Habitual Drunk Drivers

[bing_oh]

According to the charts, 0.08 for someone my size is well more than I would generally drink before driving.

On the other hand, DUI checkpoints are unethical, immoral, and probably unconstitutional.

You can have whatever opinions you like about the ethical or moral "rightness" of DUI checkpoints...multiple courts of various levels disagree with you about their Constitutionality.

[Soup DeVille]

You can have whatever opinions you like about the ethical or moral "rightness" of DUI checkpoints...multiple courts of various levels disagree with you about their Constitutionality.

They've been found unconstitutional several times as well; which is why they aren't in use in many states.

[bing_oh]

They've been found unconstitutional several times as well; which is why they aren't in use in many states.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

When the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, the opinions of lower courts don't count.

[Soup DeVille]

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

When the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, the opinions of lower courts don't count.

There are also about fifty state constitutions in the country. The point being, the argument that it is unconstitutional is not without merit, and definitely more than his opinion.

[AutobahnSHO]

According to the charts, 0.08 for someone my size is well more than I would generally drink before driving.

On the other hand, DUI checkpoints are unethical, immoral, and probably unconstitutional.

So is ruining peoples' lives by running them over or hitting their car with yours.
Which has the worst consequences?????

[GoCougs]

According to the charts, 0.08 for someone my size is well more than I would generally drink before driving.

On the other hand, DUI checkpoints are unethical, immoral, and probably unconstitutional.

Unethical? Maybe if targeting a certain type of driver
Immoral? Can't be - government property = government rules
Unconstitutional? It violates many state constitutions (like my state) so we do not have them

I'm on the fence WRT checkpoints. If conducted in an ethical manner I theoretically don't have a problem as DUI is a ginormous problem on our roads. Practically I would not like being stopped and having my time wasted, and in general the solution to DUI is on the penalty side not the detection side.

[GoCougs]

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 - Supreme Court 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

When the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, the opinions of lower courts don't count.

They can count - it's called (state) nullification, which happens all the time (and I hope it happens more and more).

[GoCougs]

Have you ever tested a .08 to see what it really feels like? I'll bet you havn't. Most people think that .08 is two beers...which is, for the average person, flat out bullshit. Unless you're a very regular drinker, .08 is pretty toasty....I've done the tests at .08 and can testify from first-hand experience.

I'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.

[AutobahnSHO]

I'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.

Nope. Need to hammer those who do get caught at existing levels. No repercussions= no deterrent from not doing it again.

[MexicoCityM3]

I'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.

Lots of people here have changed their behaviour because of the checkpoints. Most of my friends don't drive anymore when going out at night if planning to drink. Will get an Uber/Taxi. Definitive safety benefit there.

[bing_oh]

There are also about fifty state constitutions in the country. The point being, the argument that it is unconstitutional is not without merit, and definitely more than his opinion.

And state constitutions tend to mirror the US Constitution. If some states choose not to do DUI checkpoints, that's their decision, but the question of constitutionality has been answered by the highest court and they are constitutional.

[FoMoJo]

They've been found unconstitutional several times as well; which is why they aren't in use in many states.

I'm glad we don't get into such a tizzy over what is or isn't constitutional.  There's right and wrong and getting drunks off the road is right.

[bing_oh]

I'm not really arguing - and further don't know - what the threshold should be. My point is/was ever lowering/low BAC and by definition making more people "guilty" of DUI doesn't address the core problem.

And the "core problem" is?

BAC levels were established in law so that there was a definitive, legal threshold and the DUI laws weren't totally subjective while being legally defensible. Let's say that we eliminate BAC's and just make the law that a person can't drive "while intoxicated" (and, yes, I know that most laws include such wording, but they are in there for very specific legal reasons and apply to people who show signs of severe impairment while remaining under the legal limit). What is "intoxicated?" Is it the same for every police officer in the country? Every prosecutor? Every judge? Every potential juror? It would be impossible to enforce such a law uniformly, opening up all kinds of potential for individual subjectivity. Under such a law, you could get a warning from one officer and get arrested a mile down the road by another because their opinion on what is "intoxicated" may differ. At the very least, there's some scientific backing to BAC levels.

[12,000 RPM]

Unethical? Maybe if targeting a certain type of driver
Immoral? Can't be - government property = government rules
Unconstitutional? It violates many state constitutions (like my state) so we do not have them

I'm on the fence WRT checkpoints. If conducted in an ethical manner I theoretically don't have a problem as DUI is a ginormous problem on our roads. Practically I would not like being stopped and having my time wasted, and in general the solution to DUI is on the penalty side not the detection side.

The solution is to address factors that encourage/enable drunk driving. If you are punishing it you are too late. Someone with 4 DUIs is going to get more until they are in prison or dead.

And the "core problem" is?

Habitual drunk drivers?

That said, .08 BAC which is like ground zero for legal drunkedness is pretty damn high. For a 200lb brah thats tossing back 3 beers and immediately getting behind the wheel. .15 BAC is 8-9 beers for me. I don't like driving after more than 2-3 beers even with recovery time. Constitutional aspect kind of goes out the window- driving a car on public roads comes with rules. Its not like cops are doing checkpoints on private property.

[AutobahnSHO]

I'd say the core problem is that which is wrecking everything else-

No accountability for one's actions.

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

Some countries give automatic 6months jail for ANY DUI. We slap the wrist and say "don't do that again"....

