But that isn’t the point. There will be more accidents like these because there is no repercussions for repeating offenses. I can’t believe that you guys don’t see the big picture here. This obviously revolves around getting more money and justifying police catching drunk drivers. They want you to think that this will work and that those stats are going to drop and lives will be saved, but I am willing to bet that it won’t.
You get more people with small negative things on their records that push them towards being a slug to society and will probable pick up drug use because they got screwed by some cop because a shitty law allowed him to take someone out at the kneecaps.
---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------
In my business this makes me mad because I will have to charge to higher rates and the drivers coming to me for insurance are going to have a worse record in general because of all these small “money pushing agenda laws” that will make them to look like a criminal. Should someone get a mark on their record for having 9 rounds in his legally registered pistol when he is only supposed to have 7? I know this isn’t about guns, but it sure looks like it is taking that direction already.
That’s a great stat, is this law going to lower that stat? And don’t tell me because people will think about doing the right thing because they have something to lose…see DR. Corasanti case…
Increase the punishments as a way to influence behavior. Gotcha.
But my next question to you… where is that balance point of reducing the people doing it Vs punishment level? How do you determine what level of punishment is enough to influence lets say 99% of the population? Or 99.9%? Or 99.99%? Or whatever level of population that the nanny state deems necessary?
And how does a downward sliding society where the growing population doesn’t really have much to loose and might actually have a better life in prison play into this balance point?
This “solution” gets you assumed results. We assume that by lowering the BAC, people will think about not driving after they have had a few drinks. Criminals don’t abide by the laws remember?
I’m not! I’m trying to take this from an emotional narrow-minded justification to a true how do we address an issue, and it’s not as simple as most people make it out to be. I’d love to hear your answers to my questions that I posted. If you dare.
Edit - and keep it on the drunk driving, I’m not expanding it. Everything I’ve asked is relevant to that topic. So keep your answer contained to that tight topic if you wish.
there is a point at which making the punishment stricter will fail to make any difference because people who care/think about the consequences have already made their decision. Same for setting the limit. I’d think that that going stricter than current wouldn’t help. If you care then you care, if you going to drive drunk then I doubt changing the law as proposed will change behavior.
Really… you clearly are not the one I want to be around drinking. You don’t go out drinking then wonder if you are ok to drink. You either don’t drink/drink a beer or 2 depending on time… or have someone fucking drive you. It take 1 time for someone to get killed and or seriously injured because you thought you were perfectly fine to drive. Stop being a dumb ass and realize its a serious thing. Drinking again is not being taken from you… How about being a grown up away from what the fucking law says and actually do the right thing and have a DD when you drink. Then you alternate with that person to be the dd the next time. Sorry but you cant win this one. I mean seriously, are you a fucking alcoholic or something. Beer is not a life source.
edit: how come people don’t go out and murder someone when they don’t like them. (The wild west days people would shoot one another if they didn’t agree)
Exactly the point I’m trying to make without explicitly saying it. There a point on the curve where increasing one no longer has a net effect on the other.
With the caveat that there are outside effects that effect the curve dramatically. (IE my societal example of maybe life would be better in the prison system will change that “peak effective” level).
What! lol How about do it or get a cab. There is no telling someone what to do, its taken upon yourself to do it. Otherwise which all this bitching has been about, you get charged. lol I’m simply saying, stop fucking crying (not directed at you) and just fucking be responsible when you drink so you aren’t the one on the news everyone wants to kill because you killed or seriously injured someone or their child.
And if this is directed at me… you’re not as smart as I thought you were. If you were you’d see what I’m not arguing for or against the law change; just about its effectiveness; and the effectiveness of laws to change peoples actions.
eidt- and the fact that this law isn’t about saving people’s lives, but in fact a result of corporate lobbyist groups for the privatized prison system in the country… the country which is already #1 by a long shot for % of people in prisons.
Anyone who is saying this law will work is being a sheep and not looking at the bigger picture. 97Formula sees the bigger picture on how this law will affect society as whole. You guys are looking at the people who died in accidents and using them as examples. I’m not taking anything away from that, but if you think this law will solve the problem, do some more research.
My argument is there is still room to remove a significant percentage by increasing penalties
I wasn’t saying life in jail etc but a small increase would produce results
In another example people do border line hacker shit on the internet…someone fucks with AT&T. Now AT&T and the FBI throw the book at this person and now the number of people fucking with things goes down because of fear of that happening.
And I don’t believe in the lowering of the %, just raising the penalty for it. That’s all I care. Someone getting 1-3 yrs for killing someone and having a .2 bac, that’s bullshit. someone getting pulled over and arrested with a .09 and not killing someone… I’d say loss of licenses for longer and a bigger fee. It only takes 1 time to kill someone.
I know 2 people who got very similar DWI’s. One has a breathalyzer in their car ignition and the other doesn’t. How is this possible? You know how, because some judge out there decided to drop the hammer on one person and the other decided he was going to be Mr. nice guy. Being Mr. nice guy will allot that person to get in more trouble because they got off easy the 1st time and they felt like they defied all odds and got away with it. The other person paid the price, got screwed for their actions and you can probably bet they will think twice before ever driving drunk again.
And by being Mr. Nice guy, I mean reducing the charges to keep the money in his courthouse.
