It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WHAT DOESN’T WORK?
The following countermeasures, which have long formed the basis of punishment for
convicted DUI offenders, have not proven effective in reducing impaired driving:
• Jail or community service
Which is why we have to continually have these debates... Sometimes I wonder if the people who push this stuff ae stoned / high / etc when they think it up.
Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by mnemeth1
...............But it does what it was enacted to do. It acts as a deterrent. That's all any law can do, even the death penalty. Yes?
The efficacy of capital punishment as a detterrent to homicide has been debated for at least a century...In the last decade, a considerable body of research on the deterrence question has emerged in the economics literature...Such studies have generally been aggegative in nature, focusing on the relationship between homicide rates and rates of arrest, conviction, and execution in different jurisdictions or over time. This approach has yeilded ambiguous results.
Nevertheless, it would be incautious to conclude from the evidence presented here that capital punishments unequivocally fail to deter murder. For example, the possibility that executions may play an inhibiting role in the long-run socialization of potential criminals cannot be addressed by the data or methods used here...The analysis conducted consistently indicate that these data provide no support for the hypothesis that executions deter murder in the short term.
Overall, it appears that the deterrence of DUI is achieved by curbing behavior that leads to DUI, namely binge drinking. Once individuals engage in binge drinking, it appears that many policies designed to be deterrents have little influence.
But then again we have something called a twinky defense.... If thats not reason enough to maintain a ban on drugs.
"Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense. It is not an actual legal defense in jurisprudence, but a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone. White's defense was that he suffered diminished capacity as a result of his depression. His change in diet from health food to Twinkies and other sugary food was said to be a symptom of depression. The media misinterpreted this defense as a claim that sugary food was itself responsible for White's criminal behavior. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
Twinkies were never mentioned in the courtroom during the White trial, nor did the defense ever claim that White was on a sugar rush and committed the murders as a result. However, one reporter's use of the term "Twinkie defense" caught on and stuck, leading to a persistent misunderstanding by the public that exists to this day, and was mentioned at the end of Milk, Gus Van Sant's 2008 biopic of Harvey Milk. In a bonus feature on the DVD version of The Times of Harvey Milk, a documentary on Milk's life and death, White's lawyers explain what they actually argued in court.
The actual legal defense that White's lawyers used was that his mental capacity had been diminished, and White's consumption of junk food was presented to the jury as one of many symptoms, not a cause, of White's depression.
Originally posted by Colbomoose
reply to post by mnemeth1
Just hope you don't encounter someone who likes your new law and cleans you up on the highway.
I do not offer this data to support or refute anyone in this thread, only to question the notion of legislation acting as a criminal deterrent
Originally posted by xynephadyn
I know several middle class well meaning people who's lives were completely destroyed by gettings dui's- all while they were barely over the legal limit. I agree that dui laws should remain intact, but the legal limit needs to be reassessed- aswell as the punishment. I mean they allow restaurants and bars to sell liqor. This isnt the 18th century- we dont have a horse and buggy- most people drive. If they allow legally people to consume more than 1 drink at an establishment, and dont "pay" for a person who is too drunk a drive home for free by a taxi service (other than holidays) then who are they kidding.
Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Laws do act as a deterrent. Of course I think I'm fine to drive after a few drinks. But I don't.
Why? Because I don't want to spend the night in a jail and I don't want my reputation sullied.
Most of the prosecutors who commit misconduct, the study found, do so repeatedly. Why? Because they get away with it. They almost never get caught. And when they do get caught, there aren’t any personal repercussions. Disciplinary action is so rare as to be practically unheard of. And civil liability isn’t going to happen, because they have absolute immunity for their official conduct.
The study concludes that “the scope and persistence of the problem is alarming. Reform is critical.” It’s not a problem just of a few rogue prosecutors. It’s a problem of the judges who don’t deal with it, a system that doesn’t deter it, offices that don’t stop it. It’s the problem of the good prosecutors, whose authority and trust suffer by association. It’s the problem of the innocent, who find themselves convicted time and again because the prosecutor sought a victory rather than justice. It’s the problem of the guilty, who are denied their rights to due process and constitutional protections. And it’s the problem of the criminal justice system, which relies entirely on prosecutors doing their job right in order for the system to function at all.
From where did these statistics come? Years ago, the statistics kept on traffic fatalities included a category for "alcohol-caused" deaths. To justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DUI license suspensions, however, these statistics were subtly changed to "alcohol-related". Not "caused", but related.
This meant that a perfectly sober driver who hit and killed an intoxicated pedestrian, for example, would be involved in an "alcohol-related" incident. Similarly, a sober driver who is struck by another sober driver carrying an intoxicated passenger chalked up another "alcohol-related" death. Further, if the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated but chemical tests show he is not, the death is nevertheless reported as "alcohol-related". In fact, if the tests indicate the presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the fatality will be chalked up as "alcohol-related".
So what are the real numbers? The Los Angeles Times also decided to investigate the validity of these statistics. In 2002, NHTSA’s figures claimed 18,000 deaths on the nation’s highways attributable to drunk driving. The Times found that only about 5,000 of these involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian. (Research by other groups, such as "Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.", indicate the figure is actually under 3,000.) 5,000. A fraction of the number being used by the government and political pressure groups like MADD.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Is the public made more safe? Obviously the law does next to nothing to deter drunk driving. Just like drug laws and gun laws, DUI laws are another form of “pre-crime.” They are laws that attempt to prevent actual crime (hurting someone) from occurring.
Punishing someone that hasn’t hurt anyone or damaged anyone else’s property by their actions is wrong.
The public must be treated as adults and be given the adult responsibility to decide on their own if they are capable of driving without hurting themselves or anyone else. The State should not play the role of the nanny looter.
Laws do act as a deterrent. Of course I think I'm fine to drive after a few drinks. But I don't. Why? Because I don't want to spend the night in a jail and I don't want my reputation sullied.
Originally posted by fleabit
Got a speeding ticket? Many people have. What do you do after you get one? You drive the speed limit. I know I do. You are nervous and unhappy about the money you had to pay, and you don't want another. The fines become stiffer, and you can eventually lose your license to drive at all. Which is the same with DUI fines.