<p>As has been mentioned, there is a foolproof way to not drink and drive. Have someone who has not had a drink do the driving. Arrange for a non-drinking designated driver, a taxi driver or a bus driver etc. Drink at home and stay there.</p>
<p>There are near foolproof ways for the person who is NOT trying to get to consume the very most possible without breaking the law to minimize the risk to others and to the personal legal penalties. Invest some of your drinking money in a personal blood alcohol content tester, use it and don’t go up to the maximum legal limit. <a href=“Blood Alcohol Testers for Those Without Badges - The New York Times”>Blood Alcohol Testers for Those Without Badges - The New York Times; Think of the cost and the decision not to push the limit as preventative medicine.</p>
<p>With the existence of absolutely foolproof ways to go out and drink and nearly foolproof ways to go out and drink and drive if the person’s goal is the safety of others, it seems to me that the focus on the harshness on the legal penalties is nothing but an admission that “I want to be able to do the offense, I just don’t want to face the penalty if I get caught.”</p>
<p>I think one of the big things that’s being overlooked here is a combination of alcohol and drugs - OTC drugs being a big issue. I can’t tell you the number of people I know who, after taking a drug (and I’m not talking about street drugs because that’s a whole 'nother issue), such as Benadryl or a legally prescribed prescription drug, will have ‘just one drink’ (although it’s contraindicated), because ‘one drink isn’t going to hurt me’, then get behind the wheel. So yea, their BAC may come back within limits, or just above, but the combination of the two was enough to impair them beyond safe driving limits. So I can see how someone would complain, “Can you believe I got arrested and thrown into jail with a BAC of .01” when the reality is the cop pulled them over because they were driving erratically. The only way this is going to be determined is if the person agrees to a blood test. Even then I can see someone complaining about their scam arrest and not divulging what else was going on. Also, how about the person who was sleep deprived and drinking? There are lots of incidences where a legal or close to legal BAC doesn’t mean squat when it comes to impaired driving.</p>
<p>As to Mini’s solution of mandating a breathalyzer for every car, I would love to see how many politicians we are going to get to vote for such a law. I don’t think many would. I also wonder what the ACLU and other groups like this would think about such a proposal. I have a feeling this idea would go over as well as the reimposition of prohibition.</p>
<p>Yes, it is quite common for many of us to take OTC meds, especially antihistamines and decongestants and then have a bit of alcohol. Many really do NOT think of how the two combined can impair functioning. Many take the meds on a daily basis and don’t even think about it as something that could combine in a bad way with alcohol.</p>
<p>Think of the billions of dollars spent on prosecution of DUIs, medical bills, increased insurance claims…
Surely we can reduce the new auto cost a few thousand dollars to compensate for the " inconvenience"</p>
<p>Emeraldkitty, to answer your second question first, I would focus most of the resources on getting the repeat offenders off the road. This group is causing a lot of the carnage and is not deterred by tougher laws. I would look for preemptive ways to keep them from driving. Here is where I think Mini’s idea could work.</p>
<p>I do think we have crossed the line for first time offenders. No matter how objectionable many in the public view the crime, it can not be justification to suspend our civil liberties or transfer the burden of proof to the accused. Also, the punishment needs to fit the extenuating circumstances unique to each person convicted of a DUI. We don’t need to make everyone who violates the law a criminal, particularly those people who don’t abuse alcohol and are not likely to ever repeat the offense. </p>
<p>As I said earlier, it is not likely we are going to entirely eradicate drinking and driving as long as alcohol consumption is permitted in our society. It is extremely pervasive in our population, and I seriously doubt the majority of people want to outlaw drinking and driving.</p>
<p>"Unfortunately, draconian DUI laws seem to have no impact on serial DUI offenders, who are generally alcoholics and drug addicts. This is where we need to focus our resources, because unless we figure out how to reduce the recidivism rate among this group, we will never solve the problem. "</p>
<p>This exactly. The serial offenders know how to get away with this. I am not downplaying the problem. I do not believe first offenders, which, yes are usually first time caught, should get jail time. They don’t most places. Mandatory sentencing and other laws made to get the regulars instead hit the ones who have no thought of any of this and therefore react in the exact way to get a conviction. I don’t think it is right. A lot of other penalties and required penance should be paid, not jail time.</p>
