DUI checkpoint discussion

[Lusankya]

Does anyone else think that the US antipathy towards licence compliance inspections might be one of the reasons why the anti-gun crowd goes for weapon and magazine bans, rather than things like proper licensing and storage laws?

No. Even if we take it as axiomatic that licence compliance inspections are a good law, not being able to pass a good law is no excuse for passing a bad law. Using part of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban as an example, if someone believes that restricting rifles with pistol grips makes people safer, they are stupid. If someone doesn't believe that restricting rifles with pistol grips makes people safer but they support the law anyway, they are corrupt. In either case, it's entirely their own fault that they support a bad law, and not their opponents'.

I'm not saying that the proposed laws are good. What I'm saying is that if the national dialogue when it comes to gun legislation is such that a large number of effective options are taken off the table from the get go, then you shouldn't be surprised when people turn to legislating stupid stuff instead. America has a large number of gun deaths, which is an issue that needs to be addressed, and when you have 30 dead six year olds, people will try to do something. Personally, I don't think laws banning certain classes of weapons don't make people any safer, but they don't make people any less safe, either. And at least complete bans are something that can get enforced relatively easily. The hardliner crowd might not be passing these laws, but they are responsible for the fact that they have created an environment where these kinds of laws are the only ones that the anti-gun crowd thinks are worth their time.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that we can say that it's penalty-free to have constant regulatory checking and rechecking of whether I'm complying with laws. So I'm ambiguous about whether we're better off this way in the US, or not. It's not clear-cut to me.

Well, there are ways to implement regulation so it has minimal impact on individual privacy - for checks of home gun safes, for example, 1-2 weeks notice could be given, so that gun owners have ample warning to get their meth lab (or whatever other evidence of illegal activities they have in the gun safe room) out of view. Alternatively, they could legislate a single inspection, upon the purchase of the safe, with gun license eligibility being in part based on what kinds and numbers of guns could be safely stored in the safe. Neither of these would be as effective as random checks, but they would at least ensure that gun owners had proper storage facilities and (in the first case) ensure that they were aware of how to store the guns properly.

Problem is, when we're discussing these laws in the context of a country where random breath testing is controversial, the solutions I just mentioned would seem to be pretty much off the table, even as discussion points.

Duchess is working under the presumption that she is trustworthy until proven otherwise. That unless someone has cause to believe that she's specifically screwing up, there's no reason she should have to spend time and energy dealing with complications in the form of regular inspections and checkups.

My own past experiences with this mindset- as I see it, it comes out of an extension of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." If I'm not guilty of something, the argument goes, I shouldn't be punished- and having to sacrifice time and money is seen as a punishment.

If someone takes the opposite mindset- I am not trusted until proven reliable- it's a whole different story. And the two attitudes are very hard to merge or reconcile, because they differ on that deep level.

Honest question: Do all Americans take things so personally? I've had the cops randomly pull me over for a breathalyser, and I didn't view it as a statement on whether or not the cops trusted me - I saw it as the cops protecting me from other people. If the cops care enough to pull me over when they see me getting into a car alone in the CBD at 1am, then they'll care enough to do the same to someone who actually is drunk - and that makes my life safer. Similarly, when my mum's boyfriend has the cops call to inspect his son's gun safe, he doesn't view it as him and his son being viewed as untrustworthy, but rather as part of a general policy to reduce gun crime.

If you're going to view things like this in terms of your own guilt vs innocence, then I can see how you would find it offensive, but government regulation isn't about judging the individual - it's about having a consistent enough level of enforcement that it creates a culture of responsibility.

[Alyeska]

Honest question: Do all Americans take things so personally? I've had the cops randomly pull me over for a breathalyser, and I didn't view it as a statement on whether or not the cops trusted me - I saw it as the cops protecting me from other people. If the cops care enough to pull me over when they see me getting into a car alone in the CBD at 1am, then they'll care enough to do the same to someone who actually is drunk - and that makes my life safer. Similarly, when my mum's boyfriend has the cops call to inspect his son's gun safe, he doesn't view it as him and his son being viewed as untrustworthy, but rather as part of a general policy to reduce gun crime.

