My issue is that we are not punishing drunk drivers who have an accident. We are punishing people who MIGHT have hurt someone, had circumstances played out differently. And, as I've said many times on this thread, my issue is also that we're doing all this and not giving the accused the benefit of a trial (at least in Canada). If the police caught someone breaking into your house, they'd arrest him, start the trial proceedings and he'd be released to live his life until the trial date arrived. As I've stated, drunk driving is different...? The police catch you doing it and revoke your license for three months right there, and you never have the ability to contest that. The BC Supreme Court case I published last page illustrates that such actions violate the Charter. You get to have a trial in this country before you get punished. I think people's outrage at DUIs is in part due to the success of MADD's campaign to vilify alcohol. Not to beat a dead horse, but we aren't having this same debate about whether rapists should serve jail time from the moment they're accused, or whether pedophiles should be castrated as soon as their computer is shown to have child porn on it. Yet it's okay to hate drunk drivers, punish them immediately and severely, and never give them a trial? I'm sorry, I disagree. I don't like that our present society seems to hold being drunk in a harsher light than any other crime. Here's a point I thought of yesterday: people are arguing that harsher penalties decrease instances of breaking the law. On that premise, let's remove DUI laws, and instead draft a law that says, "If you have an accident under the influence that causes even one dollar of property damage, or so much as a broken finger on a person, you will be charged with attempted murder and sentenced accordingly." That's far more severe than what we have now, and more in keeping with actually causing HARM, rather than almost causing a problem. Is that fair? Because by increasing the severity of the charges, it should really halt drunk driving, right?
And I didn't say it was a crime. Smug and condescending aren't illegal either, but that doesn't mean one can't be guilty of them.
Alright, I'm getting off my soap box. Like I said, I've been arrested before and made dumb mistakes, etc. Yes, cops often profile based on an area. Hell I know a place in Texas where they just wait outside the bars come closing time and just round up minorities to throw in the drunk tank for the night. Not exactly constitutional, but who's going to stop them? But that's sort of a separate issue, too, don't you think. Whatever, yes I am a jackass, as my moniker notes, it wouldn't be the first time someone said that (oh, the flame wars that happened when someone decided to have Obama's Universal Health Care as a thread topic). You could put a revolver with one slug in the six chambers to someone's head and pull the trigger. Just because nothing happened doesn't mean you weren't being reckless. Peace I'm outta this thread!
Does your reading comprehension suck that bad or are you just dumb? Completely unashamed or unrepentant? The last line from my original post was "All in all, I'm glad I caught my DUI the way I did. At the way I was going, I wasn't going to stop anytime soon and no one was hurt and I didn't wreck any cars." I wasn't "drag racing" or "RACING around 85 mph down the highway" when I got my DUI, I got a flat tire and was doing about 10 mph on the shoulder of the road. Way to assume that when I said I raced cars, that I was someone zipping through traffic while street racing. Wrong.
I've read a couple of your posts regarding this and I disagree with your analogy. When you get arrested for a DUI you don't have a criminal record until after your trial date when you either plead guilty or are found guilty of the offense. You are certainly able to walk around and live your life whether you were arrested for a DUI or as a child molester. Driving a vehicle is a privilege in this country (Canada, and I'm sure the US is the same) not some right given to all of its citizens. I think people lose sight of this point when it comes to driving. You reach a certain age, write a test, and prove that you can operate the machinery. If you read the documentation that comes with/printed on your license it has language that reads that the license can be revoked by the governing body at any time and you must turn in the license. One of the rules that the governing body has dictated is that if you are suspected of driving the vehicle while impaired your license gets suspended. If somebody doesn't like rules imposed on them by their license nobody says they need to drive.
Yes, but you've had your license suspended for three months. Or 1/4 of the entire sentence that would otherwise be imposed if you were found guilty. WITH NO TRIAL. That's the cop deciding that on the side of the road, and you having no recourse. What if you make your living because you can drive? What if, as is common with many Canadians, you live far away from work and there's no bus route? I guess you can't work for three months? Whether or not you 'like the rules' of driving, this country in particular demands you have a license in many parts of it in order just to work. You don't have a choice.
Re-read what she wrote. What she and I are arguing against is that you are suffering a punishment BEFORE you have been proven guilty in a court of law. They don't do that for any other crime that I know of. Also, they are punishing you for not providing evidence that could incriminate you. In the US, we have a little thing in our Constitution called the 5th ammendment, but maybe they do things differently in Canada. EDIT: Dcc001 beat me to the punch.
Then, for fuck sakes, don't do something stupid like go out and drive drunk. Again, you are responsible for your own actions and choices. Even if someone put that drink in your hand, you have options. If you've pigeon-holed yourself into a situation where you absolutely, positively, need a car to get by, then you're setting yourself up for headaches. Suspending your license for drunk driving is only one way of losing your vehicle. Maybe it gets stolen, or smashed into while parked outside your home? Maybe it breaks down? What do you do then? You have to be prepared as best you can, and deal with the consequences. All that being said, I understand the outrage at being sentenced roadside. It is, to my knowledge, the only offense that operates like that, and it isn't right.
