Drunk Driving is Murder

[hunter001]

I was just watching 60 Minutes and they did a piece on drinking and driving. It was about a US prosecutor who is pushing for tougher sentencing when alcohol and driving are involved in a death. Normally it is vehicular manslaughter and the punishment can be anywhere from probation to 15 years. But she charges them with murder. The punishment for murder is 15 years to life.

I agree that the penalties should be harsher but the should change they way vehicular manslaughter sentencing is handed out and not use some other charge as a band-aide solution.

The guy you mentioned in the story was 3 times over the legal limit so I am sure he could barely walk let alone form intent to commit multiple murders.

Again I am not saying he shouldn't do the time but just fix the sentencing instead of trying to apply a different charge.

I think that such punishments will make some people avoid drinking and driving when they are way over the limit (the guy in the above case was 3 times legal limit). So maybe it is something that needs to be done.

Perhaps there needs to be addition charges applied if you are 2x, 3x, ...

But I think the majority of these people who drive under the influence are in serious denial about what they are doing. And besides, they think they won't get caught. So its not a problem in their minds.

It is hard to make a blanket statement for all people who drinking and drive. There are people who are just ignorant about how much they can drinking and legally drive an automobile and the other who drink so much they can't think reasonably. Then then are all sort of drinker in the middle.

What about the people who drink and drive who do not get in an accident? I say if you want to send a serious message and really change people's decision-making when they are under the influence, you need to make the sentences more severe for everyone, not just the people who kill someone. So what I have in mind is something like 6 months in jail (and I don't mean on weekends) and 3 years no driving.

On the surface it sounds like a decent idea but if you put someone in jail for six months then the person (and their family) is screwed. Generally the idea for crimes in this country is for rehabilitation and not complete destruction of a person life.

When the person gets out the jail they will have no job, no means of support, the kids could be in child services ... The driving suspension for sure isn't a bad idea.

Repeat offenders for sure take away their driving privileges but often that doesn't stop them anyway.

 

[a 1 player]

I have lost two dear friends to drunk drivers. I say make the punishment severe for being over the limit.

I come from a family of alcoholics, and never once in my life have I seen any of them drive while impaired. If they can do it, anyone should be able to.

 

[Questor]

Thanks all for your opinions on this issue.

Perhaps there needs to be addition charges applied if you are 2x, 3x, ...

I think this is a good idea.

On the surface it sounds like a decent idea but if you put someone in jail for six months then the person (and their family) is screwed. Generally the idea for crimes in this country is for rehabilitation and not complete destruction of a person life.

When the person gets out the jail they will have no job, no means of support, the kids could be in child services ... The driving suspension for sure isn't a bad idea.

Okay, I looked it up. Here are the current penalties in Ontario:
The usual penalty for a first DUI offence in Ontario is a fine. The minimum second DUI offence penalty is 14 days in jail. The minimum penalty for a third DUI is 90 days in jail.

So what happens if I take my shotgun down to the mall and start shooting? Let's say I'm drunk. And I only fire towards the ceiling. What kind of sentence do I deserve? "But Your Honor, my client was drunk. He didn't hurt anyone and he wasn't responsible for his actions." The US prosecutor referred to earlier would say this is a fair comparison, that someone who gets behind the wheel when drunk is no better.

I don't think jail time is the complete destruction of someone's life as Hunter says. The beheading of your 8 year old daughter in a car accident, that is the complete destruction of one's life. Jail time is a disruption of one's life. But that is the problem with the current fine for a first offence. Its an inconvenience. A lot of people obviously don't take it seriously. How do people feel about weekend jail time and suspended licence for 6 months for a first offence? That kind of sentence does not have the same consequences as a more lengthly jail sentence. And the jail time sends a serious message.

In Ontario, there were 192 impaired driving related deaths in 2004. That is a lot of death and misery every year. So do we take this as a serious problem that needs a solution? Or do we say blah blah blah like an idiot?

Repeat offenders for sure take away their driving privileges but often that doesn't stop them anyway.

Aren't you making a strong argument for stiffer penalties with this statement?

 

[hunter001]

Okay, I looked it up. Here are the current penalties in Ontario:
The usual penalty for a first DUI offence in Ontario is a fine. The minimum second DUI offence penalty is 14 days in jail. The minimum penalty for a third DUI is 90 days in jail.

For sure the penalties could be/should be longer.

So what happens if I take my shotgun down to the mall and start shooting? Let's say I'm drunk. And I only fire towards the ceiling. What kind of sentence do I deserve? "But Your Honor, my client was drunk.

I am not sure. Let me know the result if you try it.

I don't think jail time is the complete destruction of someone's life as Hunter says.

Talk to someone that has lost their job, house, family,... I can't say for sure but I think I would be hard to recover from something like that. I assume it would be fairly tough getting another job after do your time with a criminal record.

The beheading of your 8 year old daughter in a car accident, that is the complete destruction of one's life.

