4 ms·

YSK 'rayiner is a lawyer.

gnaritas 11y ago
Then he should know DUI applies to more than just drinking and shouldn't be making such a silly point. And being a lawyer means he knows the existing law, it doesn't mean his opinion about what the law should be in regards to punishment is any more valid than anyone else's.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I absolutely agree with your last sentence. My intention is not to stand on the law as authority, but try to work through the logic of the law. Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters. That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Agreed, however, the problem is what's considered "bad" isn't a matter of fact but of opinion. What is law is a matter of fact, but legal/illegal != bad/good. Also, please stop calling it drunk driving, the law pertains to more than just alcohol which is why it matters and why it's unjust. Getting in a car and driving while sober can still get you a DUI because the law is stupid in defining what intoxicated/impaired means, this is especially important now that marijuana is legal for recreation in several states. Just because someone gets a DUI does not mean they were in any way reckless, beyond that it's just as reckless to drive tired as to drive intoxicated yet no one argues that should be DUI worthy, additionally "reckless" is a matter of opinion, not empirical fact. The law is not logical, it is political, a popularity contest, not a logically evidence based means of helping society. There's certainly logic in keeping law self consistent for sure, which is where lawyers and judges have a role, but what becomes law has little to do with what is actually just. As you're a lawyer, you know this already.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I'm not talking about applying DUI to marijuana or people sleeping in cars, which is why I'm saying drunk driving and not DUI. I'm talking about why drunk driving is legitimately criminal even when it doesn't result in harm. And that's because it's voluntarily reckless conduct that creates risk to the public. Law is absolutely logical, you just have to be willing to look at the premises. And it is absolutely a structured expression of what people think is just. The premise of criminal law is that it's an action taken with malicious intent that makes someone a criminal, not just causing a bad outcome. The law follows that logic to its conclusions. For example under the Model Penal Code, an attempt at murder is punished the same as a completed murder. Someone who, with intent to kill, points a gun and shoots at someone is no less criminal if he misses than if he hits. Criminal law is about punishing culpable conduct. It's illogical to punish two people differently who engage in the same culpable conduct because circumstances outside their control lead to one result versus another. Now, you can disagree with the basic premise and apply a different logical framework. Just because the premise of the law is that intent is the most important thing does not mean you can't believe something different, such as actual harm being the most important thing. But you gotta wrestle with the implications of that. If harm is the most important thing, killing someone should always be murder. Shouldn't matter whether you hit a jogger wearing all black at night or whether you ran over your boss in broad daylight on purpose. In my experience, the people who complain about the law being illogical and not the same as justice are the ones abandoning logic. They know what resuls they want, based on what "justice" means to them, (X should not be illegal) and get upset that's not the law. They don't take the time to look at the premises underlying the law to see if the rules logically follow from those premises. If you do that, you'd be surprised how often you conclude "well I think that premise is incorrect, but I can see how the rule follows logically from that." Ps: also, reckless is a precisely definable concept: when conduct causes a measurable rise in the risk of some negative outcome. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable rise in risk can't be precisely defined and must be established by social concnsus, but that doesn't make it an illogical concept as you imply by calling it an "opinion."
      - unfamiliar 11y ago
        Very interesting comment, thank you. I guess as this applies to drunk driving, the tricky thing is the intent to cause harm. One one hand there is very rarely an intention to hurt someone while drunk driving, however on the other hand there is a demonstrably increased risk of hurting someone. It seems hard to me to square those two things up.
  - hueving 11y ago
    >That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. If you are a novice driver and you choose to drive, you are consciously making a decision to put other people at risk. There are different skill levels of driving. A highly skilled driver drinking can easily still be more skilled than someone who hardly ever drives or has poor reflexes in general. So what are we punishing for, reducing your effective skills and then driving? If so, why don't we just charge everyone with a crime who fails to drive once a week to keep their skills sharp?
- sandworm101 11y ago
  I would disagree with the second sentence. I give more weight to a lawyer in regards to the law and politics. As lawyers they have put thousands of hours into studying these types of issues. I respect his/her opinion more in the same way I would respect any doctor's opinion on biological matters.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    Well the lawyer himself just agreed with me on that point. The day defining justice is a specialized matter only the initiated have valid opinions on, is the day freedom is gone. Lawyers are trained in interpreting law, they have no special qualifications in defining what is or isn't justice. Law and justice have little to do with each other.
sandworm101 11y ago
There are a couple of lawyers on this thread and, I suspect, also a few law students.

