rm_Ptalk1155 34M
3428 posts
7/2/2006 10:00 pm

Last Read:
7/13/2006 9:08 pm


So, in another forum, I'm in a debate with a rather stubborn individual regarding prosecuting those who drive under the influence but do not hit anything or anyone, thereby never visiting harm upon anyone and therefore not requiring such a severe punishment. He argues we must just stop the driver from DUI, basically by taking them home until they are sober.

So, Blogville, I want to know where you stand, and why. I want to know if there are arguments you can make that are better than the ones I currently use (or better than his.)

imLadyBambi 58M/50F

7/4/2006 9:16 pm


Statistics show that people charged with DUI offenses are rarely caught on their first offense.

There are two components that must be considered when sentencing; the damage done to an individual/society AND the potential damage the infraction could have caused.

The harsh sentences serve as a deterrent.

Taking them home almost makes it worth the while to drive under the influence.

imLadyBambi 58M/50F

7/4/2006 9:19 pm

Oh, one other...

The penalty is proportionate to other offenses. If a stock broker engages in insider trading and profits by $100K, he would be sentenced to pay a fine of $100K, up to 5 years imprisonment, and he will lose his license for life. A harsh sentence.

Taking things a step further, even if he does not profit, he still faces the jail sentence and the loss of his license for life. This same concept holds true for DUI's.

Lady Bambi

AndyUnique 68M

7/12/2006 3:08 am

What would constitute driving under the influence? Not every person has the same tolerance level for alcohol. Recent scientific investigations confirm that a blood alcohol level is not an accurate indicator of a persons ability to operate a motor vehicle. The police should have probable cause for stopping someone. Public drunkiness is also a crime. Should'nt the person who served the alcohol assume some culpability? I think each case is different and no single policy can apply to every incident.

rm_SusieQ27 46F
2093 posts
7/13/2006 8:03 pm

C'mon, hun...you can't expect to visit a less severe punishment on drivers who are over the limit, if they harm no one. You want to know why..it's simple..suppose they had injured someone, what then? They should be deterred from that very thing by being punished severly and that's an end to it. Afterall, it may just save someone's life, in the future.
By doling out lesser sentences, it seems to send the message that it's ok to drink and drive, which it certainly isn't..ok?

My sister was killed by a hit and run driver..who had been drinking, Moreover, her husband committed suicide several years later. He just couldn't get over it..so I am definite on where I stand on this one.

Luv n stuff {=} Susie {=}

Become a member to create a blog