3 ms·

Although I'm sympathetic to your general view, driving under the influence is in fact a victimless crime. If the crime were "causing damage or injury as a resul

by x1798DE 12y ago

Although I'm sympathetic to your general view, driving under the influence is in fact a victimless crime. If the crime were "causing damage or injury as a result of driving under the influence", then it would have a victim, but getting drunk then driving somewhere and not hurting anyone is still a crime, but has no victim. You could say you're increasing the risk for everyone else, but the same can be said for use of PCP or meth or some drug that correlates with higher rates of violent crimes, and those are acknowledged to be victimless crimes.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its a sliding scale. What's the chance of this 'victimless crime' turning into a real one? And that ranges from property damage to manslaughter to killing whole families. There's a risk/reward analysis at work here, an driving under the influence has had a very, very bad track record.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  Well it just is a victimless crime is all. Clearly the author of the parent post didn't hurt anyone, so it had no victim. It's probably not worth it to get into it, but I think I'd prefer a situation where you don't get punished for "pre-crime" like driving under the influence, but you get punished extra harshly for anything that causes damage as a result of something like that. So crash into a pole when sober, pay a fine. Crash into a pole when drunk, fine plus 3 months in jail. That sort of thing. Similarly you can imagine a lot of the outrage about jaywalking would go away if jaywalking were legal everywhere, but causing an accident or traffic jam while jaywalking would carry a hefty fine. This allows people to make local risk assessment decisions for which they are taking responsibility (it's 2 AM and there are no cars around - is it worth it to cross now knowing that if I do end up causing an accident or traffic jam it'll cost me $500?). Not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems like a start in addressing the legitimate concerns people have about victimless crimes.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Interesting: as mentioned elsewhere, jaywalking used to be called 'walking'. Car companies marketed the idea that pedestrians didn't belong in the road with cars, which up to then had actually been built for pedestrians to walk in.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    Crash into a pedestrian, and you go to jail for 3 extra months? I am biased because I lost a parent to this, but unlike, say, smoking weed in your house, driving under the influence has a near 100% chance of endangering people around you. Just like how people need a license to drive a car,it's not unreasonable to ask you to not be so selfish as to endanger those around you just because you got wasted and want to drive home in your 3 ton machine.
    - x1798DE 12y ago
      I was using crashing into a pole because it's something where you can see where you could plausibly have a huge disparity in sentencing outcomes in relative terms (there are always going to be thorny issues when you kill someone because even if you weren't driving drunk they're going to be picking apart all the different fault and negligence aspects anyway). For killing a pedestrian, you'd presumably make it so that killing someone while driving under the influence is presumptively negligent homicide as opposed to something like vehicular manslaughter. Additionally, it's disingenuous to say there's a "near 100% chance of endangering people around you". That's saying that there's a 100% chance that you've increased the risk by some amount. There's nothing even close to a 100% chance that you will actually do any damage to people around you, or crash. According to [1] there are 112 million self-reported episodes of impaired driving, and 1.4 million arrests, but 10,000 deaths. Obviously these are not hard numbers, but my guess is that driving under the influence likely triples or quadruples an existing (small) risk that you would kill or harm someone. That's not a trivial thing, but it would still mean that in the vast majority of cases, if you drive under the influence, everyone gets home safe. And in any case, I'm not in favor of people driving under the influence. Similarly I don't think people should drive while tired (it's a similar rate of impairment), but the simple fact is that these crimes by themselves don't have victims, they are just occasionally the cause of actions which do have victims. You can certainly make the case that drunk driving should be against the law for any number of reasons, but that's a separate issue as to whether that crime actually has a victim. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impai...

by x1798DE 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Its a sliding scale. What's the chance of this 'victimless crime' turning into a real one? And that ranges from property damage to manslaughter to killing whole families. There's a risk/reward analysis at work here, an driving under the influence has had a very, very bad track record.

x1798DE 12y ago
Well it just is a victimless crime is all. Clearly the author of the parent post didn't hurt anyone, so it had no victim. It's probably not worth it to get into it, but I think I'd prefer a situation where you don't get punished for "pre-crime" like driving under the influence, but you get punished extra harshly for anything that causes damage as a result of something like that. So crash into a pole when sober, pay a fine. Crash into a pole when drunk, fine plus 3 months in jail. That sort of thing. Similarly you can imagine a lot of the outrage about jaywalking would go away if jaywalking were legal everywhere, but causing an accident or traffic jam while jaywalking would carry a hefty fine. This allows people to make local risk assessment decisions for which they are taking responsibility (it's 2 AM and there are no cars around - is it worth it to cross now knowing that if I do end up causing an accident or traffic jam it'll cost me $500?). Not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems like a start in addressing the legitimate concerns people have about victimless crimes.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Interesting: as mentioned elsewhere, jaywalking used to be called 'walking'. Car companies marketed the idea that pedestrians didn't belong in the road with cars, which up to then had actually been built for pedestrians to walk in.
- rtpg 12y ago
  Crash into a pedestrian, and you go to jail for 3 extra months? I am biased because I lost a parent to this, but unlike, say, smoking weed in your house, driving under the influence has a near 100% chance of endangering people around you. Just like how people need a license to drive a car,it's not unreasonable to ask you to not be so selfish as to endanger those around you just because you got wasted and want to drive home in your 3 ton machine.
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    I was using crashing into a pole because it's something where you can see where you could plausibly have a huge disparity in sentencing outcomes in relative terms (there are always going to be thorny issues when you kill someone because even if you weren't driving drunk they're going to be picking apart all the different fault and negligence aspects anyway). For killing a pedestrian, you'd presumably make it so that killing someone while driving under the influence is presumptively negligent homicide as opposed to something like vehicular manslaughter. Additionally, it's disingenuous to say there's a "near 100% chance of endangering people around you". That's saying that there's a 100% chance that you've increased the risk by some amount. There's nothing even close to a 100% chance that you will actually do any damage to people around you, or crash. According to [1] there are 112 million self-reported episodes of impaired driving, and 1.4 million arrests, but 10,000 deaths. Obviously these are not hard numbers, but my guess is that driving under the influence likely triples or quadruples an existing (small) risk that you would kill or harm someone. That's not a trivial thing, but it would still mean that in the vast majority of cases, if you drive under the influence, everyone gets home safe. And in any case, I'm not in favor of people driving under the influence. Similarly I don't think people should drive while tired (it's a similar rate of impairment), but the simple fact is that these crimes by themselves don't have victims, they are just occasionally the cause of actions which do have victims. You can certainly make the case that drunk driving should be against the law for any number of reasons, but that's a separate issue as to whether that crime actually has a victim. 1. http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impai...