A very large number of Americans do, yes.

I don't drink. I have at most one alcoholic beverage in an entire year. Which means I don't drink and drive. So getting asked to prove I am not drunk when I wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with is offensive. I just want to be left the hell alone. I'm not breaking any laws, so don't interfere with my life. I shouldn't have to prove my innocence on the whim of a cop. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

[Lusankya]

See, as an Australian, I don't view breathalysers as any different from, say restaurant health inspections.

Not that it's my problem anyway - just another reason not to move to America. I just think the possible interplay between attitudes to licencing inspections and gun control to be fascinating.

[weemadando]

Honest question: Do all Americans take things so personally? I've had the cops randomly pull me over for a breathalyser, and I didn't view it as a statement on whether or not the cops trusted me - I saw it as the cops protecting me from other people. If the cops care enough to pull me over when they see me getting into a car alone in the CBD at 1am, then they'll care enough to do the same to someone who actually is drunk - and that makes my life safer. Similarly, when my mum's boyfriend has the cops call to inspect his son's gun safe, he doesn't view it as him and his son being viewed as untrustworthy, but rather as part of a general policy to reduce gun crime.

A very large number of Americans do, yes.

I don't drink. I have at most one alcoholic beverage in an entire year. Which means I don't drink and drive. So getting asked to prove I am not drunk when I wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with is offensive. I just want to be left the hell alone. I'm not breaking any laws, so don't interfere with my life. I shouldn't have to prove my innocence on the whim of a cop. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Social contract.


That's probably as far as this argument is ever going to go, given how some people feel public safety shouldn't involved them.

[Hillary]

Honest question: Do all Americans take things so personally? I've had the cops randomly pull me over for a breathalyser, and I didn't view it as a statement on whether or not the cops trusted me - I saw it as the cops protecting me from other people. If the cops care enough to pull me over when they see me getting into a car alone in the CBD at 1am, then they'll care enough to do the same to someone who actually is drunk - and that makes my life safer. Similarly, when my mum's boyfriend has the cops call to inspect his son's gun safe, he doesn't view it as him and his son being viewed as untrustworthy, but rather as part of a general policy to reduce gun crime.

A very large number of Americans do, yes.

I don't drink. I have at most one alcoholic beverage in an entire year. Which means I don't drink and drive. So getting asked to prove I am not drunk when I wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with is offensive. I just want to be left the hell alone. I'm not breaking any laws, so don't interfere with my life. I shouldn't have to prove my innocence on the whim of a cop. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

That sort of attitude worked perfectly well with Enron and the banking system, didn't it....."You don't need to bother us with regulations and shit, we're not doing anything wrong."

[Simon_Jester]

Honest question: Do all Americans take things so personally? I've had the cops randomly pull me over for a breathalyser, and I didn't view it as a statement on whether or not the cops trusted me - I saw it as the cops protecting me from other people.

No.

Then again, I do think we could do worse as a society than to have a situation like that. Where people do care intensely about being left alone as long as they're not specifically under suspicion, but put in the effort to justify it. That is, they're not personally lazy or stupid about other people's safety, they're taking all reasonable precautions. They accept responsibility if something goes wrong, but they're working pretty damn hard to be sure it doesn't.

You may recall what Duchess said about refusing to drink within 12 hours of getting behind the wheel. That's what I call taking one's personal don't-drive-drunk rules seriously.

If everyone followed much the same rules, we wouldn't have a meaningful drunk-driving problem in the first place and the checkpoints would be unnecessary.

Unfortunately, all societies have enough incompetent clowns to make this harder than it should be. People who refuse to take responsibility, or are just too dumb or short-sighted to take precautions. And yet when you go out of your way to trawl for those people- there are real benefits. But I would think it understandable that responsible people get annoyed when they have to put up with being treated as if they were irresponsible.

