerously than some legal drunks.
This must be Wonderland..where's the fucking Mad Hatter?
The morons here are talking theory and out of their asses, not in that order. How about a dose of reality. Most city police depts. have ride along programs. Sign up for a Friday/Saturday night shift. Witness the carnage caused by drunk drivers. I think @ least a few of you are educable. Some of you are hopeless..and almost certainly alcoholic.
This is the most frustrating thread on this blog I've encountered. And that includes the Sandusky threads w/ peophile apologists.
I'm tempted to stick with this discussion just to see if ndspinelli can be reduced to epileptic fits.
I know I read an article within the past few years stating that research shows that there is no correlation between accidents and lower levels of blood alcohol. Higher levels, yes. And there is no reason to make new drunk driving laws, seeking to criminalize lower and lower levels of alcohol consumption. The drunk driving accidents/deaths that are still happening are being caused by the hard-core, recidivist drunk-off-their-ass types, who certainly will not be deterred by lowering the criminal threshhold to .08 or less.
Revenant, Epileptic seizures are the synapses and electrical currents in your brain going haywire. You're obviously immune.
And professor, your assertion that this was a "daring" suggestions was obviously full of shit. I'm taking the daring position..sanity based on investigating too many of these harmless DUI cases. And, since I work for insurance companies in civil litigation I end up having to defend alcoholic assholes like the ones posting here. God forbid someone you love gets injured or killed by a drunk driver. Your posts will be different then, now won't they. Maybe not Revenant, like the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, he's humming, "If I only had a brain."
RigelDog, You may a sane point and one worthy of discussion. The priority should be to get the repeat offendors in prison. If a repeat offendor[more than 3 convictions] kills someone 30-life w/o parole.
And it's apparent God made sure Revenant couldn't reproduce.
Alcohol is totally legal. Sorry about that you alcohol haters.
Conflating drinking any alcohol with being a drunk just shows that you have never experienced living among responsible adults.
The Baptists, Methodists and Mormons who treat alcohol as a forbidden food are the ones who produce the binge drinkers that they hate, usually in their own family.
The Catholic, Episcopal and Presbyterians who treat drinking alcohol as a beneficial thing to be done in public settings never go crazy and binge drink and then sneak home. Why should they?
The BAC test is very easy now. The 1.5 BAC line does a fine job of eliminating Drunk Drivers.
Now leave the good people alone.
traditionalguy, Drinking and driving drunk are 2 very different topics. I love to drink and I think drug laws are insane. But driving impaired kills people and should not be tolerated. If my saying going back up to .10 is acceptable, will the sane people who have a conscience say "Yeah..that's fair and righteous." But, as RigelDog pointed out, it's the repeat offendors who have levels > .20 that are the biggest threat. Anyone want to defend them?
The .08 limit ensures higher food prices at restaurants. Huh? Yes, that is true. People today when they are out drink far less then their parents did. And restaurants traditionally made money on the drinks. The .08 is draconian- it can be blown after two glasses of wine in a short period of time. Most drunks who end up in deadly accidents blow a 1.8 or higher.
People are forgetting how bad it was.
I know that MADD has gone through some mission creep, and they've gone a little overboard in their anti-booze zealotry, but they came into existence for a reason -- too many parents losing their children to drunk driving accidents. They helped to bring the problem to the public eye.
As a result of their efforts, and the public's willingness to really throw the book at convicted drunk drivers, we're now having this discussion about OTHER kinds of distractions.
Eliminating drunk driving laws would be a huge step backwards. To make such a suggestion is to be ignorant of history.
Disclaimer: I lost a close family member in a drunk driving accident, so my opinion is not without bias.
Behold the Experienced Drunk Driver
With Skills Exceeding Those of McGyver
Driving His Car From the Bar
Holding His Drink and Cigar
A Shit-Faced Straight-Laced Conniver.
According to figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Safety Council, more Americans die each year from falling down stairs (1300) than die while driving a car and being hit by the DUI driver of another car (1100). A commonly cited figure of DUI related deaths in the US each year is 11000, which comes from NHTSA data for 2009. However, the large majority of the deaths (7300 of them) are of the DUI drivers themselves, another 1800 deaths are of passengers in cars driven by DUI drivers, 1100 are of occupants of OTHER cars, and approximately 700 are of pedestrians.
This summer I was at the stop light at the mini-freeway in New Richmond. When the light turned green I started to pull out in the street, when I decided to look to my left, and saw a middle aged woman going through the red light, talking on her cell phone and laughing her ass off. She swerved to miss me, and never slowed down. Middle of the afternoon.
Cell phone use is illegal while driving in a whole lot of places.
No, it isn't. 'Hands-free' cell phone use is still allowed even though the studies show this is just as dangerous. It's the conversation itself that's distracting, not holding the phone.
a couple of years ago I bought a 60 dollar breathayzer which I carry in my truck--If I have been drinking, I always check my BAC--if its .08 or over, I wait.
Its a very convenient little device.
Oh and traditionalguy, I would advise you not flirt w/ that "1.5 BAC" you mention. Because you'll be dead!!
RogerJ, Good point. We bought a breathalyzer for our son. It cost ~$60 and is reliable.
I know that MADD has gone through some mission creep, and they've gone a little overboard in their anti-booze zealotry
The problem is, it's next to impossible to even address this. But it should be addressed.
NDSpinelli--a personal breathalyzer is also a good instrument for telling you what you can drink--now I have the capacity for alcohol of an irish dockworker, but I am five 10, 180 pounds--and after actually measuring my blood alcohol, three beers, or three glasses of wine, in a two hour span puts me at point 8.