The problem is you talking about extremes. The guy in the story, I didn't see the story, you said was 3x the legal limit. That isn't that same as someone who is at the legal limit.

Aren't you making a strong argument for stiffer penalties with this statement?

I don't have a problem with stiffer penalties for repeat offenders and for people who are 2x, 3x,... I don't have a problem with long suspension for 1st time offenders. I don't think the public interest is served by mandatory jail sentence for someone who is at legal limit. There are a lot of shades of gray the way the system is set up now.

I think drinking and driving is wrong. There are a lot of things we could do to curb drinking and driving.

A few I can think of :

- Tags you can put on your car from a bar that if you get towed over night (because you can't drive) you don't have to pay to towing fee if it gets towed.

- Services offer through bars that have available that will drive you and your vehicle home if you are unable.

- Zero tolerance for drinking and driving. It is viable option if you want to stop it all together. If you make it zero tolerance then you eliminate the middle ground. You can eliminate a lot of the gray area in the current laws where drinking is acceptable to a point but the average drinking isn't really equipped to know if they are legally impaired or now.

 

[a 1 player]

- Services offer through bars that have available that will drive you and your vehicle home if you are unable.

I think that is a great idea, along with the designated driver program where the driver does not have to pay, (or pays a discounted price) for nonalcoholic beverages.

 

[S.C. Joe]

What is the difference if somebody is just barely over the limit but still drunk..if they kill somebody why should they be treated better than the guy who is 3 times over the limit

The limit is there for a reason, the guy who is just over the limit is breaking the law. Having a law that treats the drunks who are 2-3 times over the limit sends the message that just barley over the limit isn't as bad.

Personally I like to see alcohol banned but its not going to happen...people who are hungover the next day are still a danger on the roads but they are on the road now legally.

 

[Questor]

For sure the penalties could be/should be longer.

Well, we agree on this. But you didn't comment on my suggestion that first offence could be jail on weekends. Say weekends for a 6 month period. It seems to me that sends a strong message without doing undue harm to offender or his family.

I am not sure. Let me know the result if you try it.

I already tried it. They gave me 40 hours community service.

Talk to someone that has lost their job, house, family,... I can't say for sure but I think I would be hard to recover from something like that. I assume it would be fairly tough getting another job after do your time with a criminal record.

The problem is you talking about extremes. The guy in the story, I didn't see the story, you said was 3x the legal limit. That isn't that same as someone who is at the legal limit.

Yes, I am talking extremes. But the point I am trying to make is that if you just punish the extreme cases, then the majority of offenders ignore it because they think they won't get caught.

In terms of victimizing someone who has committed a minor crime like DUI, I can agree that long jail term for first offence is going over board. That's why I suggested weekend jail time for first offence. But aren't you taking an extreme case when you speak of losing home, job, family, etc.? What I am trying to do is suggest some serious consequences, even for first time offenders, and more serious consequences for repeat offenders. It is only when there are serious consequences that people start to take it seriously.

The idea is not to destroy people's lives, but rather to make the consequences serious enough that they say to themselves, "Whoa, jail time and 6 month suspension...I better not drink and drive."

I don't have a problem with stiffer penalties for repeat offenders and for people who are 2x, 3x,... I don't have a problem with long suspension for 1st time offenders. I don't think the public interest is served by mandatory jail sentence for someone who is at legal limit. There are a lot of shades of gray the way the system is set up now.

Agreed. So maybe first offence at or near the legal limit (.08% blood alcohol, I believe) needs to stay lenient. But if it goes about something like .12% they could really crack down. There should be a grey area where it is not so serious IMO.

I think drinking and driving is wrong. There are a lot of things we could do to curb drinking and driving.

A few I can think of :

- Tags you can put on your car from a bar that if you get towed over night (because you can't drive) you don't have to pay to towing fee if it gets towed.

- Services offer through bars that have available that will drive you and your vehicle home if you are unable.

I don't think the first idea is very practical. If driver doesn't pay, who does? I don't think the public will accept paying for towing and overnight parking for a bunch of drunks. I like the second idea more, but again, who pays for the service?

How about if self administered breathalizers are made available in all licenced bars and restaurants? Not sure how much the equipment costs but hopefully it wouldn't be too much for the bar owner to purchase. It could be a requirement when you apply for a liquor licence.

 

[hunter001]

What is the difference if somebody is just barely over the limit but still drunk..if they kill somebody why should they be treated better than the guy who is 3 times over the limit

I was speaking in terms of punishment for infraction that haven't caused harm.

Someone near the limit could made a mistake in estimating what the could consume. The people at 2x - 3x know for sure there were over the limit and know for a fact they shouldn't drive. Really the only way to be fair about it is zero tolerance. When you start talking about it is legal for X, at certain weight, over x hours, ... If there is zero tolerance then there is no question.

The extreme example given about the guy 3x going down the wrong side of a divided highways doesn't happen to someone who is at the limit IMHO.

 

[S.C. Joe]

But people have still been impair enough at .08 to cause an a death...having another limit at .12 would mean driving at .08 isn't as bad.