If you're going to view things like this in terms of your own guilt vs innocence, then I can see how you would find it offensive, but government regulation isn't about judging the individual - it's about having a consistent enough level of enforcement that it creates a culture of responsibility.

Yes.

People who are responsible without the police telling them could reasonably be irritable, when they're constantly being checked up on because of all the people who aren't.*

If Duchess values her privacy that much, I can kind of understand and get behind that. A quiet, competent life lived without being constantly judged for XYZ-compliance has its charms, and I think she has rights (and good reasons) to want that.

*Again, I freely admit that there are a lot of bozos who think they're responsible, resent intrusions, but aren't competent enough to live properly without them. It's a real problem, and I'm not pretending the solution is an easy thing if you do try to preserve that 'quiet-competent-noninterfered' lifestyle

---

Social contract.
[smugdog]
That's probably as far as this argument is ever going to go, given how some people feel public safety shouldn't involved them.

Is that how the social contract works? "My faction wants this, so your faction should shut the fuck up because mine is obviously right?"

Social contracts are negotiable, that's the point of having them in the first place. If Alyeska's objections to the system are purely personal, the social contract forces him to play along or find another place to live. But if a hundred million people feel the same way... they represent a large chunk of the society the contract was meant for. That comes with a right to some say in how it's written, and what rights it gives them in exchange for what responsibilities.

If 99% of Americans were anarcho-libertarians, the social contract would not justify forcing all Americans to live as if they were social democrats. Even if the social democrats are right and the anarcho-libertarians are wrong.

That sort of attitude worked perfectly well with Enron and the banking system, didn't it....."You don't need to bother us with regulations and shit, we're not doing anything wrong."

There are two separate problems here. One is not having inspections to make sure the laws are being followed. The other is (effectively) not having laws at all, or not having laws that will be enforced.

Enron was a scandal but not a national disaster, because they broke existing laws that were very clearly on the books. Once the evidence got out, those laws could be enforced, the company broken up, the CEO of the company sent to jail, and so on. Everyone knew what was supposed to happen to a corporation that committed massive fraud, and the only surprise was just how big Enron got before they were caught. Which said bad things about our policing, but could be fixed just by changing some policies slightly. The problem was in the details, not the basic approach.

The bank collapse of 2008 was a national disaster, because for all practical purposes there were no laws. Most of the worst things the banks did, that created the most economic risk and damage, were pretty much legal. They may have committed some crimes, but the crash could have happened without the crimes. Even when the banks' actions were illegal, the laws on the books were not enforced in a way that would make the banks fear the consequences of getting caught, because said banks were 'too big to fail.'

That is a problem with the basic approach we have to regulation and financial law. Closer observation of the banks might help, sure. But what turns it from a corruption scandal into an ongoing kleptocratic nightmare is the refusal to enforce existing laws, or make new ones, to punish the bad behavior we're seeing. Otherwise, what good does it do to catch the banks playing dangerous games with billions, if the official policy amounts to a scolding and a bailout?

[Lusankya]

See, even you are falling into the same mindset, even if you don't realise it. You discuss it in terms of being judged and being asked to justify one's innocence - except for people in other societies (say Germany, Australia, etc.) we don't see it as judgement at all. The officer who asks you to breathe into the breathalyser isn't assuming that you're drunk. They're asking you to live up to your responsibility as a citizen, up there on the same level as not drink driving in the first place. We're no more being asked to prove our innocence than a hotel guest who is asked to pay in advance is being asked to prove that they won't run out on the bill.

And of course, the problem with things like cars and guns is that if you don't enforce responsibility, then the ones who suffer the consequences are often people who are entirely innocent. If a three year old accidentally shoots themselves with their parents' unsecured gun, then the one who pays the ultimate price for the parents' irresponsibility is the child. Likewise, drunk drivers often cause crashes which kill other people. I don't support compliance inspections because I feel I need them to keep myself honest. I support them because if transgresses are caught by inspections, then it means the price for irresponsibility is more likely to paid by the irresponsible, rather than any innocent bystanders.

