How far should drunk driving punishment go?

by **DublinDoogey** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:26 pm

I'm attending a mock government camp soon and we are required to write a bill for the mock senate section.

I decided to write one that would create stricter drunk driving punishments and I was just wondering what the people here thought would be good limits, jail times, monetary fees, ect...

thanks!

edit: I ask that you take this seriously, it isn't a joke. Also, could you also state actual limits or punishments, I'd appreciate that

thanks again!

by **jay_a2j** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:30 pm

death penalty :wink:

by **Machiavelli** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:32 pm

It depends on the outcome, how drunk they were and if they have committed this crime before.

by **Master Bush** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:32 pm

I don't think you should be punished at all.

by **Machiavelli** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:33 pm

Do you guys take anything seriously :roll:

by **DublinDoogey** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:33 pm

Machiavelli wrote:It depends on the outcome, how drunk they were and if they have committed this crime before.

would you mind elaborating?

by **jay_a2j** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:36 pm

Master Bush wrote:I don't think you should be punished at all.

Well here's a guy we don't want making our laws.

by **AK_iceman** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:36 pm

if its a repeat offense the penalty should be considerably higher than normal.
and if they hurt someone or cause an accident involving innocent people i would also hope the punishment would be higher than normal.

by **Machiavelli** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:38 pm

DublinDoogey wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:It depends on the outcome, how drunk they were and if they have committed this crime before.

would you mind elaborating?

AK_iceman wrote:if its a repeat offense the penalty should be considerably higher than normal.
and if they hurt someone or cause an involving people i would also hope the punishment would be higher than normal.

This is basically what I meant, except I also meant that it depends on their b!ood-alchohol level (how much they had to drink)

by **2dimes** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:39 pm

First offense $10 000 fine.
Second Casteration.
Third firm warning.
Fourth License suspended for 11 hours.
Fifth free caig.

by **Machiavelli** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:41 pm

And I repeat...

Machiavelli wrote:Do you guys take anything seriously

by **Master Bush** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:42 pm

Oh, I'm sorry guys. I thought the question was asking about rape. Carry on.

by **2dimes** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:43 pm

Machiavelli wrote:And I repeat...

Machiavelli wrote:Do you guys take anything seriously

Casteration's not serious where you live?

by **Machiavelli** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:46 pm

2dimes wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:And I repeat...

Machiavelli wrote:Do you guys take anything seriously
Casteration's not serious where you live?

Well giving someone a free keg after their fifth offense isnt

by **2dimes** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Well I figured if you were not deffered by casteration you're not going to stop so I might as well get you too loaded to drive.

by **reverend_kyle** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:53 pm

I just got out of driver's ed and well, they are already pretty strict... I'd actually loosen em a bit.

by **rocksolid** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:04 pm

Actual limits in most places in North America are at .08 - and I may be mistaken, but I think .08 means .08% alcohol/blood volume - so for each litre of blood, no more than 8/10 of a millilitre of alcohol. I think there are still a couple of rogue states in the U.S. where the limit is .10.

In Canada, I believe impaired driving is a distinct crime from driving over the limit, so the prosecution doesn't have to show evidence your driving was messed up to convict you, they just have to show the results of your breathalyzer test, though of course the sentences attached to impaired driving are higher. And refusing to take a breathalyzer test is its own crime.

As for the U.S., I think it differs from state to state, as criminal law is state law, not federal like in Canada.

Hope this helps...

by **TitusFinn** on Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:44 pm

jay_a2j wrote:death penalty

The christian jokes.

by **jay_a2j** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:59 am

TitusFinn wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:death penalty

The christian jokes.

Yeah it was a joke. But come on with the "easing up" on the D & D penalties! I drove ONCE under the influance(and only about 1/2 mile) and didn't like the feeling. So I never did it again. Put yourself in the shoes of the family members who lost a relative cause some drunk ran a red light. Tell them the laws are too harsh.

by **wcaclimbing** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:27 am

i think there should be a big fine and whoever was cought would be put in one of those centers that make them not addicted to alcohol.

that would solve the problems

by **jay_a2j** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:29 am

wcaclimbing wrote:i think there should be a big fine and whoever was cought would be put in one of those centers that make them not addicted to alcohol.

that would solve the problems

once addicted, you can't be "not addicted". You can however be in recovery.

by **2dimes** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:37 am

jay_a2j wrote:once addicted, you can't be "not addicted". You can however be in recovery.

I disagree, however you are correct in thinking a program cannot fix it.

by **Aladriel** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:16 pm

I really hate zero-tolerance policies when it comes to anything. I also hate the "one-size fits all" punishments as well. Everyone and every situation is unique.

Should someone who was drunk, decided to get in a car, drive, and then plow into a minivan and kill everyone get off with just a fine? Heck no. I'm pretty sure he shouldn't ever be able to drive again. Or that there be some serious barriers that he has to overcome first (rehab, community service, therapy, and I mean all three of those, at least.)

But, what about the person who got in his car drunk and just hit a pole, only injuring himself? And then puts himself into rehab, goes back to school (also on his own) and then gets his own place? Does he deserve the fine, one week in jail, and then two months of home detention? Which of course, then messes up his schooling and puts him behind?

I hate drunk drivers. It's a stupidly selfish thing for anyone to do. It's not that difficult to call a cab, people.

by **elebdae** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:27 pm

I seriously think the person that gets caugh drunk-driving should lose his licence and have to redoe it all over from the begining (the 8 months that you have to drive with a person who has his full licence and the 2 years with 0 tolerance and only 4 points)
If you only injure yourself, it should be enough (with a program to make shure you are not addicted to alcohol or does not recidivate)
But if you injure other people, it should be a non-premidited attack sentence combine with a drunken "bonus penalty" that you spend time in jail or cummunity service etc...

(sorry for my english, it's not my first language)

by **2dimes** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:30 pm

Ok I'm going to break down and be serious for part of a post.

I think there should be a fine. $2000 or more.

Knowing that it will cost a couple thousand dollars suddenly deters people possibly even if they are loaded.

The reason people do it is usually a combination of not wanting to leave their car at the bar and not wanting to pay for a taxi. If it was way cheaper to take a cab most people would respond to that.

How far should drunk driving punishment go?

How far should drunk driving punishment go?

Who is online