Irish Town Legalizes Drinking and Driving

[green73]

The Irish town of Kilgarvan passed a law this winter that allows members of its community to drink and drive.

Proposed by local pub owner and politician Danny Healy-Rae, the motion allows people who live in country areas to have a few beers before they drive home. Healy-Rae told The New York Times he thinks the measure will help preserve pub culture, lower the risk of suicide and attack isolation in the small town.

Amid governmental and local backlash, Healy-Rae says the law isn’t supposed to apply to everyone.

“I am talking about mainly elderly people who live in very remote places who come to town to get a bit of shopping, enjoy a couple of pints and a chat with friends and then drive home at less than 30 miles an hour,” Healy-Rae told The Times. “These are not the ones causing accidents. What is the alternative for them where no public or other transport is available? Staying at home lonely, staring at the four walls?”

Some local politicians are still shocked that the motion was passed. Although Kerry County council member Toireasa Ferris said that isolation by the elderly in rural areas is a problem, she doesn’t see allowing them to drink and drive the only fix to the problem.

“Never in my wildest imaginations did I think it would ever be passed,” Ferris, who was absent when the measure passed because her child was sick, told The Times.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/weird/NATL-Irish-Town-Legalizes-Drinking-and-Driving-199867031.html


Legalize Drunk Driving
by Lew Rockwell
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

More
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site:http://www.lewrockwell.com+drunk+driving

[MelissaWV]

I am sure the entire area is now littered with countless wrecked cars, and every child has been slain by vehicles driven by people who normally would not drive drunk, heard about this law, and immediately did so.

[Keith and stuff]

It doesn't allow drinking and driving. It allows drinking and then driving. You cannot do both at the same time (which isn't dangerous if you aren't drunk) but you can get drunk and the drive according to the article. Well, not you or me or anyone reading this. It only allows a few select people to drive drunk. That's how I understand the article, anyway.

[KrokHead]

Stupid, as Billy Joel said in "Anthony's Song", I'MMMMMM... MOVIN' OUT!

At least that stupid town was honest with what people are doing, throwing away the usual doublethink. Everyone who's considered a "man" drinks and drives yet is expected to elude law enforcement on the inevitable trip back home. I think the police cars should just wait outside the bars and change the drinking and driving culture, economy be damned.

[Keith and stuff]

Stupid, as Billy Joel said in "Anthony's Song", I'MMMMMM... MOVIN' OUT!

At least that stupid town was honest with what people are doing, throwing away the usual doublethink. Everyone who's considered a "man" drinks and drives yet is expected to elude law enforcement on the inevitable trip back home. I think the police cars should just wait outside the bars and change the drinking and driving culture, economy be damned.

They not only do that, they walk into bars and look around. I've seen that in TN anyway. My guess is similar behavior happens in other places.

[kcchiefs6465]

Stupid, as Billy Joel said in "Anthony's Song", I'MMMMMM... MOVIN' OUT!

At least that stupid town was honest with what people are doing, throwing away the usual doublethink. Everyone who's considered a "man" drinks and drives yet is expected to elude law enforcement on the inevitable trip back home. I think the police cars should just wait outside the bars and change the drinking and driving culture, economy be damned.
They should quit generating revenue by harrassing the local folk, 'economy be damned.' Rather, police state be damned.

[torchbearer]

I think the police cars should just wait outside the bars and change the drinking and driving culture, economy be damned. the cops do this in Louisiana as a form of extortion against the bar owner. the bar owner can pay the off-duty officers a good sum to sit outside his place, or he can have their car stopping people as they leave- racking up tickets.
and even then, the extortion only last so long before they are getting both the extra pay and the dui tickets by camping outside the bar. that is why most drinking places are now closed in this area.

[MRK]

the cops do this in Louisiana as a form of extortion against the bar owner. the bar owner can pay the off-duty officers a good sum to sit outside his place, or he can have their car stopping people as they leave- racking up tickets.
and even then, the extortion only last so long before they are getting both the extra pay and the dui tickets by camping outside the bar. that is why most drinking places are now closed in this area.