As clint eastwood said, a man has to know his limits.
"Then people who choose not to so raise their kids are making a choice to be distracted, no? Making a choice to drive more dangerously than some legal drunks."
Yes, but the fact that children are in the car doesn't show that, nor does an accident prove that bad or irresponsible parenting was involved.
And even well trained children have days, just like adults do, when they can't quite cope.
Driving drunk is like firing a rifle in a residential neighborhood. Most of the time, you won't hurt anyone, but occasionally, someone else will pay with his or her life.
Peter Hoh - a person killed by a drunk driver or a distracted driver is just as dead. Explain to me why one deserves more punishment then the other. I mean hell, I've driven home over the legal limit many times without threatening anyone. In fact my concentration was sharpened because of that fact!
Alex, where's the part where I said what you've asked me to defend?
Peter - you single out drunk driving as the biggest evil or something. My contention is distracted drivers probably kill far more people. The stats surely back me up on that.
Distracted driving is just as risky, stupid, and dangerous as drunk driving.
Happy?
Roger, You're correct, and food is also a factor. I bet if you're eating food w/ those drinks you could have 4-5 in 2 hours. My old man taught me how to drink and gamble. And, one of his first rules w/ drinking was you had to eat something..even if it's just some pretzels, but some protein is better. Nuts, lamb's tongue, hard boiled eggs, sausage, were all staples in bars where I grew up.
How is drunk driving different than distracted driving...
This is where Instapundit and so many begin with their errors. The point with distractions is that they cannot be planned...that's what makes them distractions in the first place. Driving under the Influence is like driving in a fog. The fog is always there you cannot avoid it. Now, in a fog, a deer can run into the road, a child into the street, a sudden traffic hazard or traffic, or bird flying in your face, or a call on your cell phone that you just have to take (so you tell yourself). BUT if you drive while intoxicated all those distractions are layered on top of the intoxication. That's how it's a difference.
As to .08% look, medical studies consistently show mental impairment across the population spectrum. Now, while some say "looking at Europe = logical fallacy" the point is Europe is relying on something...perhaps science...The US has one of the highest per se cut offs at .08% . .08 and .10 are both pretty good medically evidenced cutoffs for impairment. It's all well and good to talk about "politician conspiracy" until it's you or someone you love, then...you get to the truth. None of it has to do with raging Baptists or Methodists, it has to do with the fact, that you can get drunk in home...just don't drive drunk why should my family be put at risk, because you CAN'T LIVE without getting smashed in public. (.08% by the way corresponds to more than 4 drinks ON BOARD) which means at least 4+ beers in the first hour for the average weight male with 1 trailing each subsequent hour.
"Also, what is the purpose of cars being able to go over 55 mph?"
Well, mine does it because I like to get where I want to go in a reasonable time. Not to mention the hazard I would be on the 70mph and 75mph highways we have where I live.
"Revenant likes playing the contrarian, but anyone who wants to give drunks free access to the roads with no penalty for the damage they cause is welcome to do so."
What comments are you reading? Has anyone said anything about no penalty for anyone causing damage?
Yes, it IS easier to argue a strawman.
"People are forgetting how bad it was"
Not me. I remember the weaving and swerving on a friday and sat night. Those people would blow a 2.0 and up. And since people love to see statistics, look to see what the BAC is for almost all serious (injury or death) accidents. To catch a .08 driver, you need road blocks, as most are hard to pick out by observing their driving. Look for the limit to be reduced again. Which is why driving with .08 is a statuary crime, rather than actually driving erratically. Anyone who gets pulled over for bad driving and blows a .02 should be arrested for DUI as they demonstrate an impairment.
Sounds very interesting! I will check this out! insurance websites
Our government had banned on drinking and driving. It is really very nice law but the people can't understand and they are always breaking the rules of government and doing this type of crime which is not good for the drunker lives and also innocent people lives. I think our government should have to take more and strict action on this type of crime.
Toronto Criminal Lawyer
That might be true that there are many devices in a car will effect the drivers ability like children, talking with friends or passengers, cell phone, this all are related with emotions of ones life, this will play a bigger role than drunk driving if the person hearing any influential news.
but "abolish drunk driving law" doesn't make sense at all.
Drivers Ed Georgia
Your affect is totally appreciative and newsy.
Cherry Hill NJ
I guess this message is totally unparalleled. speeding citation
Engrossing substance I haven't been finished specified info in a lasting time. traffic lawyer Philadelphia
I think a big problem with the current laws is the fact that people are so different. Some people are better drivers than others drinking or not. Some people are drunk with one beer some are not with 5 beers. I do not think our current system takes in account different circumstances, people or cases. There are so many DWI cases you never hear about where no one was even involved in reckless driving let alone accidents or injuries. WE do not hear about these cases because the Media and MADD does not focus on these cases. There current laws are really just a big money maker and they violate people's rights just to get convictions. In my state they instituted mandatory blood draws without even warrants. Luckily our State supreme court said these laws were unconstitutional. But, when I hear prosecutes say if it bleeds, it pleads and half of these cases did not even involve reckless driving. I think we are way off course. We used to did not get warrants or draw anyone's blood unless there was an accident. I think the punishment is a little stiff for victimless crimes. We have Intoxicated Assault, Intoxicated Manslaughter to cover injuries and accidents. I really think it would make more sense to focus on is this person driving recklessly or not. It really is not supposed to be about making money or getting as many convictions as possible.
Post a Comment