Another fucking drunk driver

[Montcalm]

Drove for miles with one of the victims body in the windshield Driving is not a right its a priviledge dammit.

[Ghost Rider]

Holy crud

The guy was imbedded, and the man was too drunk to stop?!

[Superman]

For those of you who know me, you know that I am a weight lifter and a wrestler. Yes, I actually have taken steroids as well. Anyway, I have a drunk driver story.

A while ago, while I was on my "on" cycle for taking steroids, I was driving on the freeway at about 10 pm. All of the sudden, this little red sports car zips past me at about 95, cuts in front of me (almost hits me) and zips past another car that was in the next lane. The other car honked at it. I was pretty juiced up, and I lost it. I was so angry that I was almost seeing in shades of red. I followed this car for about 6 or 7 miles before it stopped in the parking lot of a Wal Mart. I stopped my car, ran up to the it, and saw a blonde sitting in the front driver seat. I punched the driver side door, and put a huge dent in it, yelling at her. She jumped and spilled the beer that was on her lap. I walked away.

Anyway, that was the end of my steroid use. That was probably the only time I experienced that kind of rage, but that was enough.

[Montcalm]

They never have sentence severe enough to stop the problem of drunk drivers,i heard today they talk about sueing DDs but some say that will also punish the DDs families,what is your opinion on this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They never have sentence severe enough to stop the problem of drunk drivers,i heard today they talk about sueing DDs but some say that will also punish the DDs families,what is your opinion on this.

I think that's a fucking stupid idea.....

These people are ADULTS, when are we going to start making ADULTS be responsible for themselves.....lock this fucker up forever, or execute him....either way get the drunks off the street and make an example out of them so others will think twice.

[Stormbringer]

I think anyone that drinks and drives ought to be tried for capital murder. The person made the choice to drink and drive and took a life. They deserve to rot at the least.

If you're caught driving drunk jail time and the loss of your driving priviliges in perpetuity is fair.

[Vertigo1]

They never have sentence severe enough to stop the problem of drunk drivers,i heard today they talk about sueing DDs but some say that will also punish the DDs families,what is your opinion on this.

Suing them won't do any good. What needs to be done is the following:

On first offense, if no one is injured, your driving license is revoked for 10 years. No possible appeal.
Second offense, if no one is injured, your driving privilges are gone for good with no possibility for appeal.

If someone is injured fatally in either offense, you get the death penalty. No appeal. If the injury is non-fatal, you pay for all expenses. Medical and psychiactric. You will also pay for all damage caused by the accident, not only to the other person's vehicle, but to repair any damaged property nearby caused by your stupidity.

I know its harsh, but something has to be done about these assholes.

[Darth Wong]

Treat a first-offense DUI as reckless endangerment and lock the guy up for years. The police would throw the book at some guy who drove around randomly shooting at peoples' houses; why shouldn't they throw the book at some guy who careens around threatening to crush people with a 3000 lb guided missile?

[Lord Pounder]

DUI's are a serrious offence. Sadly it's one never enforced properly. ANY drunk driver should have his or her license revoked PERMINANTLY. Any one who actually kills another person while drunk at the wheel should be jailed for life. No appeals no sentence review.

[Solid Snake]

I have a solution to drunk driving:
Firing squad.

[Tosho]

Ah... the sound of rifle fire in the morning.

[The Third Man]

Why all these proposals for draconian blanket punishments for all drunk-in-charge crimes? Surely there's verious degrees of seriousness which should have appropriate sentences attached? Even crimes like killing people are sentenced this way with a whole range of charges ranging from legitimate self-defence, through manslaughter and various degrees of murder.

There's a world of difference between trundling along a deserted country road a couple of mg per litre over the limit and doing triple-figure speeds through a crowded city-centre with a bottle of spirits worth inside one's system.

What about other dangerous self-inflicted conditions such as tiredness, medicinal-drug side-effects, extreme emotional states?

[Vertigo1]

"Why all these proposals for draconian blanket punishments for all drunk-in-charge crimes?"

Tell me, have you ever had family or friends killed by a drunk driver?

[Darth Wong]

Why all these proposals for draconian blanket punishments for all drunk-in-charge crimes?

Because it's a serious fucking crime! Do you need it spelled out for you?

Surely there's verious degrees of seriousness which should have appropriate sentences attached? Even crimes like killing people are sentenced this way with a whole range of charges ranging from legitimate self-defence, through manslaughter and various degrees of murder.

Correct, which is why most people here propose a similar scale from jail time to death penalty depending on the severity of the infraction. The difference between that and the existing system is that the base penalty is much higher, that's all.

There's a world of difference between trundling along a deserted country road a couple of mg per litre over the limit and doing triple-figure speeds through a crowded city-centre with a bottle of spirits worth inside one's system.

The latter deserves the death penalty; the former deserves prison time. We merely propose that as a replacement for the latter receiving a slap on the wrist and the former receiving nothing, which is the current system.

What about other dangerous self-inflicted conditions such as tiredness, medicinal-drug side-effects, extreme emotional states?

Most of those are inadvertent. It's bad judgement to drive while tired, but you did not deliberately ingest something to make you tired and then get into the car, nor did you take medicines with the intent of causing side-effects you were unaware of. A drunk driver DID deliberately ingest something with the INTENT of raising his blood alcohol level prior to getting in the vehicle. He has no excuses.