Yep, I hear lots of rumors in Miami when one business puts the hit on another business by paying the undercovers to wait outside a competitor and then bust mass amounts of people at once so word gets out that the competitor is unsafe. I've heard this happen to a couple of places that started getting popular and then died suddenly after getting hit every weekend.

[Brian4Liberty]

Creation of the terminology "drinking and driving" has been a very successful propaganda campaign. It used to be driving while intoxicated.

Laws about driving while intoxicated, when evidenced by the probable cause of erratic driving, makes sense.

The rest should be decriminalized. No checkpoints, no pulling people over simply because they left a pub, no blood alcohol tests for people who are driving perfectly fine.

[thoughtomator]

I agree with the measure. Drunk driving in and of itself is a fictional, victimless crime.

Now, reckless driving is another, distinct matter. Recklessness isn't be measured by the content of a man's bloodstream, but his actual actions-in-fact. I know of quite a few drivers who are a danger to the public totally sober, and many more who are no danger whatsoever well above the legal limit.

[Brian4Liberty]

I am sure the entire area is now littered with countless wrecked cars, and every child has been slain by vehicles driven by people who normally would not drive drunk, heard about this law, and immediately did so.

Pure mayhem and chaos.

[Christian Liberty]

Creation of the terminology "drinking and driving" has been a very successful propaganda campaign. It used to be driving while intoxicated.

Laws about driving while intoxicated, when evidenced by the probable cause of erratic driving, makes sense.

The rest should be decriminalized. No checkpoints, no pulling people over simply because they left a pub, no blood alcohol tests for people who are driving perfectly fine.

Yeah, I agree with this. If someone is driving safely, you have no probable cause to search them. That doesn't mean it should be legal to drive while intoxicated ("Intoxicated" is the importnat thing here) but that without probable cause, they have no right to search.)

Ultimately, honestly, I do think private road owners would probably enforce some kind of DUI checks. There's just too much danger. I can imagine speeding restrictions being removed, seat belt restrictions would probably be removed, but no DUI and no texting while driving actually make sense. Of course, I support privatized roads, and the free market making its own rules, but while the government is illicitly controlling the roads, next to giving up control, the next best thing is to run them as close to how a private business would as possible. I can't imagine private road owners just disregarding real dangers like this. The government shouldn't either.

[fr33]

They probably all ride bicycles anyways...

[Brian4Liberty]

They probably all ride bicycles anyways...

Isn't drinking and riding a bike also illegal (in the US)?

Riding a bike in the dark is plenty dangerous though. Hitting something at high speed on a bicycle because you can't see it can be fatal. I've witnessed it. Someone rode into bike racks because they were nearly invisible in the dark, with no bikes parked there.

[torchbearer]

Yep, I hear lots of rumors in Miami when one business puts the hit on another business by paying the undercovers to wait outside a competitor and then bust mass amounts of people at once so word gets out that the competitor is unsafe. I've heard this happen to a couple of places that started getting popular and then died suddenly after getting hit every weekend.

it happened to my brother-in-law's club. exactly as you stated. he won his lawsuit against the sheriff's department.

[Christian Liberty]

Isn't drinking and riding a bike also illegal (in the US)?



I don't think I'd support that law. Riding a bike isn't nearly as likely to cause harm to other people. Admittedly, stupidly riding into the middle of the road could cause some harm, but then, if you're intoxicated, you could do that while WALKING. Driving is somewhat unique since you could fairly easily kill someone while having a ton of machinery under your direct control.

[kcchiefs6465]

Isn't drinking and riding a bike also illegal (in the US)?

Riding a bike in the dark is plenty dangerous though. Hitting something at high speed on a bicycle because you can't see it can be fatal. I've witnessed it. Someone rode into bike racks because they were nearly invisible in the dark, with no bikes parked there.
Yes, riding a bicycle while drinking or being drunk is a DUI. Lawnmowers and horses are no exception either.

