Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[Sam I am]

The trail of evidence is pretty clear in a drunk driver case...........and when they kill they really deserve to forfeit their life in return.

Honestly, I'm more interested in preventing them from killing in the first place, than any kind of revenge.

[phill4paul]

The trail of evidence is pretty clear in a drunk driver case...........and when they kill they really deserve to forfeit their life in return.

The trail of evidence was pretty clear in those exoneration cases in my link. Enough for a jury to convict and proscribe a death penalty. The justice system is flawed. I can think of an easy enough example. Someone drinking runs over a pedestrian. The jury convicts and sentences. Later evidence proves that the vehicle is prone to brake failure and that a sober driver would not have been able to make the stop, that it was in fact the manufacturer of the automobile that withheld information on these brake failures. See? Unfortunately, the convict is now dead in your final solution world.

[heavenlyboy34]

I kinda get the drift that there are a lot of folks here who feel that their drunk/drugged driving should have zero consequences to them even when they kill and maim others.

You drift wrong. Some people are impaired by poor sleep, distraction, and number of other things. They're no better or worse than drunk/stoned folks. By your standard, the mom yelling at her kids and accidentally gets into a wreck and kills someone gets the lethal injection. I consider this irrational.

[Anti Federalist]

I kinda get the drift that there are a lot of folks here who feel that their drunk/drugged driving should have zero consequences to them even when they kill and maim others.

I'm pretty sure that not one single person posting in this thread that has ever driven above some arbitrary state imposed limit has killed or maimed anyone.

I know I haven't.

[Anti Federalist]

You drift wrong. Some people are impaired by poor sleep, distraction, and number of other things. They're no better or worse than drunk/stoned folks. By your standard, the mom yelling at her kids and accidentally gets into a wreck and kills someone gets the lethal injection. I consider this irrational.

It is irrational, and a great illustration of just how a, to quote osan, typical "meaner" thinks.

Fines are not enough, blockades are not enough, jail is not enough, no, the state must kill you.

These people would kill you twice if they had their way.

[Anti Federalist]

The trail of evidence was pretty clear in those exoneration cases in my link. Enough for a jury to convict and proscribe a death penalty. The justice system is flawed. I can think of an easy enough example. Someone drinking runs over a pedestrian. The jury convicts and sentences. Later evidence proves that the vehicle is prone to brake failure and that a sober driver would not have been able to make the stop, that it was in fact the manufacturer of the automobile that withheld information on these brake failures. See? Unfortunately, the convict is now dead in your final solution world.

Yup.

Many of those exonerated confessed.

Which only goes to show how easy it is to sweat a "confession" out of somebody, even when they are innocent.

[DFF]

"Drunk driving destroys lives, and if you drink and drive, we'll destroy your life." - PoPo

[Christian Liberty]

You drift wrong. Some people are impaired by poor sleep, distraction, and number of other things. They're no better or worse than drunk/stoned folks. By your standard, the mom yelling at her kids and accidentally gets into a wreck and kills someone gets the lethal injection. I consider this irrational.

I know there's some Exodus 21:29 application here. I don't know where the right line is for generally applying the principle, but at some level I know the principle can be applied.

I'm pretty sure that not one single person posting in this thread that has ever driven above some arbitrary state imposed limit has killed or maimed anyone.

I know I haven't.

ANd they should be left alone until they do.

[osan]

Meaners.

Indeed.

Joey and Janey Meaner live life with both an eternal chip on their shoulder, and piss down their leg scared, at the same time.

Astute and so true.

Which makes for a dangerous mix of simultaneously being skittish and belligerent.

They are like the weasel characters who, when you have them in a corner they whine and cry for mercy. The second you turn your back on them, in goes the shiv.

[erowe1]

Saying it's ok for someone to drive drunk is like saying it's ok for someone with a twitch to point a gun in your face.

The question didn't say "OK." It said "legal."

ETA: Good grief! Who bumped this and tricked me into replying to a post from 7 years ago?

[osan]

How about Angry Driving? Should that be illegal too?

Wow. I have to say that this was a fabulously oblique observation. Very impressive and a question to which I would love to hear the geniuses answer.

Should I be allowed to carry my gun while angry?

The questions of this sort could go on for a very long time. They are, essentially, "what-if" questions and what-if logic is invalid in terms of its use as the justification for prior restraint. "He might do this... he might do that... therefore we forbid him from..." This does not qualify as reason in the least. There is no logic evident. There is only the blather of blind assertions couched in a semantic framework made of pure fail. Now consider that the vast majority of our law is built using tools such as this.

[JK/SEA]

i'm one of millions of drivers who have the ability to drive drunk without any problem. Did it for 20-30 years until booze and i parted ways.

Hassling people over being drunk and driving is tyranny.

[Ronin Truth]

Should killing someone while driving drunk be an automatic capital offense?

[Christian Liberty]

Should killing someone while driving drunk be an automatic capital offense?

Nope. It should be up to the victim's family whether they want to demand execution or to demand monetary payment instead.

[osan]

OK, here is a contrived scenario to illustrate the flaw in DUI laws.

Imagine I am a woman. That's right, the most stunning beauty on the planet.

