4 ms·

Sometimes in this thread you appear to use the word risk to mean harm. I could probably agree with you if I was allowed to pick which you used in any given phra

Sometimes in this thread you appear to use the word risk to mean harm. I could probably agree with you if I was allowed to pick which you used in any given phrase. I agree that drunk driving isn’t always harmful but I can’t see any situation where it wouldn’t be more risky than the same driving act with a different intoxication level. Otherwise I’m not sure how to resolve the contradiction between “drunk driving … poses more risk than regular driving” and “drunk driving isn’t always risky.” You’re right to wonder how a system based on civil justifiability principles that include concretized injury also allows criminal penalty for risk without harm.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Im trying to be careful about my use of risk and harm. In my excerpt you quoted, I meant what I said, and added an edit that might help. On average, drunk drivers are more risky than sober drivers. However an individual is not the average. The more information you have about an individual circumstance, the more it can diverge from the average of the model. For example, for the average smoker, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is typically estimated to be around 10% to 20%. If you know the smoker is 80 years old, the chance they will get lung cancer in their lifetime is much lower. If that 80 year old smoker is in an airplane barreling towards a mountain, their chance of getting lung cancer in their lifetime is 0% and less than an average non-smoker. The same is true for anything described by risk (like drunk driving). If you plug in enough details around the circumstance, the risk changes. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. >You’re right to wonder how a system based on civil justifiability principles that include concretized injury also allows criminal penalty for risk without harm. Thats a big part of what I was thinking. Drunk drivers can cause tremendous damage, and make up a clear portion of vehicle accidents, but I think the actual chance of accident per individual drunk trip is quite low in terms of percent. Lets say for argument it is 5%, which I think is very conservative. If we were to use all data available, I wonder how well something like future violent crime could be predicted. At what point is that a rationale for incarceration based on risk alone? For context, the Average recidivism rate for the category of violent instant felons (spontaneous violence) is over 60%. Average recidivism rate for groups with particularly serious criminal records (Criminal History Category VI ) are over 85%![1 pg 14], and that is without all of the invasive but theoretically available information like psychological reports, medical records, race, income, and family history, ect. What are the implications here for the viability of criminalizing risk without harm. I know these two cases are not the same, but I am still processing the differences, to see what distinctions can be made. Surely we shouldn't incarcerate based on risk alone. I suppose that is why I am posting these provocative but good faith questions. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2019/20190124_Recidivism_Violence.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  My framing of what you're saying here is that you could put on a DUI defense that consists of "I knew the risk, it was zero, and so whether or not I acted in conscious disregard of that risk, I was not reckless." I'm struggling to see how you could truly analyze the additional risk of being > .08 as zero but 1) I expect you're about to make an example and 2) I reckon the example is out there. A one foot journey on a flat road during the day in good weather seems a bit degenerate, no? Your "at what point is that a rationale for incarceration based on risk alone" reminds me a little of banning fireworks. We're not banning fireworks because we hate fun, we're banning them because of the risk of a deleterious effect that is not possible without an explosive. Do we incarcerate for fireworks possession? We usually do not. This is a thing that is worth thinking about. I guess you could say we're not imprisoning because of the risk; we're imprisoning because drunk drivers are unable to follow a very bright line rule. Why would I be imprisoned for driving 180 mph? Same reason.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Im trying to be careful about my use of risk and harm. In my excerpt you quoted, I meant what I said, and added an edit that might help. On average, drunk drivers are more risky than sober drivers. However an individual is not the average. The more information you have about an individual circumstance, the more it can diverge from the average of the model. For example, for the average smoker, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is typically estimated to be around 10% to 20%. If you know the smoker is 80 years old, the chance they will get lung cancer in their lifetime is much lower. If that 80 year old smoker is in an airplane barreling towards a mountain, their chance of getting lung cancer in their lifetime is 0% and less than an average non-smoker. The same is true for anything described by risk (like drunk driving). If you plug in enough details around the circumstance, the risk changes. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. >You’re right to wonder how a system based on civil justifiability principles that include concretized injury also allows criminal penalty for risk without harm. Thats a big part of what I was thinking. Drunk drivers can cause tremendous damage, and make up a clear portion of vehicle accidents, but I think the actual chance of accident per individual drunk trip is quite low in terms of percent. Lets say for argument it is 5%, which I think is very conservative. If we were to use all data available, I wonder how well something like future violent crime could be predicted. At what point is that a rationale for incarceration based on risk alone? For context, the Average recidivism rate for the category of violent instant felons (spontaneous violence) is over 60%. Average recidivism rate for groups with particularly serious criminal records (Criminal History Category VI ) are over 85%![1 pg 14], and that is without all of the invasive but theoretically available information like psychological reports, medical records, race, income, and family history, ect. What are the implications here for the viability of criminalizing risk without harm. I know these two cases are not the same, but I am still processing the differences, to see what distinctions can be made. Surely we shouldn't incarcerate based on risk alone. I suppose that is why I am posting these provocative but good faith questions. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2019/20190124_Recidivism_Violence.pdf https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

singleshot_ 2y ago
My framing of what you're saying here is that you could put on a DUI defense that consists of "I knew the risk, it was zero, and so whether or not I acted in conscious disregard of that risk, I was not reckless." I'm struggling to see how you could truly analyze the additional risk of being > .08 as zero but 1) I expect you're about to make an example and 2) I reckon the example is out there. A one foot journey on a flat road during the day in good weather seems a bit degenerate, no? Your "at what point is that a rationale for incarceration based on risk alone" reminds me a little of banning fireworks. We're not banning fireworks because we hate fun, we're banning them because of the risk of a deleterious effect that is not possible without an explosive. Do we incarcerate for fireworks possession? We usually do not. This is a thing that is worth thinking about. I guess you could say we're not imprisoning because of the risk; we're imprisoning because drunk drivers are unable to follow a very bright line rule. Why would I be imprisoned for driving 180 mph? Same reason.