The penalty for drunk driving

Simple enough topic: What is your opinion of how drunk drivers should be punished?

I was talking to a friend of mine who opined that drunk drivers should get zero strikes or chances, that instead of a fine and license suspension or blowing into a breathalyzer to start the ignition of a car, the penalty should be a minimum of one full year in prison with no parole. Then my friend further recommended a stiff community service stretch to boot.

My experiences as a former prison guard have let me see many inmates who were sentenced to five years but only after three strikes/drunk driving offenses.

Because I’m not a hypocrite, I fully admit that I’m guilty of having driving while intoxicated and I’m ashamed of myself. I’ve realized that I was young and stupid and should have my head examined for being so reckless.

What say you?

How stiffly should drunk driving laws be enforced?

The numbers speak for themselves on how many people die and kill others from drunk driving. It’s reckless and stupid.

No penalty. People hit other people all the time, drinking or not. Statistics are skewed because of very low legal limits, on hits that probably would have happened anyways from bad judgement even if they didn't have that one or two beers.

Let people do whatever they want, drinking, carrying around guns, bazookas, crack, whatever. Stop trying to prevent crimes before they happen. Save the weight of the law for people who cause harm.

You shouldn't drink n drive.... that's why I don't drive 😛

In the eighties, I used to drink drive all the time, it was socially acceptable, got breathalyser a few times always got green or amber. I was lucky, as the world turned I stopped. Now, I see it as socially irresponsible tbh.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
In the eighties, I used to drink drive all the time, it was socially acceptable, got breathalyser a few times always got green or amber. I was lucky, as the world turned I stopped. Now, I see it as socially irresponsible tbh.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I hate to say this but..... you sound white.............

Originally posted by cdtm
No penalty. People hit other people all the time, drinking or not. Statistics are skewed because of very low legal limits, on hits that probably would have happened anyways from bad judgement even if they didn't have that one or two beers.

Let people do whatever they want, drinking, carrying around guns, bazookas, crack, whatever. Stop trying to prevent crimes before they happen. Save the weight of the law for people who cause harm.

Pretty much this.

Anyone should do whatever they want to do when they want to. It should be legal.

I don't see the point in sending someone to prison for drunk driving (that hasn't yet resulted in a accident, mind you). Seems like that's ultimately a bigger burden on tax payers. An automatic 6-12 months license suspension seems like a fair punishment. I think that's how it already is in most states, which is why some people advocate for harsher punishments, but the thing to keep in mind is that- like in the case of most crimes and punishments- harsher punishments don't really correlate with less crime. The punishment for DUI can be having your balls chopped off and people will still drive drunk, purely because they don't think they'll get caught in the first place. And with DUIs especially, when you're drunk or high the first thing that goes is your judgement, which exasperates your lack of giving a **** about the potential consequences of your actions.

If society wants to see larger decreases in drunk driving, the actual long-term solution is to push harder for automated vehicles and expanded public transportation systems. American car culture and the idea that you must drive your own car everywhere all the time is the largest contributing factor toward accidents.

Originally posted by cdtm
No penalty. People hit other people all the time, drinking or not. Statistics are skewed because of very low legal limits, on hits that probably would have happened anyways from bad judgement even if they didn't have that one or two beers.

Let people do whatever they want, drinking, carrying around guns, bazookas, crack, whatever. Stop trying to prevent crimes before they happen. Save the weight of the law for people who cause harm.

Ban the consumption of alcohol, with the defiance of this ban being punished with death. 👆

They tried that already, it just increased the amount of drinking people do and empowered the mafia.

Automatic prison sentences seems unrealistic to me, prison has largely proven to be ineffective. I'd like to see some harsh community service implemented, make them help out on a trauma ward or have them assist roadside accident crews, I figure at least a handful will get the picture then.

Originally posted by Impediment
Simple enough topic: What is your opinion of how drunk drivers should be punished?

I was talking to a friend of mine who opined that drunk drivers should get zero strikes or chances, that instead of a fine and license suspension or blowing into a breathalyzer to start the ignition of a car, the penalty should be a minimum of one full year in prison with no parole. Then my friend further recommended a stiff community service stretch to boot.

My experiences as a former prison guard have let me see many inmates who were sentenced to five years but only after three strikes/drunk driving offenses.

Because I’m not a hypocrite, I fully admit that I’m guilty of having driving while intoxicated and I’m ashamed of myself. I’ve realized that I was young and stupid and should have my head examined for being so reckless.

What say you?

How stiffly should drunk driving laws be enforced?

If you have 10 drinks in you, then a hefty fine for the 1st offense then increasing fines and suspension after.

If you cause property damage, fine and suspension.

If you hurt or kill someone, felony charges added to the penalty for property damage.

durink

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
In the eighties, I used to drink drive all the time, it was socially acceptable, got breathalyser a few times always got green or amber. I was lucky, as the world turned I stopped. Now, I see it as socially irresponsible tbh.

