It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 34
64
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


To put it in simpler terms, something causing us greater harm, but happening with lower probability and can be mitigated (at least we think so at the time of the decision) may act as a smaller deterrent that something causing us less harm, but happening with greater probability, and we dont think it can be so effectively mitigated at the time of the decision.




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MarineSniper12Kills
 


Thanks
You should consider giving me a star i you think so



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


If someone drinks and then drives their car into another person and kills them then they should be charged with some form of homicide.

If they drives their drunken self into someone's property, then they should be charged for destroying/damaging the property.

If a drunk (or teetotaler) drives recklessly, they should be charged with reckless driving.

Etc.



edit on 21-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Bam...star for not being a crazy sob lmao. I didn't come back from war to have some nut cases try and turn usa anarchy



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Maslo
 


Is that your passive-aggressive way of saying I'm wrong?

And that being brutally mangled or mangling a family is not a greater deterrent than affecting someone's bank account/driving license?



That question may be applicable to sober people. But to someone who pounded a few it doesn't mean much, alcohol lowers inhibition; which means people do crazy things that they normally would not do.

One can claim that they have all their faculties and rationale intact while drunk, and it may be true, but that one individuals response to alcohol does not represent the entire populations response to alcohol.

I understand the OP's argument that drunk driving is a victimless crime and that no one should be punished lest someone either gets hurt or dies. But it is such an easily preventable consequence, why not enact laws to try to thwart it?

Yes, the DUI laws are not 100% effective, people still drive drunk, and people still die accordingly. But thats only part of picture that can be measured empirically, the countless lives saved by deterring drunk driving cannot be measured due to the lack of fatalities, which is the result that it seeks to undertake. In fact there are no laws that are 100% effective, but that doesn't mean we should repeal every single one of them.

Personal responsibility and accountability is by far the most important issue, and I do agree to a certain extent that the governing body should not force us into practicing them or be hung. But every population has the irresponsible and the unaccountable, too many of them, and they become even stupider with every sip they take.
And as the population gets bigger so do the prevalence of idiots and the incidences of drunk driving fatalities.

The OP and his supporters see the DUI laws as a infringement on their liberty and punishment for no wrongdoing. I see them as a preventable measure to deter needlessly absurd deaths that can be easily avoided.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


If someone drinks and then drives their car into another person and kills them then they should be charged with some form of homicide.

If they drives their drunken self into someone's property, then they should be charged for destroying/damaging the property.

If a drunk (or teetotaler) drives recklessly, they should be charged with reckless driving.

Etc.



edit on 21-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)


What I am saying is how are you going to determine that the person violated any law if there is no law criminalizing the activity? Murder requires intent - manslaughter is based upon neglect, but the fact that it was not intentional would be a very solid defense none the less. This thread has already implied that alcohol is not a special consideration, the thread is based upon that premise... So how do you differentiate a drunken accident from a sober one??? What's the crime? you are effectively arguing that drinking and driving is not a criminal act... How do you prosecute? Do you punish someone who had one drink the same as 18? Now where's the line?


edit on 21-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


Do you agree that a person who kills another while driving drunk should be charged with a form of homicide?

And for property: If a drunk driver damages property, should he be charged for that?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

So how do you differentiate a drunken accident from a sober one???


In this country, we have breathalyzers and blood tests.

How does your country determine whether or not someone is drunk?


edit on 21-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by DrChuck
 


Do you agree that a person who kills another while driving drunk should be charged with a form of homicide?

And for property: If a drunk driver damages property, should he be charged for that?


By all means, yes.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


We are in agreement.

I believe that people should only be charged for crimes that they commit.

Another one:

If a drunk is driving recklessly, should he be charged with driving recklessly?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by DrChuck
 


We are in agreement.

I believe that people should only be charged for crimes that they commit.

Another one:

If a drunk is driving recklessly, should he be charged with driving recklessly?



By all means, yes.

