|
Warning I: Typical lengthy ChillEB pontification. Extreme boredom may arise.
Warning II: NON-PC views which may 'ruffle feathers' are expressed herein.
Proceed with extreme caution!
Just on account of I'm on a roll of playing devil's advocate and arguing UN-popular views (*gasp*) lately, I may as well continue my trend of losing friends and influencing people (to want to kill me)...
I find DUI laws to be, in many cases, totally UNJUST. DUI penalties, in my esteem (especially for DUI #1) are too stiff, assuming we're discussing cases wherein nobody was hurt, which is usually the case. I think if you DO hurt someone, the penalties should be comparable to what you'd get if you picked up a gun and inflicted the same harm. Otherwise, I think the penalty is way too harsh, especially for DUI #1:
* 6 months of (1x)Weekly (3 hours/week) 'alcohol school' where you watch every Oprah ever made featuring the distraught relatives of people killed by drunk drivers. Personally, I think this punishment, along with the others I'll refer to below as 'appropriate', is sufficient for a first offense.
* 6 months, NO driving license, for ANYTHING except going to alcohol school. This alone costs some people their jobs, and hence potentially thousands of dollars, foreclosed homes, repossessed vehicles, even bankruptcy and divorce. This should be reserved for extra high BAC cases (>.16).
* $1200 Fine - This seems appropriate.
* Approx. 7 days work detail. This is 7 Saturdays where you PAY the government to work for THEM. If you screw up just ONCE and don't show up (even with a damn good excuse), it usually means your work detail program is cancelled, and any remaining days are served in JAIL. This should be reserved for high BAC cases (>.16)
* Double-point violation - This is appropriate.
* You are not allowed to drive with ANY measurable amount of alcohol in your system for 3 years. Otherwise, it counts as another DUI, with all attendant penalties. WHY is this fair? Either you're .08, and hence legally drunk, or you are not. What is it about the fact that you've been caught DUI one time that makes it somehow MORE dangerous in the future if you've had 1 beer and then drive? It's just a highly punative penalty, IMHO, created expressely for the purpose of keeping you 'in the system', and making the government more money. I don't think any first-time offender should get this.
* Perhaps most egregious: ALL the insurance companies in your life find out about it, and absolutely RAPE your pocketbook. You're looking at a stiff penalty when you get your license back as it is: $100 at the DMV, and usually a couple $100 from your insurance co, on TOP of the 'assigned risk' category for auto insurance for three years (3-4 TIMES what you usually pay - more THOUSANDS of dollars down the drain). Your Homeowners ins. can also find out about it, and double or triple your rates, or REVOKE it altogether. You're looking at MORE THOUSAND$, but this isn't the government's doing, so there's little anyone can do about this matter.
In other words, you get ROYALLY f*cked. Your *first* DUI can easily end up costing you $10,000+, your job, your relationship, and even your HOME. Well, of course, the easy refutation to my complaints is "So WHAT? You could've KILLED somebody!" This is true. But - you didn't. What other 'crime' is there on the books who's penalty is largely dictated on what "might have happened"? If you get stopped with a loaded pistol in your car, you MIGHT'VE shot and killed somebody with it, right? But are you penalized as though you DID? Of course not! There is almost NO other crime that I can think of that is penalized this way. I don't think that it is fair for this ONE thing to be assessed based on 'worst case scenarios that DIDN'T happen', when practically NOTHING else on the lawbooks, is.
Another unfair aspect to these laws: It is nearly irrelevant WHAT you were doing when you got stopped. Sure, they *might* try to tack on a 'reckless driving' charge in some cases, but that is usually bargained out in exchange for a quick 'guilty' plea when your arraignment comes. Lets consider two DUI scenarios:
1) Joe Blow, 21, is driving home from a party he was drinking at. This is Joe's FIRST TIME EVER drinking alcohol. He's 50 miles away from his hotel, in a city he's never been in, totally drunk after pounding 10 beers from the beer bong. He is dead tired from jet-lag, and he's stopped by police while speeding at 100 MPH down the wrong side of the road, in the dark, at 2am. He fails all roadside tests, blows a .15 BAC on the Breathalyzer, and is arrested for DUI.