[Thanas]

If people are so childish as to see the very act of a test to prove that you are in fact a responsible person as an affront to your personal honor then I wonder how the USA manages to function at all.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I shouldn't have to prove my innocence on the whim of a cop. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

By this logic, people should never have to go to court, because the default state is innocence.

"DERP I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE"

[Hillary]

That sort of attitude worked perfectly well with Enron and the banking system, didn't it....."You don't need to bother us with regulations and shit, we're not doing anything wrong."

There are two separate problems here. One is not having inspections to make sure the laws are being followed. The other is (effectively) not having laws at all, or not having laws that will be enforced.

Enron was a scandal but not a national disaster, because they broke existing laws that were very clearly on the books. Once the evidence got out, those laws could be enforced, the company broken up, the CEO of the company sent to jail, and so on. Everyone knew what was supposed to happen to a corporation that committed massive fraud, and the only surprise was just how big Enron got before they were caught. Which said bad things about our policing, but could be fixed just by changing some policies slightly. The problem was in the details, not the basic approach.

The bank collapse of 2008 was a national disaster, because for all practical purposes there were no laws. Most of the worst things the banks did, that created the most economic risk and damage, were pretty much legal. They may have committed some crimes, but the crash could have happened without the crimes. Even when the banks' actions were illegal, the laws on the books were not enforced in a way that would make the banks fear the consequences of getting caught, because said banks were 'too big to fail.'

That is a problem with the basic approach we have to regulation and financial law. Closer observation of the banks might help, sure. But what turns it from a corruption scandal into an ongoing kleptocratic nightmare is the refusal to enforce existing laws, or make new ones, to punish the bad behavior we're seeing. Otherwise, what good does it do to catch the banks playing dangerous games with billions, if the official policy amounts to a scolding and a bailout?

Well yes, but that's all rather besides the point of my post. I was referring to the attitude that it is unacceptable to stop people to check they aren't drunk-driving, which was the point Alyeska made. In other words, how dare the police/government check that I am not breaking the law - exactly the situation you describe.

[Alyeska]

Well yes, but that's all rather besides the point of my post. I was referring to the attitude that it is unacceptable to stop people to check they aren't drunk-driving, which was the point Alyeska made. In other words, how dare the police/government check that I am not breaking the law - exactly the situation you describe.

A search of an individual should be based on probable cause.

I am not breaking the law and a search is a violation of my privacy. But if I am acting in a manner to indicate I am breaking the law, a search becomes reasonable.

Why not mandate all cars have breathalyzers? Why not mandate that all internet traffic be actively monitored to ensure there is no criminal activity? Why not mandate concealed cameras in every home?

If you aren't breaking the law, surely you won't mind a complete invasion of your privacy. Only the GUILTY would want privacy.

[Alyeska]

I shouldn't have to prove my innocence on the whim of a cop. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

By this logic, people should never have to go to court, because the default state is innocence.

"DERP I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE"

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. It is not my responsibility to prove my innocence.

[Thanas]

Have you gone off the deep end?

[Alyeska]

Have you gone off the deep end?

No. I am quite serious. I consider searches without probable cause to be unreasonable.

If I am not doing anything to arouse suspicion, a search by its very nature is unreasonable.

[Thanas]

.....

Yeah. Nothing more to say here.

[SCRawl]

Such things are all just a matter of degrees, aren't they? If you're a really safe driver and a police officer points his radar gun at your car to see if you're speeding, is this an unacceptable violation of your person? Police do these things to provide a disincentive for drivers to break the speed limit, and if you view this is a violation of your rights, then it's just one more thing you have to accept if you want to drive on a public road. Sobriety spot-checks are another tactic, albeit more troublesome and time-consuming, and further along the spectrum of intrusion than the radar gun. But without disincentives such as these, many drivers will choose to speed and drive while intoxicated. So we tolerate occasional objectionable searches in order to make roads safer for everyone. This is the view espoused by the non-Americans here, I think. And then this point of view also bleeds over into our views on firearms.

