8 ms·

What would you rather do if someone drives drunk and kills two teenagers?

by influx 6y ago

aaomidi 6y ago
I don't know, I just don't see the point of essentially killing another person. Is the point revenge? To make sure this doesn't happen again? Is justice = revenge? Questions... Like I guess my point is someone who is driving drunk is already not thinking logically. You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change.
- screamingninja 6y ago
  You can however stop punishing drunk driving and watch the number of drunk driving incidents skyrocket. The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Again I don't think someone who is behind the wheel driving drunk is thinking about the consequences of their actions. I don't think the severity of the punishment changes that. I'd much rather see why drunk driving rates is far higher in the US than other countries with similar laws and transpiration systems.
    - screamingninja 6y ago
      I don't think I understand what alternative solution you are proposing here.
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        1. Look at why drunk driving is a much larger problem in the US than other places. 2. Is there stuff we can do to fix the discrepancy in the US. 3. Can the perpetrator of harm in society be a part of fixing the harm they have done, and preventing more harm in society. I think punitive justice is just the easy way out and never addresses the roots of the problems. For example, imagine instead of jailing people for 15 years, we used that money to subsidize lyft/uber rides of 18-25 year olds when they were detected to be near bars. How much impact would that have compared to jailing?
    - mbrodersen 6y ago
      Right. So if somebody gets drunk and kills a school full of children with a machine gun then we should ask him/her nicely to not do it again and send him home in a Taxi?
- xiphias2 6y ago
  It’s. ot for revenge. It’s to stop others from doing it I think.
- JCharante 6y ago
  > To make sure this doesn't happen again? I have been informed of cases where drunk drivers get their licenses revoked yet continue to drive anyways. Should the system just continue to give this individual another slap on the wrist? The system should work to make the necessary adjusts to protect society from these individuals. For some, putting on a breathealyser is enough, while sometimes people start to have their friends breathe into it instead. If there is no other measure that can be taken to prevent an individual from becoming intoxicated and conducting heavy machinery, then I don't see another alternative. > You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change. I'm not sure how feasible it is to make this statement because I'm not aware of anyway we could test the accuracy of this statement. One field I'm interested in being developed is detecting cars whose drivers seem to be intoxicated with machine vision software. Some cities / countries have enough state-owned cameras in public for this, and you could combine this with IoT spikes in the road or state-controlled kill-switches to completely eradicate drunk driving.
- walkedaway 6y ago
  For me I'm glad an irresponsible adult who made the choices that killed two innocent people can't do the same to others. Always amazing to me that people have more empathy for the criminals than the victims.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    I have empathy for both. You're not preventing this from happening again. I'm trying to root cause the issue and make sure it happens to no one.
erdaniels 6y ago
edit: this was a comment on what I would do but getting downvoted trying to have a conversation about this is demotivating
- abnry 6y ago
  Or not being in prison could teach you that your actions don't have personal consequences. So why not continue drinking?
  - fitblipper 6y ago
    OR you could stop assuming criminals are different than you and realize they have the ability to learn from the mistakes themselves, especially heartbreaking ones where 2 people die. I am so sick of seeing people who feel that justice can only be served by destroying peoples lives and making them and their families suffer to the full extent of the law. Why do we keep electing prosecutors to the high offices? Why do so many prosecutors feel they are good if they can put away the baddies for a long time? I wish we would promote and elect more defenders because they seem like the only people who see that the people facing life in prison and a family thrown into poverty are not "they" but are "we".
stickfigure 6y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the guy should just be allowed to sleep it off. But 15 years? Wouldn't 5 years get the point across?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I personally think it should be longer than 15 years. Taking away 2 lives (which would have lived much longer) should have a retribution of more than 15 years. Have you contemplated the insufferable loss of the two people's families? For no fault of their own, their child gets swiped away by some drunk driver who happens to be smart at math?
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    And what does this accomplish?
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      For one, it would provide justice to those who suffered. You can argue an "eye-for-an-eye" approach to disputes amongst humans - logic says, let go. It's past us. Emotions and life long suffering of a lost child says I want revenge. Justice system also prevents escalations from other avenues - like societal violence since "Justice was not served". You really don't want to live in a society where people take up arms for retribution. It's arguable whether it prevents others from committing similar crimes - I don't think it makes much difference if its 15 years or 30 years to make a drunk person avoid driving. Also keep in mind, the cost-benefit of the Justice system is highly dependent on the socio-economic conditions of the city or neighborhood. Living in Geneva vs. Guadalajahara, you're going to get different answers.
      - stickfigure 6y ago
        Hmmm. What if instead of drunk driving, the accident that killed your kids involved distracted driving? Say, driver was texting? Eating a hamburger? What if the driver was just driving 10mph over the speed limit? 15mph? What if the driver fell asleep at the wheel? What if the driver was driving on bald tires and a blowout precipitated the accident? What if they were only 95% worn out? 80%? ----- There are different levels of culpability. Drunk driving is negligent and bad, but I hope we can all agree it is not as bad as willful murder. Five years in jail is an incredibly severe punishment already - that's a quarter of this kid's life to that point. I don't buy the revenge angle. We can expect more from people.
runarberg 6y ago
idk. I’m sure there are better methods of preventing drunk driving then punishing people after the fact. Measures include: * Better party hour transport availability * Better driver awareness, education, and propaganda * More enforcement of drunk suspects before an accident * Police cooperation with bars, i.e. tattle-tail programs Moving to America I’m astonished how much drunk driving goes unpunished here. In rural areas there people often go a few dozen km to the next bar, and there is no alternative to get home except to drive. When there is enforcement it seems like it is only over the top punishment. Bartenders seem to be fine with people having a few beers and driving home (as long as they are not “too drunk”). I think America is failing spectacularly in preventing drunk driving, and I think the main reason is that this over reliance of punitive measures that simply don’t work.
- tedk-42 6y ago
  People should be responsible for their actions and held accountable when they do wrong. America is not failing to prevent drink/drunk driving. Many places allow you to drive with a bit of alcohol in your system. It's up to the individual to be an 'adult' about their decision making/risk assessment. No point wrapping everything in bubble wrap to keep everyone safe. Accidents happen and people selfishly go against what they should do
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    Right. So you have no problem with private citizens owning nukes for example? Since they just have to be adults and we can always punish them if they kill a few million people? Also, I hope that you realise that it is adults that murder, rape, torture, beat up their wife’s/kids etc. So are you sure being an “adult” is enough?