2) Jane Doe is driving home two blocks from her local watering hole at 2pm in the afternoon, after sipping 4 beers, just like she has done every day for the past 20 years. She is driving perfectly safely, obeying all traffic laws, but gets stopped for her registration tags being expired. The officer smells the alcohol and gives her a roadside test, followed by a breathalyzer. She is arrested and booked for DUI at .08 BAC.
Apart from the simple physics of these situations, which CLEARLY dictate that Joe is WAY WAY WAY more dangerous to others on the road, there is an obvious discrepancy in terms of who is being blatantly irresponsible. Why would Joe get so drunk, so far from bed, when he knew he had to drive to the hotel that night, in the dark, on strange roads? This shows MUCH worse judgement than Jane, who knows that she only has a short distance to go, doesn't feel the LEAST bit buzzed, has plenty of visibility, and is driving streets she drives every single day.
The chances of Joe creating a horrible, deadly situation are SO SO SO much greater than Jane its almost immeasurable. He is an accident waiting to happen. He could well fall asleep, or blow through a red light, or have a head-on, or... countless mishaps could logically be expected. However, the ONLY way Jane gets in an accident here is if something suddenly jumps out at her on the road, and her braking reaction takes .5 seconds instead of their usual .3 seconds, ostensibly due to the alcohol. The truth is that it's quite UN-likely that she won't get home perfectly fine, because things just don't 'jump out' at you all that often, and .5 seconds (just giving a random number) is quick *enough* probably 90% of the time when something does.
The fact that Jane is at .08, from a practical standpoint, is only a problem *IF* her reaction time is seriously affected by the booze, AND her reaction time for some reason suddenly becomes important in avoiding an accident. I don't know about you, but I drive QUITE a lot, and it is extremely rare that during the course of a short trip, my ability to react my absolute *fastest* makes the difference of whether or not I hurt or maim someone during the course of said short trip.
Clearly, the two scenarios I described are not EVEN the same in terms of danger created. Yet they would likely be punished the same, due to sentencing guidelines from the legislature. The issue of the fact that Jane has drunk those 4 beers every DAY for 20 years doesn't enter into the equation, yet there is no question in my mind that it SHOULD matter. Why, you ask? Because TOLERANCE, friends, is very real, and should not be discounted out-of-hand. The degree to which one's reactions are slowed by alcohol, and their judgement impaired, is NOT how much someone has drunk (or even their BAC), but rather, what EFFECT does what they've drunk have on them.
You see, the legal limit of .08 BAC is based on the effect that a .08 BAC has on a person who does not drink regularly. To believe that BAC is an absolute indicator of the effect alcohol has on someone is to buy into BS propaganda promulgated by those who wish us to overlook a fundamental FLAW in the DUI laws. If these laws were truly just, tolerance would enter into the equation. But since tolerance cannot be easily calculated by an objective measurement which will stand up in court, this *critical* piece of the equation is glossed over by a lie. This lie states that everyone is equally impaired at a given BAC. BAC, however, is strictly a function of alcohol consumed, time period it was consumed over, and body weight.
To illustrate the concept of tolerance, I always like to use the example of my father, a chronic pain sufferer who's been on opiate painkillers for the last 5 years. At this point, on a daily basis, he takes 4x80mg oxycontin. This is the equivalent taking 64 Percocet tablets a day. Percocets are slightly stronger than Vicodin, which most people have taken at one time or another. Those of you who've tried Vicodin, can you IMAGINE what would happen to you if you took 64 vics in ONE DAY? I can tell you exactly what would happen: You would overdose, and quite possibly die. But you can't even tell my dad is on drugs, even after 64 Percocets. This shows you how profoundly 'real' tolerance is. The same is true of alcohol. Your body adjusts to a given amount if you take it all the time, and you WILL NOT be affected by the same amounts that would have a novice drinker in the hospital, getting a stomach punch, on the verge of death. Tolerance is a VERY important piece of the puzzle, yet it's ignored and lied about by the DUI lawmakers, because it is inconvenient to acknowledge (or calculate) it's effects.