[torchbearer]

I don't think I'd support that law. Riding a bike isn't nearly as likely to cause harm to other people. Admittedly, stupidly riding into the middle of the road could cause some harm, but then, if you're intoxicated, you could do that while WALKING. Driving is somewhat unique since you could fairly easily kill someone while having a ton of machinery under your direct control. wouldn't the actual damage or destruction while intoxicated be the crime. and any arrest before that is simply arresting someone for what they 'might' do? like arresting people for pre-crimes.

[Dr.3D]

Yes, riding a bicycle while drinking or being drunk is a DUI. Lawnmowers and horses are no exception either.
Seems like the horse would have to be drunk to be a problem.

[Christian Liberty]

wouldn't the actual damage or destruction while intoxicated be the crime. and any arrest before that is simply arresting someone for what they 'might' do? like arresting people for pre-crimes.

Well, as I mentioned before, my ideal is privatized roads. While I highly doubt private road owners would be as draconian as our statist overlords (They, after all, risk losing business if they do) I also think they would have a vested interest in ensuring their roads are safe. While government owns the roads, I think it is a necessary evil to allow them to regulate them to some extent.

Admittedly, I don't think someone who is driving safely while drunk should ever be checked, but it still shouldn't be "Legal". If they kill someone, they really ought to be charged with murder, but they will get let off with far less. If they are driving recklessly and endangering other people, they should be pulled over and not allowed to continue driving.

Although of course they do not actually accept this duty, I actually do think the cops have some duty to keep us safe. That's their job. Of course, they don't actually do it, but that is one of the reasons cops are supposed to exist. Not wearing a seat belt is no danger to anyone. Speeding can be, but usually isn't unless its extreme (The numbers posted, of course, are arbitrary.) But DUI usually is. I'm not proposing random checks, but if we know someone is driving while seriously drunk, and therefore likely to endanger other drivers, yes, government shouldn't let them do that on a publicly owned road.

[kcchiefs6465]

Seems like the horse would have to be drunk to be a problem.
That's what I thought too. It's not like the horse is going to willingly run into traffic.

[Keith and stuff]

Beer For My Horses
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4

[Tod]

How about if the local people band together and each night one of them volunteers to be the designated driver?

The local elks club has a big van they call the drunkmobile or something and they drive members home who have been drinking.

[Tod]

Well, as I mentioned before, my ideal is privatized roads. While I highly doubt private road owners would be as draconian as our statist overlords (They, after all, risk losing business if they do)

How does THAT work? Drive around the block? What happens when one company has all the roads in a town? People have to start to fly drunk instead?

[Anti Federalist]

They probably all ride bicycles anyways...

Which will still get you a DUI here in Amerika.

[Anti Federalist]

I am sure the entire area is now littered with countless wrecked cars, and every child has been slain by vehicles driven by people who normally would not drive drunk, heard about this law, and immediately did so.

/thread

/debate

+rep

[anaconda]

According to this you can still drink and drive in Mississippi, as long as you're under the legal limit. And open containers are allowed in seven states (for passengers to drink).

http://www.opencontainerlaws.com/opencontainersinvehicles.html

[heavenlyboy34]

Creation of the terminology "drinking and driving" has been a very successful propaganda campaign. It used to be driving while intoxicated.

Laws about driving while intoxicated, when evidenced by the probable cause of erratic driving, makes sense.

The rest should be decriminalized. No checkpoints, no pulling people over simply because they left a pub, no blood alcohol tests for people who are driving perfectly fine.
OMG, you anarchist! How dare you not want to prohibit pre-crime! ;)

[tod evans]

Be nice to see more common sense people in office...

Kudos to the pub owner/politician!

[parocks]

I agree with the measure. Drunk driving in and of itself is a fictional, victimless crime.

Now, reckless driving is another, distinct matter. Recklessness isn't be measured by the content of a man's bloodstream, but his actual actions-in-fact. I know of quite a few drivers who are a danger to the public totally sober, and many more who are no danger whatsoever well above the legal limit.

Yeah. Like this.

Less "don't do things that might make you dangerous"
Replace with "don't be dangerous".

