1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

MADD at one of their own

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I don't see that as a problem. Those people would probably be drinking and driving no matter what the legal limit was, and I get to feel morally superior to them when they get a DUI on their record. It's a win-win.

    That said, I don't believe that ratcheting up the punishments would make much of a dent on how often people do it. These are people who genuinely believe there's nothing wrong with what they are doing and that they won't get caught. The punishment they might be facing doesn't enter into the decision-making process.
     
  2. secretariat

    secretariat Active Member

    I see you're in Trolling Mode tonight.

    If you can point to a single post I've made at any time in which I say someone caught driving under the influence of marijuana is somehow less of an idiot than someone who gets a DUI, then you might have a point. But you can't. So you don't.

    Do I think someone smoking a bowl in the privacy of his or her home is less egregious than someone who drives under the influence? Yes. Yes, I do. Unassailable among those who still possess their full mental capabilities.
     
  3. Pringle

    Pringle Active Member

    I think you are just flat wrong here. Of course the punishment would make a difference. Degrees of punishment are an indication of society's level of disapproval. That kind of thing does take with people.

    It seems like you really want to frame this as a moral issue, when the truth is that people generally act rationally and respond to stimuli.
     
  4. Mark McGwire

    Mark McGwire Member

    That argument of Yankee Fan's might trump Hooligan in the Hypocrisy Detective Fail category. And count me in with Bubbler. I'd be for stricter penalties if they went back to .10 or even .12. As it stands now, they can't raise the penalties much, because they hand out DUIs like freaking traffic tickets. Two drinks will push plenty of people near or over .08. Hell, if we weren't such a fatass country, one drink would do it for most folks. That ain't drunk.
     
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I don't think people act as rationally as you are assuming. We are inherently irrational creatures, prone to all kinds of biases. Optimism bias is a big one. These people aren't sitting down and doing risk/reward utility calculations based on their chances of making it home without being caught vs. the punishment if they do vs. the cost calling a cab. They are assuming they won't get caught.
     
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    When it was suggested that people who receive government benefits should have to pass drug tests, you flipped out.

    But, regardless of whether or not that's a good idea, is there anything more selfish than a parent who is poor enough that they require public assistance blowing money on drugs?

    And, again, I'm not sure that drug testing is the perfect answer to the situation, but you expressed no moral outrage at the person using drugs.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    In your rush to disagree with me, you didn't notice that I agree with you -- nearly word for word.
     
  8. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    Actually, there should be zero tolerance of drunk driving. Tolerating it over the years has gotten us where we are now.

    Maybe you'd be a zealot too if a drunk driver killed someone close to you, YF. There but for the grace of God go any of us ... either getting behind the wheel after having too many drinks, or getting that dreaded late-night knock on the door telling us a loved one isn't coming home again - ever.

    Don't be so quick to judge. Those of us who have been personally affected by drunk driving have our reasons for feeling the way we do.
     
  9. Mark McGwire

    Mark McGwire Member

    Which is swell. There were two separate sentences there. One where I gave my opinion on the topic at hand, and one where I mocked your poor logic in your reply to Big Red. Try to keep up.
     
  10. Pringle

    Pringle Active Member

    So why have higher crimes for felonies then? Why have the death penalty for premeditated murder?

    Higher penalties = Deterrence.

    Why would this action be any different? You really don't think that someone would think twice about drinking and driving, or how they approach their evening, if they knew they would get a higher punishment than a few alcohol classes and a fine?

    You are the person who lectures people on here about how they shouldn't believe what their gut tells them watching baseball. But when it comes to this, you are making huge generalizations about the people who commit DUIs, that they are just "those kind of people" who won't respond to deterrent stimuli. Seems very inconsistent.
     
  11. Mark McGwire

    Mark McGwire Member

    Fatal flaw with that reasoning is that you're talking about a crime people commit when they've been drinking, meaning acting rationally and responding to stiumli are generally out of the picture. More and better public transportation will do more to drive down DUI than any amount of penalty.
     
  12. secretariat

    secretariat Active Member

    And now YankeeFan is just talking out of his ass, dredging up an old, old argument that has exactly fuck-all to do with DUIs, in an attempt to goad me into doing ... I'm not exactly sure what. So I'm through on this one. You all have fun.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page