DUI law is kept 'simple' (BAC>.08=Game Over), and neither the officers, nor the judge, is generally called upon to use their brains to determine a TRULY FAIR penalty for each person accused of DUI, on an individual basis. To be fair, I don't believe this is the result of 'laziness' or distrust of the judgement of these people who are trusted to make these exact judgement calls on OTHER crimes, day after day. There are real practicality issues involved in trying to establish truly 'fair' penalties for DUI. Among them would be questions like: whether someone was TRULY 'on their way home', like they said they were, or whether they really do have a high tolerance for alcohol. But ignoring the total picture of the case, in favor of convenience of a simple rule, does NOT make the laws 'just', nor 'okay' with me. Not when the stakes for the individual convicted are SO high (see the penalties above)...
Harsh reality is that one of the cop's 'big' duties these days is to make money for the government. Because of this, they are probably 95% likely to haul in and charge Jane, versus 100% likely to haul in Joe. The 5% variation comes in because of that small chance that Jane gets a 'cool' cop who takes it upon himself to think: "You know, she didn't fail a SINGLE ONE of her roadside tests, apart from the breathalyzer. She's two blocks from home, and almost certainly would not have caused any problems getting there. I'm gonna tell her to walk home with a stern warning..."
Believe it or not, I have had that happen to me, but everyone I've ever told has been literally flabbergasted by my story - I don't think it happens too often that you blow a .12 on the roadside, and are let go to walk (actually, I believe it would've been more of a "gleeful skip" than a 'walk') home.
I think that the lack of discretion when it comes to sentencing based on a)the TOTAL scenario at hand, and b)the individual's tolerance, is manifestly UN-just. Basically, for a number of different reasons, DUI laws are a 'shotgun' approach to the DUI problem. Which really creates 2 problems, at least if you are a libra (like me) and thus overly sensitive and analytical when it comes to the subject of Justice. 'Shotgun'-style laws have a way of being WILDLY unfair to certain individuals subject to the penalty of said laws.
Bottom line (FINALLY!): The only way I'd agree with the harsh penalty imposed for DUI is if one or both of the following was somehow made true:
I) the sentencing guidelines were written in a way that more accurately took *all* facts into account, rather than just a breathalyzer, with an appropriate 'sliding scale' based on the TRUE danger this person's DUI created, AND/OR
II) ALL other acts committed by drivers which have the potential to lower ones reaction time, or their coordination, were met with very similar penalties to those you see for DUI. Just because a given crime is 'popular', like DUI, does not mean that it is 'Just' to penalize each individual more harshly, simply because a lot of other individuals commit the same crime.
If one day the PD discovered that a LOT of people were going into the grocery store and stealing food, for example, would you accept it if the cops said: 'This theft from grocery stores must be stopped, so, from now on, if you steal food from the grocery store, you're going to jail for 20 years. Period. The sentence for stealing from a Department Store, however, will stay at one month probation, because almost nobody is stealing from Department Stores'? Of course not.
Why is this analogy valid, I hear you asking? Because there are ALL KINDS of things that drivers do that affect their ability to react to dangers on the road in a way similiar to drinking. Yet the penalties for DUI are literally THOUSANDS of times WORSE than many of these things. I think that's bullshit, to be blunt. Either 'creating a situation wherein your reaction time to dangers on the road is lowered' IS a SERIOUS crime, and worthy of SERIOUS penalty, OR IT IS NOT. Period. The reason WHY your reaction time is lowered should be totally irrelevant - YOU are responsible for it no matter what, right? You don't HAVE to eat and drive. Nor talk on the Cell and drive. Nor drive when you're excessively tired. Nor drive with bald tires, bad brakes, or a broken windshield wiper. Just like you don't HAVE to drink and drive. ALL of these things can cause you to have lowered reactions to emergency situations, yet you could be doing ALL of them at once, and receive a damn 'fix-it' ticket. How the hell is *THAT* right?
In a nutshell, the way DUI is prosecuted is just NOT the way we prosecute other crimes. They are all judged on the entirety of what actually happened, not on what *might* have happened. Sentencing for Murder (or manslaughter) provides a good example of what I'm talking about. When someone dies at the hand of another, there are all SORTS of factors taken into consideration before a sentence is handed down, right? You could get anything from probation to execution. This is how nearly all of our laws work. Except DUI, wherein, in many ways, you can be severely sanctioned based purely on 'possibilities'. I'm afraid I just don't find DUI laws to be the least bit "Just", in their current incarnation.
Thanks for wading through this. Hope it gave you a new perspective, even if you still think I'm full of horse-puckey!
peace,
ChilLE
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
