So I'm going to Prison for 2 years - Page 40

traz · #**391** 11-26-2007, 03:22 PM

I really wish this thread had turned out to be about how OP is dealing with his time before he gets shipped to prison...as opposed to a retarded, overdone debate on drunk driving

InTheDark · #**392** 11-26-2007, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i have 3, two being aggravated. I'm only 20 though so i guess it's not the end of the world

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're such a f-up at 20 it more likely the begining, not the end.

MuresanForMVP · #**393** 11-26-2007, 04:00 PM

CMI, good post, appreciate the effort. Those were definitely some hefty articles you linked though, but they seem to indicate a slight decrease in the number of drunk accidents and fatalities (yayyy) vs. a ridiculous increase in the number of arrests (NOOOO). This "by any means necessary" anti-drunk driving legislation is going way overboard, and goes against so many fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. With regards to sentencing and decreasing crime, it's easy to be hard, but it's hard to be smart. These new laws just see like a short-sighted effort to arbitrarily reduce drunk-driving numbers, the hell with the other consequences, both social and criminal.

In all reality, what do you think would happen if we raised the legal limit to either .10 or .12? I'm convinced that we would see a very limited change in the number of accidents and deaths, but a huge change in the number of arrests. Could you find any statistics that factored in BAC with number of crashes and deaths? I.E. x% of alcohol-related deaths involved a driver with a BAC between y and z?

einbert · #**394** 11-26-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In all reality, what do you think would happen if we raised the legal limit to either .10 or .12? I'm convinced that we would see a very limited change in the number of accidents and deaths, but a huge change in the number of arrests.

[/ QUOTE ]

People get arrested all the time for driving somewhere between .02 and .08. It's not always "DUI" but it happens very frequently, and a cop's testimony in court that you failed sobriety tests is basically a slam dunk for the prosecution in the very small fraction of these cases that ever make it to trial.

But do you really think letting more drunk drivers go free is worth an increased number of accidents and fatalities? It's obvious from the responses in this thread and from the actions of people we all know that drunk driving is usually only viewed as a strict "no-no" by people who have already gotten caught once, and sometimes not even by those people. Raising the legal BAC would certainly have the effect of making people feel even more invulnerable getting into a car after several drinks, and that is just not something we need in this country, where we already "have one of the worst DUI driving accident rates in the developed world while having lower to mid-range rates of alcohol consumption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_d...United_States)

swingbomb · #**395** 11-26-2007, 04:19 PM

ug.
-a large portion of vehicular accidents are caused by drunk drivers
-this endangers the public
-when the public is in danger...it is expected for laws to be made which protect the public
-a limit for acceptable BAC is set at what is shown to be an effective measurement of alcohol impairement in THE AVERAGE PERSON
-all of this taken together means the safest possible roads for everyone (WHILE TRYING TO INFRINGE THE LEAST ON INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS TO HAVE A DRINK AT DINNER AND STILL DRIVE HOME).

god is it seriously that hard to get. [censored] sake.
"my friends got a dui but man he was sober as [censored] guy can drink like 28 beers a night and hed had maybe like 4 a little earlier [censored] cops!"

it's just idiotic. and i don't even have some moral upset about drunk driving. it's not the be all end all evil. but it endangers ppl so we have to do something about it. something has been done which is tested to be in the best interest of everyone.

as for the punishment being too harsh. 2.5 years is excessive. but this guys crime was also excessive. i'd like to hear a little more about the treatment/punishment he received after each dui...unless he's already talked about it earlier?

also...i read earlier someones friend had an "anti-dui" kit in their car. with gum and eye drops at the ready or something. anyone with this kit is a jack-off.

MuresanForMVP · #**396** 11-26-2007, 04:30 PM

ugh is right.Im convinced you havent even read the thread. As much as I hate to say it, this would be much better in politics. At least the politards listen (somewhat) to reason, and don't just parrot everything they hear on The View or see on MADD commercials.

pirateboy · #**397** 11-26-2007, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and don't just parrot everything they hear on The View or see on MADD commercials.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because those of us who disagree with your opinion can't possibly feel this way with our own brains.

MuresanForMVP · #**398** 11-26-2007, 04:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In all reality, what do you think would happen if we raised the legal limit to either .10 or .12? I'm convinced that we would see a very limited change in the number of accidents and deaths, but a huge change in the number of arrests.

[/ QUOTE ]

People get arrested all the time for driving somewhere between .02 and .08. It's not always "DUI" but it happens very frequently, and a cop's testimony in court that you failed sobriety tests is basically a slam dunk for the prosecution in the very small fraction of these cases that ever make it to trial.

But do you really think letting more drunk drivers go free is worth an increased number of accidents and fatalities? It's obvious from the responses in this thread and from the actions of people we all know that drunk driving is usually only viewed as a strict "no-no" by people who have already gotten caught once, and sometimes not even by those people. Raising the legal BAC would certainly have the effect of making people feel even more invulnerable getting into a car after several drinks, and that is just not something we need in this country, where we already "have one of the worst DUI driving accident rates in the developed world while having lower to mid-range rates of alcohol consumption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_d...United_States)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine,you're right, we dont need more drunk drivers on the roads. Why dont we just get to the root of the problem and bring back prohibition? That way we can eliminate drunk driving, liver disease, along with all the crimes (ie assaults shootings,stabbings,vandalism,etc) that occur under the effects of alcohol. After all, it would be for our protection would it not?

There are other things governments can do, aside from simply making the laws more draconian, that can reduce alcohol-related accidents and deaths. Like making mass-transit (cabs,etc) easily accessible and cheap. I already linked a politics thread about that, I guess its safe to assume nobody read it.

MuresanForMVP · #**399** 11-26-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and don't just parrot everything they hear on The View or see on MADD commercials.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because those of us who disagree with your opinion can't possibly feel this way with our own brains.

[/ QUOTE ]

judging from the arguments and defenses you've used so far, I find it highly unlikely your brain was doing the work.

tuq · #**400** 11-26-2007, 04:40 PM

Sheesh, this must be what a politics thread is like. I feel dirty and felt a rush of blood to the head when I was contributing to it.

I know I've made my case ad nauseum and have others. Now we're beating a dead horse and nobody seems to have convinced anyone of anything so we should move on (although at least CMI came in with some last minute actual research). I'm not surprised to hear The View is a culprit though, since that show sucks balls.