I'll admit, I got a DUI 20 years ago. It was stupid of me, but I was literally driving five blocks, and the cops were then still able to chalk the tires of vehicles at tavers. That's another story, and why if I go out, I either am DD, have a DD, or only have 1-2, and go home/to a friend's house that I'll stay the night at. But my sheer disgust is about the part in bold. If my car gets stolen, that's what insurance is for. If my car get smashed into, that's what insurance is for. If my car breaks down, that's what insurance for a tow (and having a backup fund for repairs) is for. Where I live, there is ZERO public transportation. You expect me to move from my friends, my family, everything else that would make life "easier" with public transportation, just because "I've pigeon-holed" myself? You, my friend, have obviously never lived in a rural area. This town has slightly over 2k people, and the one I work in has about 5k people. No bus routes, no taxis, when my car *did* break down, I had it towed, bummed rides for a couple of days (not something I could do for THREE MONTHS), got it fixed. Please don't treat the automatic three month suspension being a load of crap simply because all of us have "other options".
You need to explain how this sentence is different from saying "If you don't want to be accused of murder, then don't go out and kill people."
Not to be overly dramatic - I'm pretty sure if they find you on the scene of a murder with a murder weapon you get locked up. I think the point is if you go out and accidentally have too much, you should consider your options as if your car was stolen or broken down for that night.
Which is what I do. It was the fact that he compared a DUI to someone stealing my car as being MY FAULT and I "pigeon-holed" myself for absolutely having to have a vehicle. DUI, yeah, my fault. Stolen? Unless I was a freaking idiot & left my keys in the ignition, not my fault.
Yeah, but if they find you at a potential scene, with what might be a weapon, and identify you using a forensic technology that becomes incredibly inaccurate when not calibrated and is often not calibrated to schedule - I'm pretty sure your lawyer has you out of jail inside of 5 minutes, and you get to work until the trial. They should at least be taken for proper blood testing done by someone with a well maintained and calibrated lab. I'm all for forcibly sterilizing drunk drivers and re-homing any existing children in suitable foster care. I'm all for requiring that any vehicle operated on public roads have an ignition lock that takes a blood sample and confirms that you're under 0.05 before it will start up. I loathe actual drink drivers. But 3 months out of work because a cop in a hurry fucked up? That's bullshit. That said, after my birthday in August, one of the guys who left to drive two of my fuck buddies and another friend and his girlfriend home got picked up for a DUI on the way home. I thought he was over the limit when he left and I knew he was a problem drinker. But I was distracted and a pussy and didn't intervene. The dumb part is that there was a sober person with a license in the car, and the guy who got done has lost his job, probably his career, and his license for a year from it. The fucking retarded part is that that asshole will get his license back eventually. Since that night, I have a breathalyzer next to my front door - with a note that anyone who's had alcohol since arriving at my house must pass the breathalyzer test on the way out - or they're never invited back to my house. Which is still a pretty arbitrary decision, for all that my device gets it's scheduled calibrations. But it's also not 3 months out of work.
Scootah, I don't mean to give you shit, but I couldn't understand a lot of what you just said in that post, and judging by what I have seen you write in other threads, you should really preview what you write before you actually post it. ANYWAY, to make this post on-topic: A BLOOD SAMPLE?! Are you serious? Does that include your own car? Would you be willing to have a device installed on your car (you being a sober driver, because you never drive under the influence of alcohol [god forbid they install an amphetamine detector in cars! Am I right?]) that requires a blood sample every time you want to start it? Do you realize how foolish that sounds? Okay, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I think you meant to say that you would agree to having "breathatlyzers" installed in every car (which is the same thing that MADD wants to do). Do you know that having a breathalyzer on your car means that it can take up to two minutes to start (I know that two minutes doesn't sound like a long time, but wait until the next time you have to start your car in a hurry.)?
Do you know that watching your drunk jackass hillbilly ex con father run someone off the road can take years of therapy? I know that thinking about how your actions impact those around you isn't your strong point - but next time you get a wild urge to shout 'Hey Ya'll, Watch this!' maybe you could avoid jail by thinking. Seriously, do you listen to banjo music when you post?
We discussed this before Scootah, and I had the decency to take it to PM. Just look at what I've posted in the drunk threads, an you will see what my musical preference is. Have you read anything I've written? I've never hurt anyone, and I've never caused any property damage. If I had, I'd probably still be in jail. You didn't answer ANY of my questions.
A hardship permit is normally easy to get so that one can drive legally while your license is suspended. Yes it can only be used for traveling to and from work but its at least something to allow you to work. If driving IS your work, then that may be a real problem.
Duh, it's the Ask A Drunk Driver thread. I think that the automatic suspension was instituted with good intentions. I'm willing to bet that there have been cases where a guy got picked up for DUI, got bailed out, and then killed someone in another DUI while waiting for his day in court. Cue moral outrage and a MADD-like organization lobbying to "solve" that problem. Personally, I think it should be the following: You make bail for your DUI. Your license is handed back to you while you wait for your case to go to court. If you get another one, you are remanded, and your bail is forfeited. The fact that you were charged with another DUI in the meantime will then be used against you in court. I think this is reasonable - you can still use your car to go to work, and you have a VERY severe punishment for the fuckups. It's a clear second chance, but given with a very clear punishment behind it. Hilarious (and by "hilarious" I mean "fucked up") aside: I know a guy who was the DESIGNATED DRIVER... and has had his driving privileges suspended for more than a year. You think Canada is bad? Go on down to the Provost Marshal's Office on a military base and ask them what their procedures are for processing DWIs.
True. However, in my area this carries a mandatory one year suspension. So the choice becomes if I can handle 30 days do I take that or spend a year driving only to and from work. I'm not trying to say those who have to get back and forth to work wouldn't make the right choice but its a year of "I need to go to the store on the way home, no way I'll be past my alloted time to get home from work....Oh shit look at the line at the register". If I had to, no question I'd take the year of driving on a hardship permit but I know I'd probably push the limit too often and lose that too.