Drew, Jourdan and I were talking politics tonight. Naturally we got onto the topic of what Drew would do if he had his own country, and the way the government would work etc
( Read more... )
First off, I agree that the current laws are too lax, but they are getting better in some states. But I completely disagree that people would stop driving drunk due to higher jail time. Simply based on statistics where drivers face 5yrs jail time for being a repeat offender, they still drive drunk, it’s like they don’t give a shit and nothing will change that.
“Over half of drivers arrested for drunk driving in the nation are repeat offenders, according to a 2003 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study. Two thirds of drivers with suspended licenses still drive. To combat the problem, the foundation recommended laws that allow the impounding of vehicles, the removal of license plates on arrest, the mandating of ignition interlocks, the use of special plates to identify repeat offenders and the use of checkpoints to verify licenses. The foundation also recommended prohibiting vehicle registration by drivers without valid licenses. Forty-six states have passed ignition interlock laws, according to MADD. Interlocks are devices that measure a driver's blood alcohol and prevent a car from starting if alcohol is detected.” Source http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/drunk/
Frankly though, prison time for a first offense where the person either is pulled over drunk or hits a mailbox etc, is impractical in all regards. But prison time would def be required if they had a fatal accident (and not a small 5yr sentence). Also, for repeat offenders who still have not hit anything, a large penalty should be enforced with jail time of 5yrs or more.
Naturally there will be those who smarten up and take it very seriously. But around half of them wouldn’t. Partly because they would be drunk at the time and not in the right frame of mind to judge their ability to drive.
We both know people who have been obviously too drunk to drive, but in their mind they are perfectly capable when they are clearly incapable of driving and only make it home based on luck or God’s grace. You fail to account for these people in your laws, and that is a fatal error on your part. The police need to have the ability to stop someone who clearly exhibits the signs of being drunk and incapable of driving.
The driver we followed that night was well beyond .8, and those are the people who would need to be pulled over and stopped for the safety of themselves and other innocent people. You need to be pro-active in these situations, not re-active, otherwise it is by definition anarchy………..then again what would you expect from libertarians ……history has shown it doesn’t work, just look at Chile and how it failed horribly. Why? Because it’s based on the assumption that people will do the right thing………which is blind and naïve.
In your country you assume that the kids will be too scared to drink and drive simply because of the penalty, but that’s an assumption that has no foundation. Yes there will be those like you and I who don’t even touch a drink………but there are a lot of people out there who do not share our views or ability to judge when we are or are not drunk. By making it legal to drive drunk (provided you don’t crash) you will in turn create anarchy. More people will in turn drive after drinking (although for most it will be after only a few drinks and won’t really be drunk) because there is no longer a fear of being pulled over. People inherently think they are invincible and that tragedies wont happen to them, they will roll the dice and drive home. Many times these people will have already had too much to drink to discern their ability to drive. It only compounds the problem.
“Over half of drivers arrested for drunk driving in the nation are repeat offenders, according to a 2003 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study. Two thirds of drivers with suspended licenses still drive. To combat the problem, the foundation recommended laws that allow the impounding of vehicles, the removal of license plates on arrest, the mandating of ignition interlocks, the use of special plates to identify repeat offenders and the use of checkpoints to verify licenses. The foundation also recommended prohibiting vehicle registration by drivers without valid licenses. Forty-six states have passed ignition interlock laws, according to MADD. Interlocks are devices that measure a driver's blood alcohol and prevent a car from starting if alcohol is detected.”
Source http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/drunk/
Frankly though, prison time for a first offense where the person either is pulled over drunk or hits a mailbox etc, is impractical in all regards. But prison time would def be required if they had a fatal accident (and not a small 5yr sentence). Also, for repeat offenders who still have not hit anything, a large penalty should be enforced with jail time of 5yrs or more.
Naturally there will be those who smarten up and take it very seriously. But around half of them wouldn’t. Partly because they would be drunk at the time and not in the right frame of mind to judge their ability to drive.
We both know people who have been obviously too drunk to drive, but in their mind they are perfectly capable when they are clearly incapable of driving and only make it home based on luck or God’s grace. You fail to account for these people in your laws, and that is a fatal error on your part. The police need to have the ability to stop someone who clearly exhibits the signs of being drunk and incapable of driving.
The driver we followed that night was well beyond .8, and those are the people who would need to be pulled over and stopped for the safety of themselves and other innocent people. You need to be pro-active in these situations, not re-active, otherwise it is by definition anarchy………..then again what would you expect from libertarians ……history has shown it doesn’t work, just look at Chile and how it failed horribly. Why? Because it’s based on the assumption that people will do the right thing………which is blind and naïve.
In your country you assume that the kids will be too scared to drink and drive simply because of the penalty, but that’s an assumption that has no foundation. Yes there will be those like you and I who don’t even touch a drink………but there are a lot of people out there who do not share our views or ability to judge when we are or are not drunk. By making it legal to drive drunk (provided you don’t crash) you will in turn create anarchy. More people will in turn drive after drinking (although for most it will be after only a few drinks and won’t really be drunk) because there is no longer a fear of being pulled over. People inherently think they are invincible and that tragedies wont happen to them, they will roll the dice and drive home. Many times these people will have already had too much to drink to discern their ability to drive. It only compounds the problem.
Reply
Leave a comment