upvote

points

by chromacity7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby AngryData6 hours ago|
next
[-]
Because the DUI laws aren't designed to protect people, they are designed to extract money out of citizens for the courts and their buddies providing 3rd party services. Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer? Still get charged just as hard for a DUI because that is literally thousands of dollars the court will receive. Oh sure if you got $10K to drop on a lawyer it will go away easily, but for anyone that has a public defender they are shit out of luck. Defending yourself in court with a public defender is just increasing the risk and liability because if they lose the case they now have to pay thousands of dollars more for court costs, which pushes people to taking shitty plea deals.

Oh sure there are plenty of people who are guilty and have a problem, they get caught too, but the courts want money so they aren't just going after the problem, they are charging any and every person possible. Some people get charged DUIs for annoying a cop or being tired, and even if their blood work comes up clean, do they drop the case? No. They just argue they were high on some other drug that they didn't test for.

reply
upvoteby chromacity3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer?

I hate to say this, but how about... not drinking and driving? Drunk driving is a massive problem in the US and accounts for a good proportion of all driving fatalities. And your attitude sounds precisely like what causes this issue: unless the penalties are painful, people keep trying their luck in hopes of blowing "exactly the limit".

reply
upvoteby stronglikedan4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
>> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.

> your criticism is pretty off-base

In my experience, and the experience of my friends, that criticism was spot-fucking-on. Once you get into the system, you'll be lucky to ever truly get out. Every step is designed to keep you paying into the system in perpetuity unless you walk a very, very thin tightrope. Anyone that thinks we rehab our criminals is pretty off-base.

reply
upvoteby benatkin6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line?

If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).

reply
upvoteby SauciestGNU6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.
reply
upvoteby benatkin5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I might agree with you, but I struggle to think of it in isolation from the move towards self driving cars. Also we already have a quite harsh consequence of not being able to visit Canada for 10 years that a lot of rich people can get out of by paying a lawyer to keep them from getting a DUI. If only deterrents worked better. Is the problem with an interlock device that they can drive when they can pass the interlock test, or is the technology not needed, and what technology would you propose for preventing drunk driving convicts from driving illegaly?
reply
upvoteby SauciestGNU4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not sure there's a technological solution to a social problem. The problem is decision making when intoxicated. The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.

Consider guns. A felon cannot be in possession of guns legally, and the doctrine of constructive possession means that a prohibited person can be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm if a lawful owner in a household leaves a gun accessible to the prohibited person.

Perhaps it should be a serious crime for a convicted drunk driver to be in or around a car where the ignition device could be in the prohibited person's possession.

reply
upvoteby fragmede4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The technological solution is to make it so the addict doesn't need to drive to go about their lives. I know at least one alcoholic that moved to an apartment with a bar within walking distance, so they could walk home from the bar instead of driving home drunk.
reply
upvoteby SauciestGNU3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The other technological fix is naloxone, which helps with alcohol use disorder just like it does with other substance use disorders. We have many options if we as a society decide to take these problems seriously.
reply
upvoteby benatkin3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.

My technological ideas were along those lines. Basically allowing them to continue to own their automobile, but not to drive, and perhaps not to buy one, because forcing them to sell their cars is hard to implement (though maybe worth it). And also preventing them from operating cars owned by other people that are stored in their residence or workplace.

reply
upvoteby astura6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
reply
upvoteby benatkin5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in the article, where the interlock devices didn't function as intended.
reply