Or, wait until harm.

We do have laws about stop signs, though. And there's no harm in blowing through stop signs unless you hit someone.

[parocks]

How does THAT work? Drive around the block? What happens when one company has all the roads in a town? People have to start to fly drunk instead?

we were promised jetpacks

[torchbearer]

if we know someone is driving while seriously drunk, and therefore likely to endanger other drivers, yes, government shouldn't let them do that on a publicly owned road. is it ok to use violence against that person? is it ok to kidnap them and lock them in a cage? they haven't deprived anyone of life or property.

[lib3rtarian]

1) I hope NH does this after the FreeStaters have completely taken over the state by 2081.
2) Toireasa Ferris is HOT.

[Lindsey]

Creation of the terminology "drinking and driving" has been a very successful propaganda campaign. It used to be driving while intoxicated.

Laws about driving while intoxicated, when evidenced by the probable cause of erratic driving, makes sense.

The rest should be decriminalized. No checkpoints, no pulling people over simply because they left a pub, no blood alcohol tests for people who are driving perfectly fine.

The drinking and driving laws are really abused.

Before I knew anything about Ron Paul or the liberty movement, I sat on jury in a DUI case. I also wasn't fully aware of my rights as a juror at the time. In this instance, the girl was found asleep, (possibly passed out) in the driver's seat on the day the street-sweepers came through. The keys were in the ignition but the car was not running. She was parked outside of her boyfriend's house, she said she had been dropped off there by friends and didn't have a key to get into his place. It was late on a cool spring night, so she went to her car to sleep. Her BAC was sky-high, but there had been no proof she had actually driven.

When the jury walked into the deliberation room, 10 people were instantly ready to say 'guilty,' 1 was undecided, and I was the only person saying we can't understand how you find someone guilty of a DWI, when the state hadn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had driven while intoxicated. It wasn't surprising though, from when you fill out the survey first thing in the morning up until you enter the jury room - you are fed propaganda the whole day. The judge gave a 'pep talk' in the morning, emphasizing how much crime our county has and how it does so much harm, blah, blah, blah... And then they present you with the law that is being applied and tell you repeatedly that this is what your judgement is to be based on. The law is written with such a broad brush, that if you so much as have 2 drinks and crawl into the trunk you can be found guilty of a DWI, if they want.

After 2.5 - 3 hours of getting no where with these people, at most I had 3 people on the fence at one time. I finally gave in and went with the guilty verdict. The defense attorney made us all say the verdict, and I can tell you I felt like such a piece of dirt as I said, "guilty." I have never forgiven myself for the part I played in messing with that woman's life.

The judge came into talk to the jury afterwards, and one of my fellow jurors ratted me out as being the hold out, as to why we didn't have a decision in the first 10-20 mins. I've never gotten another jury duty notice since then. Before that day, I was getting lots of jury duty notices. A few of the other jurors, had been on multiple trials - supposedly once you serve on one trial in our county, you keep getting notices annually. So the lesson I learned, is that if you don't want jury duty, fight for someone to be found "not guilty" and they'll never call you up again; be a pawn in their game, and they'll call on you as often as they are allowed to do so.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yeah, I agree with this. If someone is driving safely, you have no probable cause to search them. That doesn't mean it should be legal to drive while intoxicated ("Intoxicated" is the importnat thing here) but that without probable cause, they have no right to search.)

Ultimately, honestly, I do think private road owners would probably enforce some kind of DUI checks. There's just too much danger. I can imagine speeding restrictions being removed, seat belt restrictions would probably be removed, but no DUI and no texting while driving actually make sense. Of course, I support privatized roads, and the free market making its own rules, but while the government is illicitly controlling the roads, next to giving up control, the next best thing is to run them as close to how a private business would as possible. I can't imagine private road owners just disregarding real dangers like this. The government shouldn't either.