He should also be charged with recklessly endangering the public haphazardly.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Janky Red

So how do you differentiate a drunken accident from a sober one???


In this country, we have breathalyzers and blood tests.

How does your country determine whether or not someone is drunk?


edit on 21-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)


What is drunk specifically?

And again, how does this work in the legal system? An accident is not a crime - and if drinking and driving is
not a crime - what warrants the breathalyzer test? You would have to change the entire legal system to
set this up

Killing a person on purpose is murder in the eyes of the law because there is a law regarding murder -

Killing a person with a car, while drunk, is not murder;

because

killing a person with a car unintentionally is not murder

and being drunk and driving is not a crime either

The law prohibiting DUI is what makes DUI illegal and establishes WHAT DRUNK MEANS legally speaking

it is the chicken and the egg
edit on 21-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


There is no need to tack on more charges than is necessary. That is why the OP argues that there ought not be and drunk driving laws. We already have laws to punish people who hurt others and damage property.

Anyhow, since the person was drunk and driving recklessly - and unless there are extenuating circumstances - the maximum penalty can be applied. The driver knew that driving while drunk was dangerous.

Here's another one:

If a person was driving while drunk and still adhered to every law of the road and always drove better than everyone else on the road at the time when they were one it, should they be charged with a crime?


edit on 21-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red


Killing a person on purpose is murder in the eyes of the law because there is a law regarding murder -

Killing a person with a car, while drunk, is not murder;

because

killing a person with a car unintentionally is not murder




I used the word 'homicide', not 'murder'...

You used 'murder' 3 times - when I only used the word 'homicide'.

What do you build strawman arguments for bro? That's not cool.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by DrChuck
 


There is no need to tack on more charges than is necessary. That is why the OP argues that there ought not be and drunk driving laws. We already have laws to punish people who hurt others and damage property.

Anyhow, since the person was drunk and driving recklessly - and unless there are extenuating circumstances - the maximum penalty can be applied. The driver knew that driving while drunk was dangerous.


Point taken, however when someone is drunk and gets behind the wheel, the potential risks he poses is too great to be ignored. Its beyond gross negligence to ignore the risks that a drunk driver presents to the public. Death is final, once it happens theres no going back, only prevention can circumvent it.




Here's another one:

If a person was driving while drunk and still adhered to every law of the road and always drove better than everyone else on the road at the time when they were one it, should they be charged with a crime?


edit on 21-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)


Yes, they should be charged with a crime.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrChuck
Death is final, once it happens theres no going back, only prevention can circumvent it.


That is why the OP says a person who drives drunk and causes the death of another should be charged with a form of homicide.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by DrChuck
Death is final, once it happens theres no going back, only prevention can circumvent it.


That is why the OP says a person who drives drunk and causes the death of another should be charged with a form of homicide.


I'm not following you, how is charging someone with homicide after a death a prevention of death?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


So you agree with the OP that laws cannot prevent and can only punish?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Thats gross and incorrect one-dimensional generalization of a multidimensional subject.


Laws prevent repeated offense (by locking up murderers we prevent them from further murders) and also prevent further crimes which would happen more often if they were not in effect (preventive laws like DUI preventing accidents, or consumer protection regulations preventing poisonous products from entering the market etc..). Pre-crime by definition prevents crime, since it prevents crime situation from even arising.
edit on 21/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
I know so MANY people who did not drive drunk because the fear of being arrested.
And, I can guarantee, everyone on this thread knows someone, as well. Of course, they won't admit it.

But, even those of us in support of DWI/DUI laws, know they will not prevent everyone. Just as homicide laws do not, theft laws do not and assault do not. Unfortunately, I know one person who, having already been a repeat offended and serving time in a State Jail for a felony conviction, was arrested again after becoming intoxicated at home and getting into his car. His excuse to his family? He had to go get cat food. I know that's dumb enough, but he didn't even have a cat.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join