Why it remains an epidemic - kill a guy while DUI and get only 30 days

[NomisR]

Yes, punishment is most certainly a deterrent. How can you say otherwise? Accountability's not perfect, but it works.

Appealing to the morality du-jour that is proactive state intervention is problematic on all sorts of levels.

I'm confused, when it comes to driving, you're all for punishment and regulation and limitation.. yet you're all for free market everywhere, what gives?

[James Young]

Gocougs writes:  {Yes, punishment is most certainly a deterrent. How can you say otherwise? Accountability's not perfect, but it works.}

Once again, you don?t get it.  The segment of the population most involved in fatal alcohol-caused crashes does not respond to punishment of any kind; i.e., they do not change their behavior.  Alcoholics will drink without regard to the consequences, legal or physical and we are learning that alcoholism is probably genetic in origin; therefore, those seeking ?justice? are trying to solve a biological problem with social tools and the likelihood of success in any case is minimal, on a demographic scale, impossible.  Accountability to that population is meaningless.

I?ll throw you a bone.  Deterrence works for you and me but we?re not the problem.  Tailoring a policy for an irrelevant population is worse than no policy at all.

And if punishment is indefensibly stringent, its legitimacy will evaporate and those subject to it will become martyrs.  Bad policies have even worse consequences.

{Appealing to the morality du-jour that is proactive state intervention is problematic on all sorts of levels.}

I have no idea what that means.

[rohan]

The segment of the population most involved in fatal alcohol-caused crashes does not respond to punishment of any kind; i.e., they do not change their behavior.

No it's you that doesn't get it- when you put a person in prison he stops drinking and driving. 

[hotrodalex]

No it's you that doesn't get it- when you put a person in prison he stops drinking and driving. 

But Donte Stallworth didn't get put in prison (30 days is nothing)

[rohan]

I never said the justice system wasn't flawed.  This is one of those cases that money talks which blow and it's one of the reasons we hate lawyers.

[Minpin]

I never said the justice system wasn't flawed.  This is one of those cases that money talks which blow and it's one of the reasons we hate lawyers.

Hate the judge not the lawyer, the lawyer is just doing his job.

[rohan]

Hate the judge not the lawyer, the lawyer is just doing his job.

The judge and prosecutors are both lawyers- I hate lawyers who let pricks like this go- all of them.

[James Young]

Rohan writes:  {No it's you that doesn't get it- when you put a person in prison he stops drinking and driving.}

Perhaps I gave too much credit when I wrote, ?Given all this, what do all of the usual experts on here have to offer as a viable and effective public policy to prevent alcohol-related crashes, injuries and fatalities?  Formulate your own public policy and tell us why it would be effective and viable.? [Emphasis added by original author.] You seem to be confusing the segregation function with the deterrent function.

While your policy would be effective for a limited number of people, it is not viable at all.  If we tried and incarcerated just 100,000 drunk drivers, that would cost us about $8 billion a year, not to mention overloading the already overcrowded prisons.  The question was how we prevent crashes, not how we satisfy our baser instincts

[Tave]

No, the question is what sentence does a manslaughter DUI deserve. Your policy rant, which I happen to agree with BTW, is off-topic.

[Raza]

No, the question is what sentence does a manslaughter DUI deserve. Your policy rant, which I happen to agree with BTW, is off-topic.

Death by hanging. 

[GoCougs]

Gocougs writes:  {Yes, punishment is most certainly a deterrent. How can you say otherwise? Accountability's not perfect, but it works.}

Once again, you don?t get it.  The segment of the population most involved in fatal alcohol-caused crashes does not respond to punishment of any kind; i.e., they do not change their behavior.  Alcoholics will drink without regard to the consequences, legal or physical and we are learning that alcoholism is probably genetic in origin; therefore, those seeking ?justice? are trying to solve a biological problem with social tools and the likelihood of success in any case is minimal, on a demographic scale, impossible.  Accountability to that population is meaningless.

I?ll throw you a bone.  Deterrence works for you and me but we?re not the problem.  Tailoring a policy for an irrelevant population is worse than no policy at all.