If I owned a private road, I would enforce none of those. Especially if it's a major bypass, I would like to see people TRY to avoid it because they don't think it's "safe" and don't like the fact that I allow drunk driving. Let them drive 50 miles farther just because there is a statiscally slightly higher chance of them being involved in an accident. Even then, I don't think a rule on any road would actually lower the occurrence of a violation of said rule. Since when has policing drunk driving ever stopped people from doing it? It's the same thing with banning any substance or any behavior. The law just doesn't freaking matter. No private road rule would matter either, and people would not elect to take the long way home over some damned statistics that they probably never even knew about in the first place.

Also, I like how some libertarians suggests that government roads should be built over or under ever piece of private land, as if that were even remotely practical or cost-efficient. Private roads just don't work like the rest of the market does. Roads are not something you can go without to prove a point. Very, very few people are ever goign to change routes because of some statistics.

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't think I'd support that law. Riding a bike isn't nearly as likely to cause harm to other people. Admittedly, stupidly riding into the middle of the road could cause some harm, but then, if you're intoxicated, you could do that while WALKING. Driving is somewhat unique since you could fairly easily kill someone while having a ton of machinery under your direct control.

Since when is the possibility of harm the basis for a law? I thought we were here to support individual choices and consequences for said choices, not to support rules or higher intervention in the interest of safety, which violates natural rights at its very core. You can't argue that we should have private roads and then turn around and say people should not face the consequences for their own actions because it's just too much of a risk to public safety. I'm sure Bloomberg would be nodding his head in agreement if he listened to you talk.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, as I mentioned before, my ideal is privatized roads. While I highly doubt private road owners would be as draconian as our statist overlords (They, after all, risk losing business if they do) I also think they would have a vested interest in ensuring their roads are safe. While government owns the roads, I think it is a necessary evil to allow them to regulate them to some extent.

Admittedly, I don't think someone who is driving safely while drunk should ever be checked, but it still shouldn't be "Legal". If they kill someone, they really ought to be charged with murder, but they will get let off with far less. If they are driving recklessly and endangering other people, they should be pulled over and not allowed to continue driving.

Although of course they do not actually accept this duty, I actually do think the cops have some duty to keep us safe. That's their job. Of course, they don't actually do it, but that is one of the reasons cops are supposed to exist. Not wearing a seat belt is no danger to anyone. Speeding can be, but usually isn't unless its extreme (The numbers posted, of course, are arbitrary.) But DUI usually is. I'm not proposing random checks, but if we know someone is driving while seriously drunk, and therefore likely to endanger other drivers, yes, government shouldn't let them do that on a publicly owned road.

You prove your ignorance. Government doesn't own a thing. Public property is not another word for government-owned. What's more, you think pre-crime is a "necessary evil". This proves you don't understand liberty one bit. Let people face the consequences of their actions. This is something that businesses live by. If you do something stupid with a product, even if it endangers the public by your usage of it, it is not the company or owner's fault. Accidents happen on roads all the time, and there is absolutely no reason to think a road owner would be responsible for the safety of every individual who travels on the roads. The only thing the road owner would have to care about is the road conditions and the response to accidents as well as warning of dangerous conditions. No arbitrary rules would even be feasible in a free society because a free society recognizes that nobody has the right to stop a man who is doing nothing to infringe on anyone else's rights. The very notion of a private police force is absurd.

[PaulConventionWV]

How does THAT work? Drive around the block? What happens when one company has all the roads in a town? People have to start to fly drunk instead?

Exactly. People are going to drive drunk if they damn well please, and they should be left to suffer the consequences. If they commit a crime, then they commit a crime, but they should not be harassed until they actually violate someone's rights by hurting them. The nanny staters will say we can't let it get that far, but I say we can't prevent it from getting that far. People are ALWAYS going to find a way to do stupid things, no matter how "big brother" your approach is. So go ahead and spend millions of dollars to harrass people for driving drunk. We'll see what effect it has. Lose business, my ass. If someone owns a large amount of roads in a single area, I don't think people are going to just start avoiding those roads. What's more, I think they are more likely to avoid them if such draconian measures as FreedomFanatic suggests are implemented. THEN see what happens to the local economy and the "business" they get. Don't want to get caught driving drunk? Don't drive in the part of town that does that shit. The free market simply wouldn't allow such idiotic rules on private roads.