Simply standing your ground and saying "that's an unreasonable search, I won't tolerate it" ignores the fact that the threat of such searches has a measurably positive effect on road (and firearm) safety.

[Simon_Jester]

See, even you are falling into the same mindset, even if you don't realise it. You discuss it in terms of being judged and being asked to justify one's innocence - except for people in other societies (say Germany, Australia, etc.) we don't see it as judgement at all.

Yes, but I'm trying to explain it to people who think it must come from Mars or something, so I phrase it in those terms.

Personally I'm ambivalent about it. At the moment I'm so short on free time I probably would resent an unnecessary checkpoint that inconveniences I, who only drive sober. But that wouldn't be from legal principle.

On the other hand, I kind of wish I lived in a society where people could be and were trusted, and sometimes I feel like we're sliding away from that faster than we have to in America on some issues.

[Meanwhile, oligarchs are trusted implicitly, which just makes it worse; I wouldn't mind harsh and rigorously enforced laws so much if they actually stopped powerful men from screwing normal people]

I don't support compliance inspections because I feel I need them to keep myself honest. I support them because if transgresses are caught by inspections, then it means the price for irresponsibility is more likely to paid by the irresponsible, rather than any innocent bystanders.

This I am aware of. As I said, I'm ambivalent about the whole issue. I think you have a solid... call it technocratic argument. But I sympathize with people who 'just want to be left alone,' as long as they are personally competent enough to live up to the standard of trust they expect. It's unpleasant living in a world where all the standards of performance are set based on the behavior of people less intelligent, reliable, and competent than you are.

I know Duchess fairly well, and think she is, so I don't think she's as out of line as she may sound to you.

I shouldn't have to prove my innocence on the whim of a cop. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

By this logic, people should never have to go to court, because the default state is innocence.
"DERP I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE"

Actually, the logic is the same. As far as criminal charges go, you can't be asked to prove your innocence unless someone has an adequate reason to think you weren't innocent in the first place. A cop can't haul you into court "on a whim," they have to have a reason, or they get in trouble. Not you.

Well yes, but that's all rather besides the point of my post. I was referring to the attitude that it is unacceptable to stop people to check they aren't drunk-driving, which was the point Alyeska made. In other words, how dare the police/government check that I am not breaking the law - exactly the situation you describe.

Not quite.

Enron got so deep into trouble because they weren't checked. But once they were caught- and they were- they were punished. A scandal, but not a disaster. We could live with having an Enron every decade.

The 2008 banking collapse was much, much worse, because even after being caught redhanded, the banks were not punished. A much more serious problem. No one even considers treating ordinary criminals that way.

We can live without constant audits of all corporations as long as the anti-fraud laws on the books are enforced seriously.

Such things are all just a matter of degrees, aren't they? If you're a really safe driver and a police officer points his radar gun at your car to see if you're speeding, is this an unacceptable violation of your person? Police do these things to provide a disincentive for drivers to break the speed limit, and if you view this is a violation of your rights, then it's just one more thing you have to accept if you want to drive on a public road. Sobriety spot-checks are another tactic, albeit more troublesome and time-consuming, and further along the spectrum of intrusion than the radar gun. But without disincentives such as these, many drivers will choose to speed and drive while intoxicated. So we tolerate occasional objectionable searches in order to make roads safer for everyone. This is the view espoused by the non-Americans here, I think. And then this point of view also bleeds over into our views on firearms.

I'm mostly on board with this. The question is "how intrusive can it be before it's unreasonable?" For example, I think 'nakedcam' terahertz and X-ray backscatter sensors at airports are too intrusive and should be scrapped. They're unreasonable, given the scope of the threat and the effect on the public. Do they have a measurable positive effect on smuggling and terrorism? Maybe. Is it worth it given the loss of privacy? I doubt it.