Now sure about Canada but the USA has an .05 limit right now, .05 is impaired driving, .08 is drunk.

Now it was .08 and .10 but it was change a few years ago...in the 1970's it was .1 and .15

In Japan the limit is .03 no impair, you are drunk at .04 or .03 not sure

 

[Questor]

What is the difference if somebody is just barely over the limit but still drunk..if they kill somebody why should they be treated better than the guy who is 3 times over the limit

The limit is there for a reason, the guy who is just over the limit is breaking the law. Having a law that treats the drunks who are 2-3 times over the limit sends the message that just barley over the limit isn't as bad.

I would say the difference between .08% blood alcohol and .24% blood alcohol is the difference between dangerous behavior and criminally reckless endangerment. I agree with Hunter that there are gray areas and the law could reflect that. A lot of people would have difficulty accepting stiff penalties for marginal transgressions of the law. A lower blood alcohol is not as serious as a higher blood alcohol.

 

[Rylan]

Life for a life..... period.

You take someone's life then you do life in prison. No exceptions, no nothing.

 

[hunter001]

In terms of victimizing someone who has committed a minor crime like DUI, I can agree that long jail term for first offence is going over board. That's why I suggested weekend jail time for first offence.

So what I have in mind is something like 6 months in jail (and I don't mean on weekends) and 3 years no driving. That would be first offence.

But aren't you taking an extreme case when you speak of losing home, job, family, etc.?

I based my comments on what you originally posted. If you send someone to jail for six months they could easily lose everything.

I am not a big fan the jail time for the first offense. If you said a 10K fine + 3 year suspension, ... That would be a deterrent for most people.

 

[S.C. Joe]

A lower blood alcohol is not as serious as a higher blood alcohol.

I don't agree because somebody who gets drunk everyday needs more alcohol to effect them. So them being at .2 might be the same feeling for them as the guy who hardly drinks like me at .1

We both would likely drive just as bad...I had 2 drinks last summer in the Falls and drove back to my hotel after waiting a good half hour after, I wasn't drunk but it did effect me.

 

[hunter001]

I don't think the first idea is very practical. If driver doesn't pay, who does? I don't think the public will accept paying for towing and overnight parking for a bunch of drunks. I like the second idea more, but again, who pays for the service?

The bars? They are ones making the profit here. Cities could negotiate a discounted rate with tow truck companies and the bars for time + gas.

When you say it is too expensive. What is the price for a safe road and peoples lives. (BTW - I never said anything about paying for overnight parking.)

 

[hunter001]

How about if self administered breathalizers are made available in all licenced bars and restaurants? Not sure how much the equipment costs but hopefully it wouldn't be too much for the bar owner to purchase. It could be a requirement when you apply for a liquor licence.

I am not sure how breathalizers work. If all the alcohol hasn't reached your blood stream by the time you are out the door do it still register on the test?

 

[S.C. Joe]

And with self administered breathalizers at all bars, people would try to drink right up to the limit.


This problem isn't new like in the 1980's was the first real crack down, drunk driving deaths are off the highs in the 80's but have been holding steady or slowly going up since the 90's.

Until cars can drive themselves we might have drunk drivers.

 

[Questor]

I am not sure how breathalizers work. If all the alcohol hasn't reached your blood stream by the time you are out the door do it still register on the test?

No. The test measure alcohol in your breath, which is determined by alcohol level in your blood. If you chugalug 3 beers, then get up to leave, that will not be metabolized by the time you get to the door. It probably will be metabolized by the time you get nailed in a spot check. So you could leave under the legal limit and be way over the legal limit when you are checked a half an hour later.

I think I read somewhere - rule of thumb - you can metabolize 1 beer or drink per hour and stay under the legal limit. 3 hours = 3 beers and you can still drive. If you eat food, that will slow down the metabolization process. So if that guy that just chugged 3 beers also eats a large pizza at the saem time and manages not to puke his guts out, then he might be still under the legal limit when he gets to a check point because the alcohol is still in his tummy.

 

[hunter001]

And with self administered breathalizers at all bars, people would try to drink right up to the limit.

lol. I am not over the limit yet. Give me another round... Yeah now that you mention it I guess people would do that.

 

[hunter001]

I think I read somewhere - rule of thumb - you can metabolize 1 beer or drink per hour and stay under the legal limit. 3 hours = 3 beers and you can still drive. If you eat food, that will slow down the metabolization process. So if that guy that just chugged 3 beers also eats a large pizza at the saem time and manages not to puke his guts out, then he might be still under the legal limit when he gets to a check point because the alcohol is still in his tummy.

Yeah I mentioned rules from back in day... I never got pulled over to test the rule but my rule now is Pepsi if I am driving.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Europe they ended closing pups down at a set time, all the drunks would leave at the same time and be very rowdy. So bars-pups they call them-can stay open til dawn, it was to help cut down on people leaving the pups drunk...haven't hear how its been working.