The only thing that actually reflects on the road owner is the condition of the road, the response to emergencies, and proper warnings to indicate conditions. THAT IS IT.

[Origanalist]

Stupid, as Billy Joel said in "Anthony's Song", I'MMMMMM... MOVIN' OUT!

At least that stupid town was honest with what people are doing, throwing away the usual doublethink. Everyone who's considered a "man" drinks and drives yet is expected to elude law enforcement on the inevitable trip back home. I think the police cars should just wait outside the bars and change the drinking and driving culture, economy be damned.

Why stop there? Lets have police sit outside cell phone stores and follow the customers until they use the phone. I've seen people texting and driving who are way worse than someone who's had a couple of beers.

They can wait outside fast food places in the morning too. How many accidents are caused by sleepy people spilling hot coffee?

[Brian4Liberty]

The drinking and driving laws are really abused.

Before I knew anything about Ron Paul or the liberty movement, I sat on jury in a DUI case. I also wasn't fully aware of my rights as a juror at the time. In this instance, the girl was found asleep, (possibly passed out) in the driver's seat on the day the street-sweepers came through. The keys were in the ignition but the car was not running. She was parked outside of her boyfriend's house, she said she had been dropped off there by friends and didn't have a key to get into his place. It was late on a cool spring night, so she went to her car to sleep. Her BAC was sky-high, but there had been no proof she had actually driven.

When the jury walked into the deliberation room, 10 people were instantly ready to say 'guilty,' 1 was undecided, and I was the only person saying we can't understand how you find someone guilty of a DWI, when the state hadn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had driven while intoxicated. It wasn't surprising though, from when you fill out the survey first thing in the morning up until you enter the jury room - you are fed propaganda the whole day. The judge gave a 'pep talk' in the morning, emphasizing how much crime our county has and how it does so much harm, blah, blah, blah... And then they present you with the law that is being applied and tell you repeatedly that this is what your judgement is to be based on. The law is written with such a broad brush, that if you so much as have 2 drinks and crawl into the trunk you can be found guilty of a DWI, if they want.

After 2.5 - 3 hours of getting no where with these people, at most I had 3 people on the fence at one time. I finally gave in and went with the guilty verdict. The defense attorney made us all say the verdict, and I can tell you I felt like such a piece of dirt as I said, "guilty." I have never forgiven myself for the part I played in messing with that woman's life.

The judge came into talk to the jury afterwards, and one of my fellow jurors ratted me out as being the hold out, as to why we didn't have a decision in the first 10-20 mins. I've never gotten another jury duty notice since then. Before that day, I was getting lots of jury duty notices. A few of the other jurors, had been on multiple trials - supposedly once you serve on one trial in our county, you keep getting notices annually. So the lesson I learned, is that if you don't want jury duty, fight for someone to be found "not guilty" and they'll never call you up again; be a pawn in their game, and they'll call on you as often as they are allowed to do so.

Wow. The system seems to be rigged.

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for posting that.

That's how the Just Us system works.

And it works the same way, for DUI to First Degree Murder.

And some people have the nerve to question why I, or any rational person with a sense of liberty, will not support state sanctioned executions.

Just imagine how you would feel if that was a murder rap and, instead of ruining somebody financially and emotionally for a decade or two, they got executed instead?

Not singling you out, BTW and sorry if I'm sounding harsh, +rep for posting that.


The drinking and driving laws are really abused.

Before I knew anything about Ron Paul or the liberty movement, I sat on jury in a DUI case. I also wasn't fully aware of my rights as a juror at the time. In this instance, the girl was found asleep, (possibly passed out) in the driver's seat on the day the street-sweepers came through. The keys were in the ignition but the car was not running. She was parked outside of her boyfriend's house, she said she had been dropped off there by friends and didn't have a key to get into his place. It was late on a cool spring night, so she went to her car to sleep. Her BAC was sky-high, but there had been no proof she had actually driven.