[Slartibartfast]

Who cares about driving laws? Here we all know that the correct reaction to an accident or running over is to get the fuck out of there before the police arrives, because they'll have your ass in the jail for years without appeal or even your family see you, even if somebody killed himself by jumping off a bridge and landing on your parked car while you weren't inside (like a friend of mine who's still doing time)

[Rubberanvil]

I have a solution to drunk driving:
Firing squad.

I prefer the strapping the drunk into a car and putting said car through the compacter.

[The Third Man]

Tell me, have you ever had family or friends killed by a drunk driver?

Yes, and therefore I can quite see why people might justifiably seek to increase the punishment for the most serious cases, ie deaths plainly caused by alcohol consumpton.

But I recognise that a justice system falls down unless it is seen to be fair. Treating all cases alike when the seriousness of the circumstances can be vastly different is patently not fair.

How can the punishment for a serious case have meaning if you apply it equally to the most trivial case?

Because it's a serious fucking crime! Do you need it spelled out for you?

It can be a serious crime. It can also be a trivial offence - the punishment system should be flexible enough to reflect this.

I see your post makes some distinction between serious forms of the offense and trivial; others don't.

the latter receiving a slap on the wrist and the former receiving nothing, which is the current system

Is nothing truly the case in Canada? UK law says that any drunk-in-charge (that's 'in-charge' - you don't even have to be in the vehicle) punishment MUST result in a driving ban, the length of the ban is up to the courts (based on the seriousness), as are additional fines and imprisonment.

Most of those are inadvertent

But the act of using a motor vehicle when affected isn't inadvertant. To my mind using a vehicle with the knowledge that you are unfit due to being excessively tired, or from suffering the side-effects of drugs etc is equivalent to using the vehicle with the knowledge that you are unfit due to drink.

they'll have your ass in the jail for years without appeal ... even if somebody killed himself by jumping off a bridge and landing on your parked car

Truly?
This is a fine example of what I'm on about - a justice system that loses meaning because it seeks to apply blanket punishments regardless of the circumstances of the alleged offence. Ultimately your "running away from the scene" reaction is the result of a system that isn't perceived to be fair - people who would otherwise be law-abiding cease to be so.

[Phil Skayhan]

Tell me, have you ever had family or friends killed by a drunk driver?

Yes, and therefore I can quite see why people might justifiably seek to increase the punishment for the most serious cases, ie deaths plainly caused by alcohol consumpton.

But I recognise that a justice system falls down unless it is seen to be fair. Treating all cases alike when the seriousness of the circumstances can be vastly different is patently not fair.

How can the punishment for a serious case have meaning if you apply it equally to the most trivial case?

The justice system would be fair because even the "trivial" case of "merely" driving while under the influence is a serious situation that puts the driver's life and anyone else's on the road at risk in all cases.

Can you give me a circumstance where that is not true?

Because it's a serious fucking crime! Do you need it spelled out for you?

It can be a serious crime. It can also be a trivial offence - the punishment system should be flexible enough to reflect this.

I see your post makes some distinction between serious forms of the offense and trivial; others don't.

the latter receiving a slap on the wrist and the former receiving nothing, which is the current system

Is nothing truly the case in Canada? UK law says that any drunk-in-charge (that's 'in-charge' - you don't even have to be in the vehicle) punishment MUST result in a driving ban, the length of the ban is up to the courts (based on the seriousness), as are additional fines and imprisonment.

A driving ban/suspension is an inconvienance at worst. Current punishments do not reflect the seriousness of the crime.

For example:

(1)For the first offense, to a fine of not less than $250.00 nor more than $400.00 and a period of detainment of not less than 12 hours nor more than 48 hours spent during two consecutive days of not less than six hours each day and served as prescribed by the program requirements of the Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers established under subsection (f) of this section and, in the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 days and shall forthwith forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of not less than six months nor more than one year. For a first offense, a person also shall be subject to the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.).

(2)For a second violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00, and shall be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 30 days, which shall be of such form and on such terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 48 consecutive hours, which shall not be suspended or served on probation, nor more than 90 days, and shall forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for a period of two years upon conviction, and, after the expiration of said period, he may make application to the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles for a license to operate a motor vehicle, which application may be granted at the discretion of the director, consistent with subsection (b) of this section. For a second violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.) or shall have his registration certificate and registration plates revoked for two years under the provisions of section 2 of P.L.1995, c.286 (C.39:3-40.1).

(3)For a third or subsequent violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of $1,000.00, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 180 days, except that the court may lower such term for each day, not exceeding 90 days, served performing community service in such form and on such terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances and shall thereafter forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State for 10 years. For a third or subsequent violation, a person also shall be required to install an ignition interlock device under the provisions of P.L.1999, c.417 (C.39:4-50.16 et al.) or shall have his registration certificate and registration plates revoked for 10 years under the provisions of section 2 of P.L.1995, c.286 (C.39:3-40.1).

Even for a third offence a peson would likely serve less than three months in jail. Considering the danger these people pose to themselves and others, these penalties are too light.

Most of those are inadvertent

But the act of using a motor vehicle when affected isn't inadvertant. To my mind using a vehicle with the knowledge that you are unfit due to being excessively tired, or from suffering the side-effects of drugs etc is equivalent to using the vehicle with the knowledge that you are unfit due to drink.

Being tired does not affect either your judgment or motor skill to the same extent as being drunk (times like these I wish we had a medical doctor as a member of the board). Accidents do occur as a result of exhaustion but not with the regularity of drunk driving. A person who fails to read or understand the warning labels on their medication and drives can be charged with driving while under the influence.