New Impaired Driving Punishments

[oreodontist]

A much larger deterrent is required than what is presently in place. It just does not work.

It works for most people. Works for me, my friends, and with any business functions I attend. Unlike yourself who is not deterred, I can't say I know anyone who shrugs off the cost or stigma of a drunk driving offense. It's a big black mark on ones character, insurance, etc.

The 'deterrent' is very much there but, as Chuck states, folks who are habitual offenders have other issues such as alcoholism, drug addictions and so on.

Edited May 12, 2008 by oreodontist

[Riverwind]

I'm less interested in them anyway,more interested in targetting the causal drunk driver because they are much more numerous.

I beg to differ. A significant cultural shift has occurred in the last 20 years which has virtually eliminated drunk driving by casual drinkers. According to the stats I have seen the majority drunks on the road are either: 1) teens who think they are invulnerable or 2) middle age alcoholics. Developing an enforcement regime that only targets the minority of offenders is a waste of time and money.

[Riverwind]

A much larger deterrent is required than what is presently in place. It just does not work.

Why? Because you think we will reach some magical nirvana where no one commits a crime because of fear of the consequences? If it was that simple there would be no murders because people would be afraid of spending 25 years in jail. I doubt that any further deterrants will accomplish anything other than victimizing innocent parties. Edited May 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[guyser]

I do have a problem with a crime that does have victims, innocent victims who are killed by people who refuse to take responsibility for their ignorance. A little fine and a suspension and attendance at some boring weekend gabfest does not discourage drinking and driving, somehting more is required.

In your scenario more would happen. Drive drunk and kill and you are not subject to a fione and a weekend at some gabfest.

Vehicular manslaughter , is one that may apply. There are other charges but not a suspension and a fine for killing someone.

The Sheriff cannot keep anything unl;ess the person is convicted of the crime. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Not to me it doesnt. What if your 16 yr old son took your car without permission. You being a renowned tea totaler known by most in town, do you still believe you are to be denied your car? You will have two choices. One is to have your son arrested for stealing the car. That will be on top of his impaired charge. He may go to jail for the combo.

Two is to lose your car , and perhaps your ability to provide for the family.

Take your pick.

Who is the inocent party? Unless your car has been stolen by a drunk driver, you are responsible for what happens with the vehicle.

I am legallly liable for the what happens with my car. I am not responsible though.(all other things being equal ..ie car was in good shape and operable)

Ask your insurance company if you are insured if driving while impaired.

Ok. I will

Yes and no. Yes the car can be insured , and no I am not insured for my damage while impaired. There is a difference.

Ask your insurance company if your car is insured when operated by an unlicensed driver. The vehicle is under your control and your responsibility.

Yes I am insured for the damage.

A much larger deterrent is required than what is presently in place. It just does not work.

The rates of driving impaired have fallen way off the historical highs. It does work to a large degree but MADD wants to penalize the everyman and thats wrong.