[MaxPower]

No, it sends the message that you're wasting resources.

Eh, pretty immune to that.  That's usually the first argument put forward by anyone disagreeing with what we do. 

[Rupert]

IMO, repeated DUIs should be pretty harsh punishment. Everyone makes mistakes, though.

[Soup DeVille]

And state constitutions tend to mirror the US Constitution. If some states choose not to do DUI checkpoints, that's their decision, but the question of constitutionality has been answered by the highest court and they are constitutional.

"Tend to."

[bing_oh]

Habitual drunk drivers?

I dunno...it was an honest question, not my usual smartass remark. Assuming habitual drunk drivers would be the "core problem" he's referring to, I'm not sure how BAC levels don't have any effect.

[bing_oh]

"Tend to."

Would you prefer "pretty much all the damn time, many times word-for-word" instead? Because, realistically, that's not too far from the truth.

[Soup DeVille]

Would you prefer "pretty much all the damn time, many times word-for-word" instead? Because, realistically, that's not too far from the truth.

Not only can minor word variances mean a lot in a court of law: but also the rulings of state supreme courts can drastically differ from state to state.

Which is exactly why in certain states they are unconstitutional. Just because the SCOTUS has ruled that sobriety checkpoints do not violate the federal fourth amendment, it does not make fourth amendment analogs in the various states abide by that ruling.

Which again: makes Rupert's statement more than just his opinion.

[CALL_911]

Have you ever tested a .08 to see what it really feels like? I'll bet you havn't. Most people think that .08 is two beers...which is, for the average person, flat out bullshit. Unless you're a very regular drinker, .08 is pretty toasty....I've done the tests at .08 and can testify from first-hand experience.

Actually, I have. It's nothing

[bing_oh]

Actually, I have. It's nothing

http://www.aa.org/

[GoCougs]

And the "core problem" is?

BAC levels were established in law so that there was a definitive, legal threshold and the DUI laws weren't totally subjective while being legally defensible. Let's say that we eliminate BAC's and just make the law that a person can't drive "while intoxicated" (and, yes, I know that most laws include such wording, but they are in there for very specific legal reasons and apply to people who show signs of severe impairment while remaining under the legal limit). What is "intoxicated?" Is it the same for every police officer in the country? Every prosecutor? Every judge? Every potential juror? It would be impossible to enforce such a law uniformly, opening up all kinds of potential for individual subjectivity. Under such a law, you could get a warning from one officer and get arrested a mile down the road by another because their opinion on what is "intoxicated" may differ. At the very least, there's some scientific backing to BAC levels.

The core problem are drunks and habitual offenders, who IME drive well above the minimum.

I don't have a strong opinion on the optimal BAC level but do agree it has to be objective as subjective law is the tool of tyrants.

Lowering it does nothing to address the core problem - they're usually way above 0.08 anyway - it just snares a lot of people who don't deserve it.

[GoCougs]

The solution is to address factors that encourage/enable drunk driving. If you are punishing it you are too late. Someone with 4 DUIs is going to get more until they are in prison or dead.

Nah, that's social engineering and otherwise implicit calls for the increase in state power, which is never a good thing.

Someone with 4 DUIs gets there because punishments are laughably weak.

[GoCougs]

Eh, pretty immune to that.  That's usually the first argument put forward by anyone disagreeing with what we do. 

Of course you're immune to that mindset - the state has virtually nothing to lose - not so much the prosecuted.

I understand it must be frustrating as hell but irrational prosecution is not a sufficient proxy for breakdowns elsewhere in the system - irresponsible judges, ineffectual law, and the myth of addiction as a disease.

[bing_oh]

The core problem are drunks and habitual offenders, who IME drive well above the minimum.

I don't have a strong opinion on the optimal BAC level but do agree it has to be objective as subjective law is the tool of tyrants.

Lowering it does nothing to address the core problem - they're usually way above 0.08 anyway - it just snares a lot of people who don't deserve it.

It's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's. Yes, there are the cases of the hardcore alcoholic who blows up the breath testing machine with a mega-BAC, but that's not always the case.

And, in reference to "habitual offenders," you should probably consider the fact that most first time DUI's are not necessarily first time offenders. Generally, a first-offense DUI offender has driven intoxicated multiple times before he is caught. In short, chances are very high that they have "gotten away with it" many times before they are finally arrested. The people with multiple DUI's on their records are beyond "habitual offenders."

[FoMoJo]

Back in a different era, I often drove after far too many beers...as did a lot of my cohorts.  Only one of us was ever caught.  It was stupid then and is stupid now.  I'm all for spot checks.  They, usually, have them only on well known drinking holidays here but should have them on a more regular basis.  I stopped doing it decades ago, but I know there's still a lot of it going on. 

[CJ]

I get drunk and play Grand Theft Auto V.  Does that count?

[Rupert]

It's a myth than habitual offenders automatically = high BAC's. Yes, there are the cases of the hardcore alcoholic who blows up the breath testing machine with a mega-BAC, but that's not always the case.

And, in reference to "habitual offenders," you should probably consider the fact that most first time DUI's are not necessarily first time offenders. Generally, a first-offense DUI offender has driven intoxicated multiple times before he is caught. In short, chances are very high that they have "gotten away with it" many times before they are finally arrested. The people with multiple DUI's on their records are beyond "habitual offenders."

I'd love to see that data.