I myself am not all that upset about drunk driving checkpoints, but I can understand someone who is- it's a difference in degree from my own feelings, not a difference in kind. Some people seem to view it as a difference in kind... which makes me wonder where they draw the line and call something an unreasonable search.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Why not mandate all cars have breathalyzers?

Do you actually see this as a terribly bad idea? If so, why?

[bilateralrope]

Sobriety spot-checks are another tactic, albeit more troublesome and time-consuming,

When you say that sobriety checks are time-consuming, what method of checking are you referring to ?

Because all the times I've been in a car pulled over by the New Zealand police, the check has been pretty quick. Even with the queue, roadworks are typically a longer delay than sobriety checkpoints.

[SCRawl]

Sobriety spot-checks are another tactic, albeit more troublesome and time-consuming,

When you say that sobriety checks are time-consuming, what method of checking are you referring to ?

Because all the times I've been in a car pulled over by the New Zealand police, the check has been pretty quick. Even with the queue, roadworks are typically a longer delay than sobriety checkpoints.

Did you read the whole post? The "more troublesome and time-consuming" is a comparison with a police officer pointing a radar gun at your vehicle as you zoom by.

To answer your second question, I can only judge that they might be similar to the type of checkpoint we have in my part of Canada, which are generally pretty quick as well. I've never actually been invited to provide a sample, though I have been questioned in the manner of "Have you been drinking sir?" I assume that my responses have been sufficient, for I've never made it to the second step.

[Aaron MkII]

Yeah, most of the ones I've been through have taken less then a minute from the end of the line to "have you been drinking tonight sir?"

They usually only set them up for holidays, xmas, May 24th, etc.

[Alyeska]

Why not mandate all cars have breathalyzers?

Do you actually see this as a terribly bad idea? If so, why?

Yes, they are a horrible idea. The accuracy level on a breathalyzer is not that great. They have to be tuned frequently. Failure rates would result in tons of false positives.

They are a presumption of guilt on those who do not drink and drive. Why should I have to pay for the installation and maintenance of breathalyzer when I do not drink? And they are trivially easy to bypass even if you are drinking. Having someone else blow into the tube.

[Alyeska]

.....

Yeah. Nothing more to say here.

And you are a hypocrite for criticizing the US government over issues such as Habeus Corpus, indefinite detention, etc.

I love how high minded some people pretend to be over US policies, but then think its perfectly OK to violate others right to privacy for the safety of society. Guess what, its the same fucking argument. You so happily criticize the Obama administration over their policies while using the exact same argument in favor of mandatory roadblocks and safety checks. Gitmo is to protect society. Mandatory breath tests are to protect society.

Fucking hypocrites.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

They are a presumption of guilt on those who do not drink and drive. Why should I have to pay for the installation and maintenance of breathalyzer when I do not drink?

The practical issues are ones I understand and can agree with. These two, though, I don't.

When you buy alcohol, you are carded. Is this a presumption of guilt that you are underage and buying illegally (and thus it's something we shouldn't do)? When you go into an event and they ask to see your ticket, is that a presumption of guilt that you are trying to sneak in?

And for that last one, that's like asking why you have to pay for a police force if you never break the law.

[Alyeska]

When you buy alcohol, you are carded.

Actually, I'm not.

Is this a presumption of guilt that you are underage and buying illegally (and thus it's something we shouldn't do)?

When conducted by an agency of law enforcement, it has drastically different connotations. I can opt out of getting carded by simply declining to make the purchase. Attempting to opt out of a breath test means I go to jail.

When you go into an event and they ask to see your ticket, is that a presumption of guilt that you are trying to sneak in?

An event is a transaction. A business transaction. Businesses are not beholden to the same law that the government is. Hence why there isn't freedom of speech at work.

And for that last one, that's like asking why you have to pay for a police force if you never break the law.

A police force exists to do more than randomly stop people and breath test them.