When the jury walked into the deliberation room, 10 people were instantly ready to say 'guilty,' 1 was undecided, and I was the only person saying we can't understand how you find someone guilty of a DWI, when the state hadn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had driven while intoxicated. It wasn't surprising though, from when you fill out the survey first thing in the morning up until you enter the jury room - you are fed propaganda the whole day. The judge gave a 'pep talk' in the morning, emphasizing how much crime our county has and how it does so much harm, blah, blah, blah... And then they present you with the law that is being applied and tell you repeatedly that this is what your judgement is to be based on. The law is written with such a broad brush, that if you so much as have 2 drinks and crawl into the trunk you can be found guilty of a DWI, if they want.

After 2.5 - 3 hours of getting no where with these people, at most I had 3 people on the fence at one time. I finally gave in and went with the guilty verdict. The defense attorney made us all say the verdict, and I can tell you I felt like such a piece of dirt as I said, "guilty." I have never forgiven myself for the part I played in messing with that woman's life.

The judge came into talk to the jury afterwards, and one of my fellow jurors ratted me out as being the hold out, as to why we didn't have a decision in the first 10-20 mins. I've never gotten another jury duty notice since then. Before that day, I was getting lots of jury duty notices. A few of the other jurors, had been on multiple trials - supposedly once you serve on one trial in our county, you keep getting notices annually. So the lesson I learned, is that if you don't want jury duty, fight for someone to be found "not guilty" and they'll never call you up again; be a pawn in their game, and they'll call on you as often as they are allowed to do so.

[Lindsey]

Wow. The system seems to be rigged.

I wasn't going to flat out say rigged, but well, they sure do make it hard for anyone to win a trial here.

[Anti Federalist]

I wasn't going to flat out say rigged, but well, they sure do make it hard for anyone to win a trial here.

For 2011, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate.[3]

The conviction rate is also high in U.S. state courts. Coughlan writes, "In recent years, the conviction rate has averaged approximately 84% in Texas, 82% in California, 72% in New York, 67% in North Carolina, and 59% in Florida

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE

[Lindsey]

Thanks for posting that.

That's how the Just Us system works.

And it works the same way, for DUI to First Degree Murder.

And some people have the nerve to question why I, or any rational person with a sense of liberty, will not support state sanctioned executions.

Just imagine how you would feel if that was a murder rap and, instead of ruining somebody financially and emotionally for a decade or two, they got executed instead?

Not singling you out, BTW and sorry if I'm sounding harsh, +rep for posting that.

Not harsh at all. This experience really had a lasting impact on my view of the system. I failed that day, and it has stuck with me, that I played a part in messing with another person's life. I am glad it was only a DUI; she likely paid a fine and maybe got 90 days probation, depending on how many priors she had. I like to think I wouldn't have quit, if the charges had been more serious.

I was at the courthouse for some reason about a year later, and I saw a guy with a "juror" pin. I stopped him to lecture him, that he has the right to judge the law too. He may never have served on a jury - it was morning so they probably had just got their "pep talk" - but I felt obligated to tell him not to swallow their BS.

[Luciconsort]

I am sure the entire area is now littered with countless wrecked cars, and every child has been slain by vehicles driven by people who normally would not drive drunk, heard about this law, and immediately did so.

I immediately got drunk and drove 30mph in honor or my brave Gaelic brethren.

[Anti Federalist]

Not harsh at all. This experience really had a lasting impact on my view of the system. I failed that day, and it has stuck with me, that I played a part in messing with another person's life. I am glad it was only a DUI; she likely paid a fine and maybe got 90 days probation, depending on how many priors she had. I like to think I wouldn't have quit, if the charges had been more serious.

I was at the courthouse for some reason about a year later, and I saw a guy with a "juror" pin. I stopped him to lecture him, that he has the right to judge the law too. He may never have served on a jury - it was morning so they probably had just got their "pep talk" - but I felt obligated to tell him not to swallow their BS.

All of us have failed, (God knows I have, miserably) at times.

Through this failure, with proper reflection, comes wisdom.

I owe you another rep.