3 ms·

Which, given how many repeat DUI offenders there are, is great justification for long prison sentences. If a person can't be trusted to put either the bottle o

Which, given how many repeat DUI offenders there are, is great justification for long prison sentences. If a person can't be trusted to put either the bottle or the keys down, then they need to be restrained. I'd rather find a cheaper way than prison, but it's insanity that you can drive drunk and receive a punishment that serves as almost no disincentive to continue to do it.

nsxwolf 11y ago
Most of my friends would be in prison under your idea, and their children would have grown up without their parents, and I fail to see how the world would have been better off that way. Oh sure, they MIGHT have killed someone because they were a little bit over an arbitrary and always decreasing blood alcohol limit, but they didn't, so I'm not sure what a 10 year prison sentence would accomplish. I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world.
- handedness 11y ago
  Most of your friends have children, then drink and drive? And "my idea" is what's wrong here? I don't even know where to begin...
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Look around you next time you're out at a restaurant. See all the beers and glasses of wine? You think they all took Uber or have a designated driver? Everyone drinks and drives. That's not even illegal. But it's not that hard to take one sip too many and break the law. Seriously, get off your high horse. There are over a million DUI arrests per year in the US. That's just the tiny percentage they catch!
    - handedness 11y ago
      It's not a high horse, so much as it's an avoidable problem. $59B/year in the US is spent on alcohol-related crashes. (Just crashes, not the insane amount of crime that's alcohol-related.) There's a death every 51 minutes from it. 31% of traffic-related deaths. 17% of children under 14 who die in a car crash involving an alcohol-impaired driver. Over half of those are in the vehicle driven by the drunk driver. That's utter insanity, and I wonder how many of those people were close to the limit and something you'd deem just fine. I'm not naive enough to think everyone at the restaurant took Uber or have a designated driver, but I trust you're also not naive enough to think that it's not a serious problem, and it's one that, more often as not, kills innocents. The problem is that people can get away with it, and largely do. (As you allude to.) Please don't pretend it's a small problem, and that discussing whether longer/harsher/different sentences would motivate more people to take Uber or get a designated driver is the problem. That's as counterproductive as adopting a smug tone when discussing policy. Edit: > I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world. Enough with the straw man, BTW. I'm pretty Libertarian. But the moment you demonstrate that you can't safely manage the responsibility of driving, then I'm all in favor of strongly limiting your ability to do others harm. It's the height of American selfishness to think that the current system is sufficient relative to the problem that exists.

nsxwolf 11y ago

Most of my friends would be in prison under your idea, and their children would have grown up without their parents, and I fail to see how the world would have been better off that way. Oh sure, they MIGHT have killed someone because they were a little bit over an arbitrary and always decreasing blood alcohol limit, but they didn't, so I'm not sure what a 10 year prison sentence would accomplish. I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world.

handedness 11y ago
Most of your friends have children, then drink and drive? And "my idea" is what's wrong here? I don't even know where to begin...
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Look around you next time you're out at a restaurant. See all the beers and glasses of wine? You think they all took Uber or have a designated driver? Everyone drinks and drives. That's not even illegal. But it's not that hard to take one sip too many and break the law. Seriously, get off your high horse. There are over a million DUI arrests per year in the US. That's just the tiny percentage they catch!
  - handedness 11y ago
    It's not a high horse, so much as it's an avoidable problem. $59B/year in the US is spent on alcohol-related crashes. (Just crashes, not the insane amount of crime that's alcohol-related.) There's a death every 51 minutes from it. 31% of traffic-related deaths. 17% of children under 14 who die in a car crash involving an alcohol-impaired driver. Over half of those are in the vehicle driven by the drunk driver. That's utter insanity, and I wonder how many of those people were close to the limit and something you'd deem just fine. I'm not naive enough to think everyone at the restaurant took Uber or have a designated driver, but I trust you're also not naive enough to think that it's not a serious problem, and it's one that, more often as not, kills innocents. The problem is that people can get away with it, and largely do. (As you allude to.) Please don't pretend it's a small problem, and that discussing whether longer/harsher/different sentences would motivate more people to take Uber or get a designated driver is the problem. That's as counterproductive as adopting a smug tone when discussing policy. Edit: > I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world. Enough with the straw man, BTW. I'm pretty Libertarian. But the moment you demonstrate that you can't safely manage the responsibility of driving, then I'm all in favor of strongly limiting your ability to do others harm. It's the height of American selfishness to think that the current system is sufficient relative to the problem that exists.