Originally posted by cdtm
No penalty. People hit other people all the time, drinking or not. Statistics are skewed because of very low legal limits, on hits that probably would have happened anyways from bad judgement even if they didn't have that one or two beers.

Let people do whatever they want, drinking, carrying around guns, bazookas, crack, whatever. Stop trying to prevent crimes before they happen. Save the weight of the law for people who cause harm.

Is it safe to assume that CDTM is drunk driving as he posted this?

Personally I feel every car should come with one of those things where u need to pass a breathalyzer to start it.

People eating at Sushi and Italian Restaurants would be in serious trouble.

Originally posted by Impediment
Simple enough topic: What is your opinion of how drunk drivers should be punished?

I was talking to a friend of mine who opined that drunk drivers should get zero strikes or chances, that instead of a fine and license suspension or blowing into a breathalyzer to start the ignition of a car, the penalty should be a minimum of one full year in prison with no parole. Then my friend further recommended a stiff community service stretch to boot.

My experiences as a former prison guard have let me see many inmates who were sentenced to five years but only after three strikes/drunk driving offenses.

Because I’m not a hypocrite, I fully admit that I’m guilty of having driving while intoxicated and I’m ashamed of myself. I’ve realized that I was young and stupid and should have my head examined for being so reckless.

What say you?

How stiffly should drunk driving laws be enforced?

People who DWI are motivated to do so by several things (with one or more applying):

1. They have a substance abuse problem and DWI is just a natural outcome of being intoxicated or under the influence - they still have to TRY to function as a normal member of society but their drug abuse issues are getting in the way of real life.

2. They are selfish and lazy. They'd rather save a buck or two than wait to clear the drugs or get a cab/uber/lyft.

3. They are drunker than they think they are and they don't have a breathalyzer to verify their intoxication. This can apply to other drugs, as well. It's an honest mistake and no one around them is trained to give them a sobriety test to verify if they are safe to drive. It's a dangerous guess and, hey, they've driven MANY times before while under the influence and had no problems, so they should be okay this time, right?

4. They encountered a shitty situation and wanted to quickly get home to safety. While under the influence. And they were emotionally distraught.

Some scenarios involve more than one of the above. And I think a prosecutors job should be figuring out which of those scenarios apply and then making a decision from there. If #2, I agree with your friend - sort of. They need to be fined heavily, put through a rehab program of some sort, and be evaluated by 2-3 mental health professionals to determine whether or not they are safe to drive again. No incarceration and they should have that breathalyzer thing installed if it was alcohol. If it was drugs, random drug tests where a probation officer shows up, unannounced, and gets a drug test completed. At lest 4 during a 6 month period.

I could go into more details as I have met many people that fall into 1 or more of those 4 scenarios.

Originally posted by Badabing
I think the punishment should fit the crime. If you have 2-3 drinks in you but it's considered over the "legal" limit, I'm saying that's BS.

If you have 10 drinks in you, then a hefty fine for the 1st offense then increasing fines and suspension after.

If you cause property damage, fine and suspension.

If you hurt or kill someone, felony charges added to the penalty for property damage.

durink

That's pretty much the system in most places, now. In the US that is.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I don't see the point in sending someone to prison for drunk driving (that hasn't yet resulted in a accident, mind you). Seems like that's ultimately a bigger burden on tax payers. An automatic 6-12 months license suspension seems like a fair punishment. I think that's how it already is in most states, which is why some people advocate for harsher punishments, but the thing to keep in mind is that- like in the case of most crimes and punishments- harsher punishments don't really correlate with less crime. The punishment for DUI can be having your balls chopped off and people will still drive drunk, purely because they don't think they'll get caught in the first place. And with DUIs especially, when you're drunk or high the first thing that goes is your judgement, which exasperates your lack of giving a **** about the potential consequences of your actions.

If society wants to see larger decreases in drunk driving, the actual long-term solution is to push harder for automated vehicles and expanded public transportation systems. American car culture and the idea that you must drive your own car everywhere all the time is the largest contributing factor toward accidents.

Are you asserting that impairment does not meaningfully inhibit your ability to operate a car safely?

I'm saying the legal limit on impairment is bs.

I mean, think about it. We operate under impaired conditions all the time, drink or no. If you're working 12 hour shifts, night shifts, 60 hour weeks, still have to look after a family, and get only five hours a night maximum, that's impairment. I'd bet that's way more impaired then a well rested guy wity three 5 abv beers in him

Then there's studies done on the effects of, shall we say, a delicate condition of one of the sexes. Turns out the effects on cognitive functions are the same as being under the influence.

But statistics don't care, if you're even .01 over the limit and get in a fender bender, must have been the booze.

As if they can control for other factors, which is impossible.