Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This makes my blood boil, so many lives are lost to drunk driving, but no one even dares to create tougher laws on access to alcohol or alcohol in general!
Whatever happened to the MADD group? I havent heard a thing about them in many years.
I lost a friend and his wife a couple years ago, they left behind 3 young kids, they were killed on new years eve by a drunk driver, (they didnt drink alcohol at all). Im pretty sure I was the only person to ask police about finding out where this drunk driver got his alcohol too.
This makes my blood boil, so many lives are lost to drunk driving, but no one even dares to create tougher laws on access to alcohol or alcohol in general!
Nothing would have prevented this. It is against the law to drive drunk, so that law did not deter the person, breaking it before did not deter the person from breaking it again, so I doubt more laws regarding alcohol and alcohol access would have stopped the person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Whatever happened to the MADD group? I havent heard a thing about them in many years.
They are still around, but they went off the deep end years ago in my opinion. They even fired the founder because she was not radical enough for them, as MADD is full of people who really want to ban alcohol all together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
I lost a friend and his wife a couple years ago, they left behind 3 young kids, they were killed on new years eve by a drunk driver, (they didnt drink alcohol at all). Im pretty sure I was the only person to ask police about finding out where this drunk driver got his alcohol too.
Why does it matter where the person got alcohol from? Does it make a difference if from a bar, liquor store, home made, or grocery store?
Driving under the influence is a result of impaired personal judgement, and poor decision making. That's something you can't completely control with legislation... only mitigate to some degree. Current laws have penalties, some even severe. But for them to work as a deterrent, the person has to use critical thinking to weight risk/benefit of driving intoxicated. The problem is being intoxicated takes away that ability, and that's why the deterrents fail to prevent repeat offenses.
If you want seriously reduce drunk driving and continued repeat offenses, then do away with all the DUI laws and excuses, and work around's. Charge offenders with attempted ADW (assault with a deadly weapon) and give them prison time. They wont be driving drunk after that, at least for the time they're in prison.
What's really frustrating and/or infuriating about this is the victim was able to change his life/habits-for 15 years. Then some pos punk still paying the penalties for another dui didn't change squat.
What the heck kind of program or penalty does California have for duis? Apparently it's not leaving an impression .
The man killed was considered a stellar member. The alleged killer driver was driving on a suspended license from a previous dui.
So a man who sobered up and straighten his life out because he wanted to gets killed by a pos that didn't want to.
Well, chances are high that the guy killed was also a pos drunk driver back in the days before he was ready to get help, too. In fact, a lot of peoples first exposure to AA comes from being sentenced by a judge to attend AA meetings as part of a DUI sentence. I used to date a 15 years sober, committed AA member. He was forever picking up and riding new members to meetings, because almost no new members have licenses by the time they get to AA. Most people have to hit bottom before they get help. Perhaps this will be that drunk drivers bottom. I have a feeling though the man killed wouldn’t judge the drunk driver as harshly as non-alcoholics will because he was him at one point in his life most likely.
Driving under the influence is a result of impaired personal judgement, and poor decision making. That's something you can't completely control with legislation... only mitigate to some degree. Current laws have penalties, some even severe. But for them to work as a deterrent, the person has to use critical thinking to weight risk/benefit of driving intoxicated. The problem is being intoxicated takes away that ability, and that's why the deterrents fail to prevent repeat offenses.
If you want seriously reduce drunk driving and continued repeat offenses, then do away with all the DUI laws and excuses, and work around's. Charge offenders with attempted ADW (assault with a deadly weapon) and give them prison time. They wont be driving drunk after that, at least for the time they're in prison.
Being an addict takes away the ability to think critically and make good decisions too.,The addiction makes the decisions whether it’s alcohol or drugs or something else. Most repeat offenders are hard-core alcoholics.
I don’t see how you can charge someone with assault if they haven’t involved another person. I doubt they are going to change anything, if only because DUIs are a cash cow for many municipalities.
We already have more people in prison then probably every other first world country combined, and I don’t think it has made us safer. And I don’t think putting a second grade teacher who had one too many glasses of wine with dinner and blows a .08, minute n prison is going to help society in any way.
This makes my blood boil, so many lives are lost to drunk driving, but no one even dares to create tougher laws on access to alcohol or alcohol in general!
Whatever happened to the MADD group? I havent heard a thing about them in many years.
I lost a friend and his wife a couple years ago, they left behind 3 young kids, they were killed on new years eve by a drunk driver, (they didnt drink alcohol at all). Im pretty sure I was the only person to ask police about finding out where this drunk driver got his alcohol too.
They pretty much accomplished what they set out to do, which was to have much harsher penalties for drunk driving enacted. When that group formed, it was pretty much a slap on the wrist. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, a lot of people drove drunk and didn’t give it a second thought. It’s completely different now, and the penalties are harsh enough that most people do not drive drunk any longer. But again, an alcoholic or an addict it’s not going to weigh the consequences regardless of how harsh, before he drinks and drives. The addiction makes the decisions.
Being an addict takes away the ability to think critically and make good decisions too.,The addiction makes the decisions whether it’s alcohol or drugs or something else. Most repeat offenders are hard-core alcoholics.
I don’t see how you can charge someone with assault if they haven’t involved another person. I doubt they are going to change anything, if only because DUIs are a cash cow for many municipalities.
We already have more people in prison then probably every other first world country combined, and I don’t think it has made us safer. And I don’t think putting a second grade teacher who had one too many glasses of wine with dinner and blows a .08, minute n prison is going to help society in any way.
I understand what you're saying. But in reality, from the victim or society's point of view, it doesn't matter why he/she is driving drunk... be it addiction or just temporary poor judgement and foolish behavior, the result is the same. Innocent lives are put at risk either way
.
It could also be argued that alcoholics would know, better than anyone else, what could happen if they drive a vehicle when drinking. You would think they would care enough to not put themselves in that vehicle. They may be hopelessly addicted to alcohol, but the same can't be said for driving on public roads. They may have an excuse for being drunk, but they don't have one for being drunk behind the wheel.
As for my proposed prison sentence, I still think it's appropriate for anything past a first offense. Good people make mistakes, I'll grant you that. So give them a second chance. But as far as the drunk driver in the OP, that certainly wasn't the case.
You probably have to actually harm someone to be charged with ADW. But what do you think the Police would do if you walked up to a total stranger on the street, put a single round in the chamber of a revolver and spun it.... then pointed it at the head of the stranger and pulled the trigger? In a 6 shot 38, you have an 80% percent chance of nothing happening but 'Click'. But you also have a 16% chance of shooting that stranger in the head. I don't think the laws in most jurisdictions are going to tolerate that very well. A drunk driver behind the wheel is playing the very same game of Russian Roulette, only he or she is pointing the revolver at someone else's head.
Wow, how quickly people judge others. Nice to know there are so many "perfect" people out there with no issues.
Put the blame where it belongs. Alcohol brings in tons of money and taxes at the expense of human beings. Why would anyone expect anything to change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