Then he should know DUI applies to more than just drinking and shouldn't be making such a silly point. And being a lawyer means he knows the existing law, it doesn't mean his opinion about what the law should be in regards to punishment is any more valid than anyone else's.

rayiner 11y ago
I absolutely agree with your last sentence. My intention is not to stand on the law as authority, but try to work through the logic of the law. Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Intention is the most important thing in criminal law, because a guy who shoots at someone is equally a bad, culpable person worthy of punishment whether or not his aim is very good. On the flip side, someone who kills someone while driving in an accident that could happen to anyone is not worthy of punishment while someone who kills someone intentionally with their car is worthy of being punished as a murderer. Even though the end result is the same--the intention is what matters. That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. Even if you don't hurt anyone, you're guilty of that act and that recklessness is a form of malicious intent justifying punishment.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > Why do we punish people criminally? For doing bad things with malicious intentions. Agreed, however, the problem is what's considered "bad" isn't a matter of fact but of opinion. What is law is a matter of fact, but legal/illegal != bad/good. Also, please stop calling it drunk driving, the law pertains to more than just alcohol which is why it matters and why it's unjust. Getting in a car and driving while sober can still get you a DUI because the law is stupid in defining what intoxicated/impaired means, this is especially important now that marijuana is legal for recreation in several states. Just because someone gets a DUI does not mean they were in any way reckless, beyond that it's just as reckless to drive tired as to drive intoxicated yet no one argues that should be DUI worthy, additionally "reckless" is a matter of opinion, not empirical fact. The law is not logical, it is political, a popularity contest, not a logically evidence based means of helping society. There's certainly logic in keeping law self consistent for sure, which is where lawyers and judges have a role, but what becomes law has little to do with what is actually just. As you're a lawyer, you know this already.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm not talking about applying DUI to marijuana or people sleeping in cars, which is why I'm saying drunk driving and not DUI. I'm talking about why drunk driving is legitimately criminal even when it doesn't result in harm. And that's because it's voluntarily reckless conduct that creates risk to the public. Law is absolutely logical, you just have to be willing to look at the premises. And it is absolutely a structured expression of what people think is just. The premise of criminal law is that it's an action taken with malicious intent that makes someone a criminal, not just causing a bad outcome. The law follows that logic to its conclusions. For example under the Model Penal Code, an attempt at murder is punished the same as a completed murder. Someone who, with intent to kill, points a gun and shoots at someone is no less criminal if he misses than if he hits. Criminal law is about punishing culpable conduct. It's illogical to punish two people differently who engage in the same culpable conduct because circumstances outside their control lead to one result versus another. Now, you can disagree with the basic premise and apply a different logical framework. Just because the premise of the law is that intent is the most important thing does not mean you can't believe something different, such as actual harm being the most important thing. But you gotta wrestle with the implications of that. If harm is the most important thing, killing someone should always be murder. Shouldn't matter whether you hit a jogger wearing all black at night or whether you ran over your boss in broad daylight on purpose. In my experience, the people who complain about the law being illogical and not the same as justice are the ones abandoning logic. They know what resuls they want, based on what "justice" means to them, (X should not be illegal) and get upset that's not the law. They don't take the time to look at the premises underlying the law to see if the rules logically follow from those premises. If you do that, you'd be surprised how often you conclude "well I think that premise is incorrect, but I can see how the rule follows logically from that." Ps: also, reckless is a precisely definable concept: when conduct causes a measurable rise in the risk of some negative outcome. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable rise in risk can't be precisely defined and must be established by social concnsus, but that doesn't make it an illogical concept as you imply by calling it an "opinion."
    - unfamiliar 11y ago
      Very interesting comment, thank you. I guess as this applies to drunk driving, the tricky thing is the intent to cause harm. One one hand there is very rarely an intention to hurt someone while drunk driving, however on the other hand there is a demonstrably increased risk of hurting someone. It seems hard to me to square those two things up.
- hueving 11y ago
  >That's why drunk driving is illegal in and of itself. You make a conscious reckless decision to put other people at risk. If you are a novice driver and you choose to drive, you are consciously making a decision to put other people at risk. There are different skill levels of driving. A highly skilled driver drinking can easily still be more skilled than someone who hardly ever drives or has poor reflexes in general. So what are we punishing for, reducing your effective skills and then driving? If so, why don't we just charge everyone with a crime who fails to drive once a week to keep their skills sharp?
sandworm101 11y ago
I would disagree with the second sentence. I give more weight to a lawyer in regards to the law and politics. As lawyers they have put thousands of hours into studying these types of issues. I respect his/her opinion more in the same way I would respect any doctor's opinion on biological matters.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Well the lawyer himself just agreed with me on that point. The day defining justice is a specialized matter only the initiated have valid opinions on, is the day freedom is gone. Lawyers are trained in interpreting law, they have no special qualifications in defining what is or isn't justice. Law and justice have little to do with each other.

sandworm101 11y ago

There are a couple of lawyers on this thread and, I suspect, also a few law students.