F Drunk Drivers - HARD

My question would be how elastic is the incidence compared to stiffer penalties. I'm sure that data is out there. I'm all for doing something. But I want to make damn sure that it has truly deterrent effect, not just something to make us feel good for doing something. Look at the war on drugs. Inelasticity has doomed it. In fact, stiff penalties have done more harm than good. Is this that? Or something else? I don 't know the answer. But it's probably out there, discernible in readily available statistics.

 

It's "smug" to suggest that a lose-your-license-for-life scheme for first-time offenders might be a little draconian? And, besides, do more harm than good? What would speeding carry? A slap on the wrist of five years?

 

Leaving aside the degree of punishment, should we be punishing people for actions or consequences? Isn't an impaired driver who crashes into a wall and hurts no one really just lucky, compared to one who hits and maims a person?

 

We've always punished consequences differently. Think about murder/attempted murder.

 

Legalize weed. It's a glorious feeling. Not inclined to drive recklessly, too. 8)

 

I'm aware. And we punish them differently in this case. I never have found it just.

It's unfortunate that BAC is such an unreliable analysis point but the only one we have. I think it would be better to create more penalty benchmarks based on degrees of drunkenness rather than focus on consequences that are largely matters of luck. But I don't know of a way to do that fairly.

I do think laws allowing harsher punishment for collisions are mostly fair, and to a degree that helps illustrate the difference between the driver who's at .07 and the driver who's at .21.

 

As stupid as it sounds, one of the biggest impediments I see to people not calling a cab or hitching a ride after having more than anticipated is the logistics of getting the car back/getting to work the next day. They (hell once or twice me) should have planned better. But a sermon isn't solving the practical problem at hand.

 

Saying that you care about what is best for society and that those who disagree with you do not is most definitely smug.

 

Whenever I go to a 5:01 with current or former co-workers - the only time I go to bars - I don't drink. Simple as that. Problem solved. And, nobody gives me a hard time about it.

When I was about to graduate from high school, I drove a friend home because I was less drunk than he was. He lived on the far west side of town. I lived on the far east side. As I was cutting through downtown, the street became one-way going the other way, and it caught me by surprise. Uh, I worked on that street. When I realized where I was and that I was too drunk to drive, I got really scared. Thank God I made it home OK.

Never again.

 

It was quite clear that Mr. Creosote thinks that punishment of the individual is the leading value here. A lot of people would. I wasn't being "smug." I was trying to articulate why I come out on the opposite side from him in a centuries old philosophical divide. I thought I was quite respectful because, well, he made a respectable point.

Out of respect for the current situation, however, I request that if you wish to further pursue this personal objection, you do it via PM.

 

I stand by my point. If you want to respect his post, don't insist that he doesn't care about what is best for society. Some people, myself included, believe that harsher punishments is what is best for society. I'm not vengeful. I want people to stop doing this shit.

I did a story once on a local official who got busted for DWI. The man was absolutely beloved in town. Never had any trouble with the law before. Involved in all kinds of charity work. By all accounts, he is the real deal and a great guy. I called him before it ran and he begged me not to run it. Here he had gotten busted for endangering the lives of others and all he cared about was the damage to his political career. I couldn't help but feel bad about running it, though holding it back was never an option.

That is just one of many examples that show me that people simply don't take the dangers of drinking and driving seriously enough and harsher punishments are the only way I can think of to fix that.

 

A friend of mine just got his third OWI. The second time was a felony OWI, so in addition to the financial ramifications, he forfeited his license and was on home confinement for 6 months (only allowed to go to work, basically). It temporarily changed his behavior, in that he moved closer to our favorite watering holes, so he could walk home. But he eventually moved across town and many of us thought it was only a matter of time before he caught another charge.