Is DWI the worst crime in the world?

[sunnyday123]

Depends on where standing when you look at it.

When you start killing innocent people because for some reason you think you can handle a 3000 lb instrument while drunk. Good friend of mine lost her husband and 8 year old daughter from a drunk driver. So I guess she would say it's pretty horrible.

You knowingly drink and then drive, you take the consequences whether they are harsher or not.

And lastly people tend to judge you harsher when they find out your a hypocrite. You make a public service announcement on drunk driving then get busted for drunk driving, I personally think you should get an extra 2 years for stupidity.

Thank you. And I cannot fathom comparing DWI/DUI to talking on a cell phone. I suppose you do look at it differently when you know someone it has affected.

 

[dejr_8]

Thank you. And I cannot fathom comparing DWI/DUI to talking on a cell phone. I suppose you do look at it differently when you know someone it has affected.

Why not? There is some evidence (statistics) that show that talking on a cell phone increases your chance of causing an accident as much as a blood alcohol level of 0.08.

IF (big IF) those statistics are valid why is driving with a 0.08 blood level much worse (deserving public shame) than driving while talking on a cell phone.

If the outcome of these two events is the same (i.e. an increase in accident rates) then the punishment should be the same. No?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

As my old professor used to say, there are lies, then there are bigger lies... then there are statistics...

Your professor was Mark Twain?

 

[rigs32]

Back when I did drive 2 glasses of wine would put me over the legal limit.

Really? Do you know how to calculate your BAC? One glass of wine (4 oz.) = 1 beer (12 oz.) = 1 shot of liquor = .02. And you burn off .02 each hour. People confuse BAC with tolerance. One person can feel highly affected by two glasses of wine with dinner. Others need a whole bottle to feel the same effect.

Two glasses of wine in one hour would put you at .04. Granted, women and smaller people can be *slightly* more intoxicated per drink then men, so it's possible that a woman could reach .08 off THREE glasses of wine consumed extremely quickly, but every minute that ticks by you burn more alcohol.

I work in law enforcement and participated in a training in which subjects were dosed with alcohol and tested by trainees. The most drunk seeming person only tested as a .11. Others were .17 and held it together pretty well. The way alcohol affect you is dependent on body chemistry, but the BAC calculation is pretty standard.

 

[sunnyday123]

Why not? There is some evidence (statistics) that show that talking on a cell phone increases your chance of causing an accident as much as a blood alcohol level of 0.08.

IF (big IF) those statistics are valid why is driving with a 0.08 blood level much worse (deserving public shame) than driving while talking on a cell phone.

If the outcome of these two events is the same (i.e. an increase in accident rates) then the punishment should be the same. No?

The only problem with that is those statistics are just that, statistics. There is concrete evidence-maybe granite, as in headstones-that drinking does impair your reaction time, motor skills, and thinking. I work with a man who's son was killed by a drunk driver, and watching him go through that was and is horrible. Something as simple as that person making one different choice would have allowed his son to grow up.

 

[5DisneyNuts]

This is a very good discussion and very relevant. I am going to take a different spin based on a speaker I heard. I am not saying these are my views, but I do believe they are worth considering since things are not getting better using conventional methods.

In the speaker's opinion the DUI is not fully aware of what they are doing and therefore can not understand the consequences of their actions. Everyone that drinks believes they are invincible (as a result of the drug) and hard core drinkers believe they can only have one drink when they start. Asking that person to decide that driving is wrong when they do not believe there is anything affecting them will continue to be a losing battle. This is opposed to a person that commits a crime while under the influence since the basic notion that what they are doing is wrong still exists. "Driving a car is not wrong and I feel fine so therefore I am not doing anything wrong." "Holding a gun to someone's head is wrong no matter what".

I am a big believer in personal responsibility so I am not 100% sure how I feel about the above statement; however there is merit to the fact what we are doing now is not working. Yes, I agree that when someone decides to have one drink, that is the time to decide not to drive, but that does not seem to be what is happening.

A better bet might be to work on breathalyzers on cars. Speeding is the #1 cause of accidents - why do we still make cars that go 120mph when the speed limits are universally much less than that?