And if punishment is indefensibly stringent, its legitimacy will evaporate and those subject to it will become martyrs.  Bad policies have even worse consequences.

{Appealing to the morality du-jour that is proactive state intervention is problematic on all sorts of levels.}

I have no idea what that means.

The model is right here from where I'm writing this post, and a factor last night because we, mostly Japanese, got loaded and getting behind the wheel if you've had more than a drink, unlike in the US was simply a non-issue last night (an anecdote, yes, but I think you get my drift) .

Japan's DUI death rate is ~10% of traffic fatalities, as opposed to ~45% in the US. Reason? Very simple - significant harsher penalties for DUI (and a similar story plays itself out in western Europe). They simply don't mess around as in the US, and the population knows it, drunks and all.

Prevention is an incongruous substitute for accountability, not the least of which because it lets (demands) the state act before there is a crime, which is the pinnacle of subjective law, and the slipperiest of slopes. THAT is indefensible and evaporative IMO.

[GoCougs]

I'm confused, when it comes to driving, you're all for punishment and regulation and limitation.. yet you're all for free market everywhere, what gives?

Capitalism is not anarchy.

[sportyaccordy]

We're really backwards when it comes to DUI penalties in this country. Other nations have extremely harsh penalties for DUI...and, subsequently, have little problem with DUI, even in nations with much lower drinking ages and such.

There's a case that's being appealed in my county right now where a guy ran a stop sign and killed four 18 year old kids. He was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol. He accepted a plea bargain for (I believe) 28 years in prison for it...that's 7 years per dead 18 year old kid. He's now changed lawyers, claimed ineffective council, said that he didn't run the stop sign, and wants the case thrown out. The biggest thing isn't even the time he was sentenced to (even though I think that's pitiful) but that he can't take responsibility for his actions. His parents have even started a letter-writing campaign to the editorial page of the local newspaper calling it an "accident," how their kid doesn't deserve to serve prison time for it, and how the local Sheriff's Office screwed up the investigation (they didn't...I know the two deputies who did the crash reconstruction personally).

You have to remember, in America most people don't want to accept responsibility for everything. We are transitioning into an entitlement based system after all.

[the Teuton]

I have a friend who drove drunk and killed his best friend when he was 19.  Should he have spent the rest of his life behind bars (the prison kind -- not the alcohol kind)?

[bing_oh]

You have to remember, in America most people don't want to accept responsibility for everything. We are transitioning into an entitlement based system after all.

Oh, I'm quite aware of it. I just don't like it.

[bing_oh]

I have a friend who drove drunk and killed his best friend when he was 19.  Should he have spent the rest of his life behind bars (the prison kind -- not the alcohol kind)?

The rest of his life? Probably not. Some significant prison time? Yes. His choices directly caused the death of another person, after all.

[GoCougs]

I have a friend who drove drunk and killed his best friend when he was 19.  Should he have spent the rest of his life behind bars (the prison kind -- not the alcohol kind)?

Inasmuch as it is a profound crime, it is not murder save for mitigating circumstances that for all intents imply intent (previous DUI arrests and/or crashes)

So no, not his entire life, but more than the 1-3 years he probably got; I'd say 7-10 if no previous DUI history, and well more than 10 if there was.

[Raza]

I have a friend who drove drunk and killed his best friend when he was 19.  Should he have spent the rest of his life behind bars (the prison kind -- not the alcohol kind)?

Your friend broke two laws there and killed someone.  What do you think he should get, a medal?

If he got drunk and shot someone in the face, he wouldn't have gone anywhere but prison.  I'm really having a hard time seeing the difference.

[NomisR]

Well, I know in CA, they no longer consider hitting someone with a car, "assault with deadly weapon" anymore.. I guess cars aren't considered deadly enough for some people.

[Lebowski]

Well, I know in CA, they no longer consider hitting someone with a car, "assault with deadly weapon" anymore.. I guess cars aren't considered deadly enough for some people.

Unless you intentionally run someone down, it shouldn't be considered assault w/ a deadly weapon, IMO.

