Executing drunk drivers

[diuretic]

Dahlia sounds as if she would have approved of English criminal justice in the 18th Century. All those capital crimes yet the system was so ineffective that crime was absolutely rampant. The problem for the system was that it was difficult to get caught.

What changed the game was the introduction of the New Police in 1829 in London, an idea which spread to the rest of the country in the ensuring years. Yes, there should be appropriate punishment for crime but the chances of actually being apprehended should be increased so that the deterrent value of punishment is enhanced.

What are your DUI laws like? Where I am it's illegal to drive above .05%. Every police officer here is permitted to stop any driver to test them at any time. We also have breath testing stations which test large numbers of drivers for alcohol or drugs On the sentencing end of the equation for a first offence the max is 3 mths in prison, for a subsequent offence the max is 6 mths and disqualification from driving is lengthy.

It has had an effect. But the most important change in the last twenty or so years has been the social disapproval of DUI. No longer is is acceptable when you're at the pub to boast about how off your face you were last night but you managed to get home in one piece.

In the state next to mine some years ago the traffic safety authorities ran a series of tv, radio and print ads which were aimed to stigmatising DUI drivers. The line went, "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot!" At one inner city pub someone had scrawled underneath one of the ads, "But if you get home you're a bloody legend!" That caused great mirth at the time. Nowadays it would be seen as poor taste humour.

[Hagbard Celine]

Dahlia sounds as if she would have approved of English criminal justice in the 18th Century. All those capital crimes yet the system was so ineffective that crime was absolutely rampant. The problem for the system was that it was difficult to get caught.

What changed the game was the introduction of the New Police in 1829 in London, an idea which spread to the rest of the country in the ensuring years. Yes, there should be appropriate punishment for crime but the chances of actually being apprehended should be increased so that the deterrent value of punishment is enhanced.

What are your DUI laws like? Where I am it's illegal to drive above .05%. Every police officer here is permitted to stop any driver to test them at any time. We also have breath testing stations which test large numbers of drivers for alcohol or drugs On the sentencing end of the equation for a first offence the max is 3 mths in prison, for a subsequent offence the max is 6 mths and disqualification from driving is lengthy.

It has had an effect. But the most important change in the last twenty or so years has been the social disapproval of DUI. No longer is is acceptable when you're at the pub to boast about how off your face you were last night but you managed to get home in one piece.

In the state next to mine some years ago the traffic safety authorities ran a series of tv, radio and print ads which were aimed to stigmatising DUI drivers. The line went, "If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot!" At one inner city pub someone had scrawled underneath one of the ads, "But if you get home you're a bloody legend!" That caused great mirth at the time. Nowadays it would be seen as poor taste humour.

Here it's .08 percent in most, if not all places. You get carted off to the drunk tank to sober up and then you're faced with a license suspension and/or community service. I think you can go to prison after three of them.

[gabosaurus]

My primary objection is that being drunk is pretty much considered acceptable. You read of people who have a half-dozen DUI/DWI convictions, and yet they are still driving around.
Compare that with sex offenders, who have to register the first time they are convicted, and are forever stigmatized.
I want much harsher sentences for DUI/DWI. First conviction should include a six-month license suspension. Second conviction should have mandatory jail time.
I would also like to see registration for convicted drunk drivers. I don't want one living in my neighborhood. Or in the vicinity of a school.
Too many idiots still believe it is "cool" to get drunk and drive around.

[DragonStryk72]

I totally see your point. If someone rapes or molests a child, they should get the death penalty. But if someone kills a child, they should get a lighter sentence.

I guess this goes along with Americans being more enamored with drunks than sex offenders. You see tons of legal ads stating "We defend DWI cases!" But when was the last ad you saw reading "We defend sex offenders!"

I would never want to make the choice, but if I totally had to, I would rather have my child molested than dead. Perhaps you wouldn't.

But why does it have to be a choice, gabs? Both of them deserve to die for what they did to your child. Now, let's look at your scenario, and put a little more substance to it:

Which is better to you:

The memories of your happy child up until the moment of their death, and the pain of losing them.

Watching every day for ten years as your child cringes whenever you or her father tries to hug her, who, once active and vibrant, now is sullen, and quiet, their eyes looking for threats, instead of simply looking at the world as a child. Her whole life scarred, her childhood robbed, unable even to move onto the afterlife without knowing the pain and fear of what was done to her. Her first kiss, her first sensation of making love all horribly ruined, stolen away from her. It will color all relationships that come after it.


Btw, I happen to like having my children both alive, and unmolested. And, were either done to child, there will be a death penalty on the one who did, court or no court.

[diuretic]

The thread's going wacko. Tell me I'm not reading that a molested child should die to avoid the suffering. Tell me that and I'll be reassured.