Got another drunk off the road last night.

[IndyDave1776]

Sorry for your loss. Most of those that think of DUI as a "victimless crime" have never lost a loved one or seen the results of a crash up close.

I have a hard time forming an opinion on how to deal with this one. The concept of making driving drunk a crime in itself on one hand is not quite so extreme as charging me with rape simply for having working testicles but at the same time is handing out a punishment in which no harm has been done which is contrary to the standards of common law and seems to be partway down a slippery slope which will lead us to excessive government control of things the government has no business meddling in. Personally, I lean toward decriminalizing drunk driving and substituting harsh penalties for damage actually done. I am not sure it would work as I might envision it, but not only do I see a need to protect the innocent, but a need to do so without further eroding what was once a free republic. Perhaps a workable compromise would be to decriminalize public intoxication so that a drunk could walk or ride a bicycle or a horse (who can keep himself out of harm's way without input from the rider) without the threat of legal sanction hence offering more alternatives that would encourage the intoxicated to find alternate means of conveyance.

 

[public servant]

So what you're saying is it should be OK to get as drunk or high as one wants and drive...and if they make it home without killing someone or causing property damage...no harm no foul?

Caller: "911? I think this guy is drunk and he's almost hit several cars and pedestrians. He's going to kill someone."

911 operator: "Call us back when he does."

Perhaps a workable compromise would be to decriminalize public intoxication so that a drunk could walk or ride a bicycle or a horse (who can keep himself out of harm's way without input from the rider) without the threat of legal sanction hence offering more alternatives that would encourage the intoxicated to find alternate means of conveyance.

Another workable compromise would be for the drunk to call a cab.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I have a hard time forming an opinion on how to deal with this one. The concept of making driving drunk a crime in itself on one hand is not quite so extreme as charging me with rape simply for having working testicles but at the same time is handing out a punishment in which no harm has been done which is contrary to the standards of common law and seems to be partway down a slippery slope which will lead us to excessive government control of things the government has no business meddling in. Personally, I lean toward decriminalizing drunk driving and substituting harsh penalties for damage actually done. I am not sure it would work as I might envision it, but not only do I see a need to protect the innocent, but a need to do so without further eroding what was once a free republic. Perhaps a workable compromise would be to decriminalize public intoxication so that a drunk could walk or ride a bicycle or a horse (who can keep himself out of harm's way without input from the rider) without the threat of legal sanction hence offering more alternatives that would encourage the intoxicated to find alternate means of conveyance.

So in a nutshell you have never lost anyone to a drunk driver and have never been up close to a crash involving a drunk where someone was killed.

 

[actaeon277]

I have a hard time forming an opinion on how to deal with this one. The concept of making driving drunk a crime in itself on one hand is not quite so extreme as charging me with rape simply for having working testicles but at the same time is handing out a punishment in which no harm has been done which is contrary to the standards of common law and seems to be partway down a slippery slope which will lead us to excessive government control of things the government has no business meddling in. Personally, I lean toward decriminalizing drunk driving and substituting harsh penalties for damage actually done. I am not sure it would work as I might envision it, but not only do I see a need to protect the innocent, but a need to do so without further eroding what was once a free republic. Perhaps a workable compromise would be to decriminalize public intoxication so that a drunk could walk or ride a bicycle or a horse (who can keep himself out of harm's way without input from the rider) without the threat of legal sanction hence offering more alternatives that would encourage the intoxicated to find alternate means of conveyance.

I think walking around with testicles is not like driving drunk.
I think walking around with testicles is like driving.

A difference similiar to...
Walking around with a gun in your holster.
vs.
Walking around with a gun in your hand, pointed at someone's chest, saying, "I'm gonna kill you!!!". (Does this person not go to jail because no one was hurt?)

 

[IndyDave1776]

So in a nutshell you have never lost anyone to a drunk driver and have never been up close to a crash involving a drunk where someone was killed.