Being a bit of a hussy, I go to a guy's house for "a" drink. He spikes my martini and acts prematurely. I'm feeling the drug and alcohol seriously, but not to the point I am incapacitated. As he tries to climb atop my luscious self, I nail him in the nuts and escape. I get in my car and drive away, seeking safety. When I am pulled over, my overt state of drunkenness is well observed. I tell my story but, being the ruthless sub-human dick that he is, the cop decides I'm spinning yarns to get away with DUI. He runs me in, tests me, and I hit 0.1 (It was a generous martini).

Should I be charged? Would I be?

DUI laws are $#@!. They are $#@! because the are the way of the lazy coward who neither wishes to do the work required to make a sound judgment on each case nor has the courage to be held accountable.

[presence]

no victim no crime

[osan]

no victim no crime

exactly.

But try telling that to Themme.

Consider that when a man is popped for illegally carrying a firearm in NJ, the formal charges cite a victim when they refer to the "dignity of the state". There is no getting around Themme and their bull$#@!. They just make up any nonsense pretext and go from there... and we sit idly by and tolerate it.

[JK/SEA]

so because of a few people who can't hold their booze, or know when to not drive, is now my problem?....

[AuH20]

So let's say an individual drinks excessively and then proceeds to turn onto a highway exit and enter a freeway with cars speeding from the opposite direction? (BTW such incidents have occurred twice by me) What should we do with he or she? Slap them on their wrist and tell them to go on their merry way?

There are common standards of decency that is expected out of each other when we drive. There are no do-overs with a 2 ton vehicle at your control. IMHO this isn't on the same moral plateau as an unruly lawn or some flippant government edict. A couple of drinks aren't a big deal, but when you can't control yourself............ This isn't some oppressive burden. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws, but the select $#@!s ruin it for everyone. With that said, I understand the compelling counterpoints on the other side.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yep, I believe they should too as that will teach them their utmost inconsiderateness.

@you and everyone else with a similar opinion-what about distracted drivers? (texting, cell calls, etc) They're statistically as dangerous or moreso, depending on the area you survey.

[AuH20]

@you and everyone else with a similar opinion-what about distracted drivers? (texting, cell calls, etc) They're statistically as dangerous or moreso, depending on the area you survey.

I think that's opening up a whole can of worms since it's so subjective. At least BAC is a metabolic standard that generally holds water across the population (of course there are exceptions).

[osan]

So let's say an individual drinks excessively and then proceeds to turn onto a highway exit and enter a freeway with cars speeding from the opposite direction? (BTW such incidents have occurred twice by me) What should we do with he or she? Slap them on their wrist and tell them to go on their merry way?

There are common standards of decency that is expected out of each other when we drive. There are no do-overs with a 2 ton vehicle at your control. IMHO this isn't on the same moral plateau as an unruly lawn or some flippant government edict. A couple of drinks aren't a big deal, but when you can't control yourself............ This isn't some oppressive burden. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws, but the select $#@!s ruin it for everyone. With that said, I understand the compelling counterpoints on the other side.

Slight analytic fail.

I do believe the timbre of the thread has been along the lines not of whether you have been drinking, but how impaired you are. Driving the wrong way up an exit ramp poses a clear and present danger to others. That is not the same as driving within parameters even though your BAC is .18.

IIRC, in a previous response I mentioned that while driving "drunk" may not necessarily be a crime, it does not follow that the act may not be intervened upon. You are pulled over for erratic driving and blow drunk. Rather than attempting to ruin your life, put you in the drunk tank or at least confiscate your keys until such time as you pick up the vehicle in a state of sobriety. If you harm another or damage property, drunkenness should qualify as an aggravating factor.

I see no virtue in ruining people's lives over this when they have brought no harm, for such is "pre-crime" and it is alive and well in the world.

I side with freedom over "caution" because the latter always diminishes the former in a progression over time. America is perhaps humanity's prime example of this.

[pcosmar]

The question didn't say "OK." It said "legal."

ETA: Good grief! Who bumped this and tricked me into replying to a post from 7 years ago?

The Prohibitionists never quit.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, drunk driving in itself is not a crime.

Only if/when the drunk driver harms someone or damages someone's property has there been a crime.

...and the driver being drunk has nothing to do with the severity of the crime.

If you are responsible for harm to persons/property while driving, you should be liable in exactly the same way whether entirely wasted or judge-sober.

And your liability should be to the victim, to pay some kind of restitution; contra punishment at the hands of the State.

[Ronin Truth]

Is drunk walking legal?

[mad cow]

Is drunk walking legal?

No,it is not..I have been tossed in jail for it a few times.

[ChristianAnarchist]

So let's say an individual drinks excessively and then proceeds to turn onto a highway exit and enter a freeway with cars speeding from the opposite direction? (BTW such incidents have occurred twice by me)

I'd a thunk you'd have learned to not drive drunk after the first time...

[phill4paul]

Bump for relevance due to the yearly Drunk Driving emotion driven thread.

[euphemia]

no victim no crime

You can keep saying that, but if you are impaired, stay home. Just stay home.

[Anti Federalist]

blimp