<p>Foolproof methods of avoiding drunk driving won’t work if you drink enough to act like a fool.</p>
<p>I do think there is something wrong with the way we penalize drunk driving–as I said upthread, I think the consequences for a first offense should be draconian–but they should be financially draconian (plus a requirement for taking a course), as opposed to creating a criminal record and putting somebody in jail. There should be a significant jail term for a second offense. The length of your jail terms shouldn’t really depend on whether you killed somebody or not–the crime is the same. (I don’t know if the dentist who killed a couple of people was a first offender, but if he was, I think I’d prefer that he keep on working as a dentist but have to pay a substantial portion of his earnings to the survivors. If he was a repeat offender, I have no problem with the long sentence.)</p>
<p>Financially draconian doesn’t work when those who do so don’t care much about cost, and it penalizes those who don’t have the money much, much more. That said, it should be a pain in the neck consequence that require classes, community service, loss of license and all sort of things short of a criminal record. Where I think the emphasis should be is on the repeat offenders, but they are not such easy prey to put away as they often know the system. This should not be how mandatory sentencing works where those first offenders who don’t know how to defend themselves are the ones who get caught into the severe penalties and the repeats get away. What I think should happen is that basically once you are caught drunk driving and so convicted, you lose your rights to NOT take any tests and the refusal to do so is an automatic high threshhold number as a penalty, so that the next time around, truly draconian consequences are the result. Many of these auto penalty laws are put in place to target the serial drunk driver and hit the first timer instead. I don’t think the laws would even pass if most people saw how the laws play out. I certainly refuse to support them. </p>
<p>We put too many people in jail. In doing so , we compromise their ability to be self supporting and cut out opportunities to the point where many stop trying. THis is becoming a huge load on society, community and family. </p>
<p>I know of a famly of boys,(not mine) who were drunk and otherwise in a haze for a good part of their young adult lives. Some of the ones who were not caught, are professional drivers, truckers. They were no less flagrent than those who were caught. First time consequences of jail cut out too many options and should instead be focused on rehabilitation while it is still possilbe.</p>
<p>I am very concerned about the number and sorts of people who becoming unemployable and losing heart in doing much in life due to felony convictions, doing jail time and just can’t get over it. We put too many people in jail for things that should not result in incarceration. It’s affecting many things direly. It’s not that I don’t think drinking and driving is not a dangersous thing. That those caught should not have some severe penalities and I absolutely support draconian and drastic penalies to the serial abusers. But first time offenders, I would not have a mandatory jail sentence. Yes, in some cases, it would appropriate, but to make it automatic is overkill.</p>
<p>The operative word in your links is ‘can’ - i.e. ‘can cost $16K’ which doesn’t mean that it ‘typically’ costs $16K. Like I said, there’s a spectrum from ‘over 21, .08 BAC, only person in car, no accident’ to ‘under 21, doub;e the legal limit or higher BAC, multiple people in the car including minors, accident or other infractions, and injury or death caused to others’ at the other end. I think it’s safe to say the penalties meted out for the different points on the spectrum aren’t the same nor should they be as is obvious (I think you agree with the latter but you come across as if all the penalties are severe, including for the light end of the spectrum, and they simply aren’t). </p>
<p>You still haven’t provided any anecdotes you’re personally aware of that illustrate your point of what you think is too severe of a penalty. You’ve spent a lot of time in this thread so you seem to have a particular interest in it and you’re an outlier as far as your opinion here goes so it’d be nice to see some context.</p>
<p>
That’s my philosophy and what I practice. Forgetting about the penalties for a minute, think about it - even if you were under the legal limit but somehow were in an accident and killed a kid who might have run out in front of you, wouldn’t you always have that nagging and visceral thought that ‘maybe’ you could have avoided it if you hadn’t have had the alcohol? I would and it’s not worth the risk IMO. Give this some serious thought the next time you plan to drink and drive - even if you plan to have only 1 or 2 drinks and stay under the legal limit.</p>
<p>
I don’t like this idea because many people do ‘not ever’ drink and drive and they shouldn’t have to pay for this, which would never actually be effectively used in their car, simply because some other people drink and drive. </p>