I think walking around with testicles is not like driving drunk.
I think walking around with testicles is like driving.

A difference similiar to...
Walking around with a gun in your holster.
vs.
Walking around with a gun in your hand, pointed at someone's chest, saying, "I'm gonna kill you!!!". (Does this person not go to jail because no one was hurt?)

Gentlemen, perhaps I did not explain my point with sufficient clarity. Whenever considering the proper construction of any law, or whether there should even be such a law, my first question is how it can be done without permitting an expansion of government power or setting a bad precedent that can bleed over into other issues. This is something for which I feel compelled to invest a great deal of care and concern before forming an opinion. Would I like to see drunk driving disappear from the face of the planet? Absolutely. Am I willing to take the attitude that the end justifies the means, regardless? Not a chance in the universe. It is easy to have such responses as yours if you are content to simply address ending the immediate problem issue. It gets more difficult when you consider our rapidly eroding liberty in this country. Consider the following quote:

In 1960, when I came out of prison as an ex-convict, I had more freedom under parole supervision than there's available... in America right now.
- Merle Haggard

Now, are you so sure that you want to be so cavalier about supporting a given law based on arbitrary standards and aimed at pre-crime? Again, I would like to have this problem solved, but not at the expense of the expansion of government authority that comes with the present solutions.

 

[actaeon277]

Once again. I agree, I do not like "pre-crime" or expansion of powers.
But driving drunk is like carrying a pistol by pointing it a someone and screaming.

 

[Bounty Hunter]

I have a hard time forming an opinion on how to deal with this one. The concept of making driving drunk a crime in itself on one hand is not quite so extreme as charging me with rape simply for having working testicles but at the same time is handing out a punishment in which no harm has been done which is contrary to the standards of common law and seems to be partway down a slippery slope which will lead us to excessive government control of things the government has no business meddling in. Personally, I lean toward decriminalizing drunk driving and substituting harsh penalties for damage actually done. I am not sure it would work as I might envision it, but not only do I see a need to protect the innocent, but a need to do so without further eroding what was once a free republic. Perhaps a workable compromise would be to decriminalize public intoxication so that a drunk could walk or ride a bicycle or a horse (who can keep himself out of harm's way without input from the rider) without the threat of legal sanction hence offering more alternatives that would encourage the intoxicated to find alternate means of conveyance.

Believe me, I am all for Govt. staying out of our buisiness, but because some people cannot govern themselves, or their actions, sometimes it has to be done for them. (That is why we have prisons)

Obviously from my post, this subject is a touchy one because of a personal experience, but it would be the same opinion even if it did not happen.

The law is there to protect the innocent, and also the drunk who decided to get behind the wheel, and put his life and others in harms way.

It is not an issue of excusing irresponsible and dangerous behavior, by giving them another means to justify the actions, (Bike, Horse). They already let people who have lost their license due to their actions, ride scooters which do not have to be licensed. This also causes issues, and does not deal with the irresponsible action in the first place, other than giving them an out.

I have been a part of a few of these threads on here. There are a few who seem to believe that drunk driving in of itself should not be a crime until there is a accident or someone has to die. Then it is OK to charge them with a crime, but what good does that then do to the victims family. That simply is not rational.

Did I feel better that I watched the POS, that killed my brother walk into prison? Yes. Did it bring my brother back, or take away the fact he had a four year old daughter with no Dad? NO. Now though, since he killed someone, it is OK to charge him with drunk driving. Thank God he killed someone, or we would have never got him! (Someone died here!!)

The first thing to stop this would be to not drive while intoxicated, but that is obviously a clouded and distorted decision, because of the alcohol.

I have found that alot of times, that people have this line of rational, have had DUI's, and are mad that they got caught (Sorry, not saying you did ). Because they acted irresponsibly and got caught, but did not hurt or kill anyone, they have had their rights stomped on.