What would you rather do if someone drives drunk and kills two teenagers?

by influx 6y ago

What would you rather do if someone drives drunk and kills two teenagers?

I don't know, I just don't see the point of essentially killing another person. Is the point revenge? To make sure this doesn't happen again? Is justice = revenge? Questions... Like I guess my point is someone who is driving drunk is already not thinking logically. You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change.

screamingninja 6y ago
You can however stop punishing drunk driving and watch the number of drunk driving incidents skyrocket. The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Again I don't think someone who is behind the wheel driving drunk is thinking about the consequences of their actions. I don't think the severity of the punishment changes that. I'd much rather see why drunk driving rates is far higher in the US than other countries with similar laws and transpiration systems.
  - screamingninja 6y ago
    I don't think I understand what alternative solution you are proposing here.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      1. Look at why drunk driving is a much larger problem in the US than other places. 2. Is there stuff we can do to fix the discrepancy in the US. 3. Can the perpetrator of harm in society be a part of fixing the harm they have done, and preventing more harm in society. I think punitive justice is just the easy way out and never addresses the roots of the problems. For example, imagine instead of jailing people for 15 years, we used that money to subsidize lyft/uber rides of 18-25 year olds when they were detected to be near bars. How much impact would that have compared to jailing?
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    Right. So if somebody gets drunk and kills a school full of children with a machine gun then we should ask him/her nicely to not do it again and send him home in a Taxi?
xiphias2 6y ago
It’s. ot for revenge. It’s to stop others from doing it I think.
JCharante 6y ago
> To make sure this doesn't happen again? I have been informed of cases where drunk drivers get their licenses revoked yet continue to drive anyways. Should the system just continue to give this individual another slap on the wrist? The system should work to make the necessary adjusts to protect society from these individuals. For some, putting on a breathealyser is enough, while sometimes people start to have their friends breathe into it instead. If there is no other measure that can be taken to prevent an individual from becoming intoxicated and conducting heavy machinery, then I don't see another alternative. > You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change. I'm not sure how feasible it is to make this statement because I'm not aware of anyway we could test the accuracy of this statement. One field I'm interested in being developed is detecting cars whose drivers seem to be intoxicated with machine vision software. Some cities / countries have enough state-owned cameras in public for this, and you could combine this with IoT spikes in the road or state-controlled kill-switches to completely eradicate drunk driving.
walkedaway 6y ago
For me I'm glad an irresponsible adult who made the choices that killed two innocent people can't do the same to others. Always amazing to me that people have more empathy for the criminals than the victims.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  I have empathy for both. You're not preventing this from happening again. I'm trying to root cause the issue and make sure it happens to no one.