It's like a hammer.  Legally it's not considered a weapon, until you hit someone over the head with it.

[NomisR]

Unless you intentionally run someone down, it shouldn't be considered assault w/ a deadly weapon, IMO.

It's like a hammer.  Legally it's not considered a weapon, until you hit someone over the head with it.

Yeah, but in case of police, someone with a car intentionally running into the police, the police can no longer fire at the person trying to run the officer down as it is no longer a deadly weapon.  At least that's how I understand it now.  This was the outcome of the fatal shooting of this underaged kid in a stolen car that was running into a police car. 

[hotrodalex]

Yeah, but in case of police, someone with a car intentionally running into the police, the police can no longer fire at the person trying to run the officer down as it is no longer a deadly weapon.  At least that's how I understand it now.  This was the outcome of the fatal shooting of this underaged kid in a stolen car that was running into a police car. 

Seems like that kid got what he deserved.

[rohan]

Yeah, but in case of police, someone with a car intentionally running into the police, the police can no longer fire at the person trying to run the officer down as it is no longer a deadly weapon.  At least that's how I understand it now.  This was the outcome of the fatal shooting of this underaged kid in a stolen car that was running into a police car. 

No, so long as the officer believes his life or safety, or the life or safety of another is in immediate jeopardy he's allowed to use whatever force he sees fit at the moment which means he can shoot at cars- he just can't shoot at moving cars that are trying to flee from police unless there's a valid reason like the guy in it just killed a police officer.  POlice will always be able to defend our selves.

[bing_oh]

No, so long as the officer believes his life or safety, or the life or safety of another is in immediate jeopardy he's allowed to use whatever force he sees fit at the moment which means he can shoot at cars- he just can't shoot at moving cars that are trying to flee from police unless there's a valid reason like the guy in it just killed a police officer.  POlice will always be able to defend our selves.

I seem to remember a court ruling awhile back that said that a LEO wasn't justified in shooting a guy who was trying to run him down because the court believed that the officer could have moved out of the way of the vehicle before being struck. It seems that some courts would love to take away our ability to defend ourselves.

[NomisR]

Seems like that kid got what he deserved.

That's what I thought too.  Unfortunately, that's not what the MSM and the "community" believes.  And basically, LAPD said they'll look over their policy to not consider a car as a deadly weapon and they should move out of the car's way when it's running towards them.   

I would hate to be a LEO.

[Tave]

I seem to remember a court ruling awhile back that said that a LEO wasn't justified in shooting a guy who was trying to run him down because the court believed that the officer could have moved out of the way of the vehicle before being struck. It seems that some courts would love to take away our ability to defend ourselves.

I fully support the police having that kind of power, but if it were me in that situation, I'd probably run out of the way instead of taking my chances with the gun. I guess it would depend on the situation (are you already drawn and aiming, do you have a good look at the driver, etc...). It'd be easy for the bad guy to duck his head and keep going, and his "bullet" is a lot easier to aim than yours.

[AutobahnSHO]

I seem to remember a court ruling awhile back that said that a LEO wasn't justified in shooting a guy who was trying to run him down because the court believed that the officer could have moved out of the way of the vehicle before being struck. It seems that some courts would love to take away our ability to defend ourselves.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/05/06/met_522969.shtml
Kid tried to run over officers after they stopped him- suspected of drug and WEAPON trafficking. Kid (Justin Elmore) was shot and killed.
Yay Officers, says me!

neighborhood rioted, there was a big issue if his bro would be released from prison to attend the funeral (rolleyes!!) yada yada.  Just search for his name at that newspapers' website..

[Xer0]

So, Madoff steals some money and gets 150 years.

This guy is high and drunk and kills 4 kids and now is looking like he wont even get his original 28?

Hmmmm

[hotrodalex]

So, Madoff steals some money and gets 150 years.

This guy is high and drunk and kills 4 kids and now is looking like he wont even get his original 28?

Hmmmm

Who your crime affects has a lot to do with prison sentence, sadly.

[NomisR]

Who your crime affects has a lot to do with prison sentence, sadly.

No powerful jew got hurt on that DUI thing I guess..