4 ms·

I did a brief search of DUI penalties around the world, and it really does seem like the penalty is light everywhere. After losing a friend to a DUI driver, I

I did a brief search of DUI penalties around the world, and it really does seem like the penalty is light everywhere. After losing a friend to a DUI driver, I see DUI as being on the order of a manslaughter. I don't want the 12.5 years in jail that a first offense manslaughter charge carries, but the first offense of a 1 year license suspension seems far too light, and the repeat offense terms are egregiously light. http://www.drink-drive-lose.com/Article.aspx?a=87 http://www.drink-drive-lose.com/Article.aspx?a=87

andrei_says_ 10y ago
Is there research linking severity of punishment with frequency of behavior?
hueving 10y ago
Texting a driving is worse. I don't understand why so many people rail against people driving after a few drinks but will then play with their phone while driving. Would you be for making the punishment for texting and driving worse than a DUI? It should be if it's relative to the harm it causes.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Yes I would absolutely be in favor of this.
  - hueving 10y ago
    So if we're well into fining based on probability of causing loss of life due to distractions, can we also fine parents with young children (screaming, fighting, vomiting, etc all distract)? How about fining people on a recurring basis if they have a slower reaction time than some threshold? I'm only partially being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious how these punishments for being impaired scale up. I would rather have someone drive by me after 4 drinks who is not tired rather than a mother running on 2 hours asleep with a screaming baby (sleep deprivation is also as bad as drunk driving). Yet the former would lose his/her license at a checkpoint for a year and face a $10k fine, which you say is too little. But the latter would be waved on through. It all seems very arbitrary and detached from the risk imposed and rather attached to the societal naughtiness of the activity.
    - TorKlingberg 10y ago
      It is balancing risk with need and utility. Parents with young children need to drive places. Nobody needs to drink and drive. Many people think they drive fine after 4 drinks because they are such great drivers, but the evidence says otherwise.
coryfklein 10y ago
> I see DUI as being on the order of a manslaughter So doing something that has a chance of killing someone is equally as bad as killing someone? I agree driving under the influence is bad, but I disagree that it is just as bad as manslaughter.
- euyyn 10y ago
  > I don't want the 12.5 years in jail that a first offense manslaughter charge carries Which is why GP didn't say "as being equally as bad".

andrei_says_ 10y ago

Is there research linking severity of punishment with frequency of behavior?

hueving 10y ago

Texting a driving is worse. I don't understand why so many people rail against people driving after a few drinks but will then play with their phone while driving. Would you be for making the punishment for texting and driving worse than a DUI? It should be if it's relative to the harm it causes.

hkmurakami 10y ago
Yes I would absolutely be in favor of this.
- hueving 10y ago
  So if we're well into fining based on probability of causing loss of life due to distractions, can we also fine parents with young children (screaming, fighting, vomiting, etc all distract)? How about fining people on a recurring basis if they have a slower reaction time than some threshold? I'm only partially being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious how these punishments for being impaired scale up. I would rather have someone drive by me after 4 drinks who is not tired rather than a mother running on 2 hours asleep with a screaming baby (sleep deprivation is also as bad as drunk driving). Yet the former would lose his/her license at a checkpoint for a year and face a $10k fine, which you say is too little. But the latter would be waved on through. It all seems very arbitrary and detached from the risk imposed and rather attached to the societal naughtiness of the activity.
  - TorKlingberg 10y ago
    It is balancing risk with need and utility. Parents with young children need to drive places. Nobody needs to drink and drive. Many people think they drive fine after 4 drinks because they are such great drivers, but the evidence says otherwise.

coryfklein 10y ago

> I see DUI as being on the order of a manslaughter So doing something that has a chance of killing someone is equally as bad as killing someone? I agree driving under the influence is bad, but I disagree that it is just as bad as manslaughter.

euyyn 10y ago
> I don't want the 12.5 years in jail that a first offense manslaughter charge carries Which is why GP didn't say "as being equally as bad".