<p>
It wouldn’t solve the problem but it likely would reduce it. Even if it was outlawed, i.e. prohibition, the DUI laws would need to still exist and people would still be caught because some people don’t follow the laws.</p>
<p>
I guess this would be great for college students who have an AGI of $0 - the fine would be nothing. (I don’t think this is a good idea at all)</p>
<p>
I actually know very few people who have ended up in jail and those I’ve personally known deserved it (murderers, people with multiple DUIs). I’m not discounting your point - just saying that ‘most’ people don’t commit felonies and do jail time. Certainly avoiding doing felonious crimes would be a good idea. And most DUIs are misdemeanors - not felonies.</p>
<p>“We” don’t make a drunk driver a criminal. The drunk driver makes him/herself a criminal by breaking the law. I understand your point, but how is a judge to decide whether someone is “not likely to ever repeat the offense”? By the way the person is dressed in court? By his/her socioeconomic status? race? gender? age? church attendance? community reputation? By his/her claim that it will never happen again? What percentage of drunk drivers do you think say that they will “never drink and drive again”? Probably nearly 100%.</p>
<p>There are too many subjective criteria for a judge to consider – criteria that could result into more lenient punishment for upper middle class people with good jobs and money than for people from lower socioeconomic groups. That should concern everyone.</p>
<p>GladGrad, I don’t have personal anecdotes but I have looked into the issue because it has become very controversial in my community. A police officer, who has received many awards for the high number of DUI arrests made, has been accused by the leading newspaper in my community of running up the numbers or arresting people on false charges for reasons related to self-aggrandizement. This got me curious so I began to research the issue and was surprised to see how common this has become all over the US.</p>
<p>GladGrad, we are going to have to disagree about the severity of a first time DUI offense. I don’t think many people who have gone through the process feel the penalties were not all that severe. After paying all the fines, penalties, insurance costs, legal fees and other court costs, it is much more expensive than you are representing.</p>
<p>As I have said repeatedly, MADD has intimidated our politicians and have browbeaten them into passing laws that are criminalizing first time offenders and have created a system where your 5th amendment rights have been considerably abridged.</p>
<p>So NHTSA some years back did a study and found that there were 106 instances of drunk driving (more than 0.8) for every one that was caught (not convicted, fined, etc, just caught.) The same study found that for almost none of those taken in for a first-time offense was it the first time they were driving while intoxicated. Let’s not create a straw man here. Sure, it could happen, for the very first time in his life, the 40-year-old man has four drinks and gets behind the wheel, and get’s caught. But let’s not kid ourselves; it is very, very rare.</p>
<p>We have the technological fix. It would reduce DUI, reduce police stops so they could concentrate on other things, remove clogging up the justice system, reduce jail populations, and make MADD happy. (Could reduce sheriffs’ budgets, though. ;)) And we wouldn’t have to single anyone out - everyone could be treated the same. Save lots of lives.</p>
<p>(But I doubt it will happen. Hey, we don’t even have seatbelts on schoolbuses.)</p>
<p>"To me, the lesson from this thread is to never have a drink and drive. Not even after “just one”. </p>
<p>And despite the fact that Swedes are heavy drinkers they are VERY careful about not getting behind the wheel after drinking. There’s more of a social stigma to drinking and driving in Sweden than the US.</p>
<p>goldenpooch:
Thanks for giving that perspective (of no personal anecdotes and the cop).</p>
<p>
Yes, we’ll have to disagree. I think, however, you might be surprised on this point because I think you think the penalties are more severe than they actually are for a first time DUI at the lower end of the offense spectrum. I have actual basis for what I’m saying so if you’re interested in the topic you might want to research the reality rather than the potential max penalties (which would typically be for the higher end of the spectrum I mentioned) and rather than relying on assumptions.</p>
<p>According to the link posted by ‘mini’ - the DUI penalties in the USA tend to be much less than those in the other countries in the post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We have the technological fix. It would reduce DUI…<a href=“Assuming%20you’re%20referring%20to%20a%20vehicle%20breathalyzer”>/quote</a> I doubt that very much - it couldn’t be that difficult to defeat these devices. It also doesn’t address people simply buying older cars that don’t have the device (like the ones you drive mini) and ‘most’ people on the road are ‘not’ drunk driving so it’d be like trying to kill flies with a cannon.</p>