erdaniels 6y ago

edit: this was a comment on what I would do but getting downvoted trying to have a conversation about this is demotivating

abnry 6y ago
Or not being in prison could teach you that your actions don't have personal consequences. So why not continue drinking?
- fitblipper 6y ago
  OR you could stop assuming criminals are different than you and realize they have the ability to learn from the mistakes themselves, especially heartbreaking ones where 2 people die. I am so sick of seeing people who feel that justice can only be served by destroying peoples lives and making them and their families suffer to the full extent of the law. Why do we keep electing prosecutors to the high offices? Why do so many prosecutors feel they are good if they can put away the baddies for a long time? I wish we would promote and elect more defenders because they seem like the only people who see that the people facing life in prison and a family thrown into poverty are not "they" but are "we".

stickfigure 6y ago

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the guy should just be allowed to sleep it off. But 15 years? Wouldn't 5 years get the point across?

systemvoltage 6y ago
I personally think it should be longer than 15 years. Taking away 2 lives (which would have lived much longer) should have a retribution of more than 15 years. Have you contemplated the insufferable loss of the two people's families? For no fault of their own, their child gets swiped away by some drunk driver who happens to be smart at math?
- aaomidi 6y ago
  And what does this accomplish?
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    For one, it would provide justice to those who suffered. You can argue an "eye-for-an-eye" approach to disputes amongst humans - logic says, let go. It's past us. Emotions and life long suffering of a lost child says I want revenge. Justice system also prevents escalations from other avenues - like societal violence since "Justice was not served". You really don't want to live in a society where people take up arms for retribution. It's arguable whether it prevents others from committing similar crimes - I don't think it makes much difference if its 15 years or 30 years to make a drunk person avoid driving. Also keep in mind, the cost-benefit of the Justice system is highly dependent on the socio-economic conditions of the city or neighborhood. Living in Geneva vs. Guadalajahara, you're going to get different answers.
    - stickfigure 6y ago
      Hmmm. What if instead of drunk driving, the accident that killed your kids involved distracted driving? Say, driver was texting? Eating a hamburger? What if the driver was just driving 10mph over the speed limit? 15mph? What if the driver fell asleep at the wheel? What if the driver was driving on bald tires and a blowout precipitated the accident? What if they were only 95% worn out? 80%? ----- There are different levels of culpability. Drunk driving is negligent and bad, but I hope we can all agree it is not as bad as willful murder. Five years in jail is an incredibly severe punishment already - that's a quarter of this kid's life to that point. I don't buy the revenge angle. We can expect more from people.

runarberg 6y ago

idk. I’m sure there are better methods of preventing drunk driving then punishing people after the fact. Measures include: * Better party hour transport availability * Better driver awareness, education, and propaganda * More enforcement of drunk suspects before an accident * Police cooperation with bars, i.e. tattle-tail programs Moving to America I’m astonished how much drunk driving goes unpunished here. In rural areas there people often go a few dozen km to the next bar, and there is no alternative to get home except to drive. When there is enforcement it seems like it is only over the top punishment. Bartenders seem to be fine with people having a few beers and driving home (as long as they are not “too drunk”). I think America is failing spectacularly in preventing drunk driving, and I think the main reason is that this over reliance of punitive measures that simply don’t work.

tedk-42 6y ago
People should be responsible for their actions and held accountable when they do wrong. America is not failing to prevent drink/drunk driving. Many places allow you to drive with a bit of alcohol in your system. It's up to the individual to be an 'adult' about their decision making/risk assessment. No point wrapping everything in bubble wrap to keep everyone safe. Accidents happen and people selfishly go against what they should do
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  Right. So you have no problem with private citizens owning nukes for example? Since they just have to be adults and we can always punish them if they kill a few million people? Also, I hope that you realise that it is adults that murder, rape, torture, beat up their wife’s/kids etc. So are you sure being an “adult” is enough?