What about the rights of the innocent people that do get hurt or killed, because someone thinks that they should have the freedom be able to drive drunk? Should the person that they just killed have the right to drive, and not be killed by the drunk driver? YES

Sorry they were all killed, and wrecked countless other lives officer, but at least I was able to drive irresponsibly, and with out thought for anyone but myself. Am I free to go?

I believe if you are caught driving drunk, that you never get that privilege again, ever!

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Gentlemen, perhaps I did not explain my point with sufficient clarity. Whenever considering the proper construction of any law, or whether there should even be such a law, my first question is how it can be done without permitting an expansion of government power or setting a bad precedent that can bleed over into other issues. This is something for which I feel compelled to invest a great deal of care and concern before forming an opinion. Would I like to see drunk driving disappear from the face of the planet? Absolutely. Am I willing to take the attitude that the end justifies the means, regardless? Not a chance in the universe. It is easy to have such responses as yours if you are content to simply address ending the immediate problem issue. It gets more difficult when you consider our rapidly eroding liberty in this country. Consider the following quote:



Now, are you so sure that you want to be so cavalier about supporting a given law based on arbitrary standards and aimed at pre-crime? Again, I would like to have this problem solved, but not at the expense of the expansion of government authority that comes with the present solutions.

I don't understand how the current laws for DUI are based on arbitrary standards and aimed at pre-crime, or how they may be involved in rapidly eroding liberty, or how they may lead to an expansion of government power. Please explain.

 

[Hammerhead]

I see a lot of room for interpretation with that concept. There are some people who would call in if they saw someone having a sneeze-induced wobble and otherwise driving without any issue. Even most of us who are no fans of traffic enforcement in most cases are happy to be relieved of those who are indeed dangerous.

Sockmonkey was once pulled over on her way into work because she was having a coughing fit and had thus accelerated the car above the speed limit. It was only a couple of miles over the limit and she wasn't around any other traffic. The officer was understanding of this when she went into another rather heavy coughing fit as he stood there asking why she was speeding.

As far as the discussion about DWI/DUI, crime, and victimless crimes being an overreaching government, one must remember that it probably isn't the fact that you're drunk that allows for the officer to pull you over (unless you're driving one of those cars in the drunk driving commercials that are full of "alcohol") it's the reckless driving that you're being nabbed for.

Officers don't always have the luxury of nabbing those who drive drunk after they've observed the driver leaving the bar. If you're calling in a drunk driver (or they find you on their own) you're really calling in a reckless driver that could easily be having a seizure or some other issue. If the police then observe the erratic behavior, they'll pull that person over to ascertain the cause.

DUI/DWI is one of those "it's also illegal to be doing this while driving recklessly" type of charges. I don't believe it's a prelude to "pre-crime" type enforcement. Spilling your hot coffee on your lap while driving isn't a crime, but could easily provide the driver with the cause for driving erratically as if they were impaired, even temporarily (i.e. that short window you happen to see them and report their behavior).

I'm not condoning DUI/DWI, nor am I saying that the charge should go away. I'm simply stating that it's akin to being charged with "with a deadly weapon" when you've "assaulted" someone with a bat.

 

[HandK]

.

 

[Whosyer]

Calling a cab is an excellent option, for those that live in a town with cab service. Giving someone a PI for leaving their car, and walking home, is BS.

 

[lrahm]

I got one off the road last night also. Worked late, already 2 and a half over on a CPS call. She pops up in front of me weaving all over. She had just came from a Christmas party. So now it's 3 and a half over. Tired puppy this morning.

 

[public servant]

I got one off the road last night also. Worked late, already 2 and a half over on a CPS call. She pops up in front of me weaving all over. She had just came from a Christmas party. So now it's 3 and a half over. Tired puppy this morning.

Great job.

But someone will be along shortly telling you that you should have just left them alone.

Giving someone a PI for leaving their car, and walking home, is BS.

Unless they draw attention to themselves by being a drunken dumbass it probably won't be an issue.