2 ms·
The essential element of vehicular manslaughter that differentiates it from "a crash in which someone dies" is the mental state of the driver - specifically, th
by NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
The essential element of vehicular manslaughter that differentiates it from "a crash in which someone dies" is the mental state of the driver - specifically, that they're acting in a reckless or negligent manner.
This is fundamentally nothing to do with economic trade-offs: it's about generally disincentivizing risk-taking when in command of a multi-ton vehicle moving at speed.
We can know this because even if a "bad" driver is objectively more risky than a professional race-car driver who is 20yo, but has drunk a beer; it's the latter that's committing a crime when they drive.
- Retric 3y agoThat argument breaks down when you look at how these laws were actually created and changed over time. People didn’t pick 0.08 BAC and then lower it because they found 0.08 BAC wasn’t low enough, instead the same organizations kept pushing for ever lower limits so they keep dropping independent of any actual impact.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoIn fact, that reinforces my argument: it's not about relative risk, it's about the definition of what's considered negligent varying over time based on changing attitudes.
- Retric 3y agoZero tolerance laws have nothing to do with risk. 0.08 is a risk but 0.001 BAC doesn’t have a detectable influence on behavior. Yet 7 states set have zero tolerance at literally 0.000. The definition of negligence isn’t changed by these groups, they are going to arbitrarily decease thresholds and increase penalties over time because that’s why they exist. Nobody advocates for drunk drivers as a group so there’s no equilibrium reached, just ever harsher penalties and lower limits. I don’t drink, but it’s obvious that using literally 0 as your threshold will pointlessly waste money going after edge cases unrelated to drinking.