I have close friends that have been affected by drunk drivers and hope we as a society can figure something out.

 

[FireDancer]

The only problem with that is those statistics are just that, statistics. There is concrete evidence-maybe granite, as in headstones-that drinking does impair your reaction time, motor skills, and thinking. I work with a man who's son was killed by a drunk driver, and watching him go through that was and is horrible. Something as simple as that person making one different choice would have allowed his son to grow up.

All of that is true but if someone is killed by someone who is driving impaired by a distraction as opposed to alcohol they are just as dead. In many ways it is impossible to know how many people died because someone was distracted by something other then alcohol because it can't be proved with a quick test. How many accidents occurred while someone was zoned out listening to a song, or was too tired to fully pay attention, or was in a conversation with a passenger, or on the phone, or texting, or just doesn't have the reflexes necessary to operate a motor vehicle safely?

It isn't to say that these things are worse then a DUI, but any of them are capable of causing a fatal accident (some even more likely then someone just over the legal limit) but there is no good way to test for some of them or prove they were a factor in the crash. I think that is where the statistics on distracted driving in general are important and not just driving under the influence. In some ways they are the exact same as a DUI. The driver makes a decision that isn't conducive to safe driving and unintentionally causes a death. The victim is equally dead and the perpetrator is equally to blame but the punishment is not equal at least not yet. Whether that decision was to have another drink or to answer the text message doesn't really matter while you are standing over a casket does it?

 

[MoniqueU]

3 screaming rambunctious kids are going to distract me more then cell phones, 2 glasses of wine and smoking combined. Lets ban kids from cars.

The legal imits for drinking are too low and I do think it is about money for police departments.

I don't advocate drinking and drivingif you are smashed out of your mind but 2 drinks at dinner, yeah I do think that is no big deal but you could still blow over the legal limit.

 

[portocall]

And I read somewhere at sometime that being sick and or overly tired is as bad as or worse than DUI. I don't know of many people not guilty of driving while tired or sick. Yet the reflexes aren't there either.

I was in an accident where a drunk driver ran into us at a high speed yet I believe that it is up to the judicial branch to determine the punishment. Sure, there might be a few jobs where this would be a major issue (driving ambulances, school buses, ect) that I could see it being in the contract however tell me why they can't stock shelves or work in an office where driving is not part of their job. And yes, I think the people with a DUI should be punished.

 

[islandmum]

As my old professor used to say, there are lies, then there are bigger lies... then there are statistics...

in this case they're facts. Records of the (non-DUI) accidents in 2009 and what distractions played a part.

But I understand how alot of people just dont like facts either ...

 

[DisneyFed]

In my 18 years of Law Enforcement (Three of those as a State Trooper) I have had a "few" interacations with DUI's...these are a few "Highlights":

1. Had to go to not one, but two houses to tell parents that their children they had just sent off to the prom hours ago would not be coming home because someone got blasted and got behind the wheel of a car. Then had the privilige of escorting those same parents to identify their children.

2. Had to physically restrain a hysterical mother after she was told her 6 month old did not survive the drunk that plowed into her minivan.

3. Sprinted up a major interstate to a waiting Life Flight Helicopter holding a dying two year old because someone "had a couple of beers" after work.

4. Watched helplessly as a young soon to be mother was frantically worked on by EMS because someone "just had a drink" at a Christmas Eve Party...she nor the baby survived.

5. Listened as a father stoically recounted watching his 18 year old sneak out of the house and take off in his car to his buddies party. The last time he would see his son alive again...

Now.....ask me how I feel about drunk drivers......

 

[bicker]

So what percentage distraction is acceptable, and what percentage distraction is not acceptable? Activities beyond the acceptable level should be treated commensurate with their own percentage. Fairly, rationally, reasonably. Not driven by fear, uncertainty and doubt; not driven by sensationalism; but driven by a firm understanding of the dangers.

Governing by personal preference or personal enmity is not governance.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Not in my book. It is so easy to blow a .08 - at a neighborhood party a cop was there and it was truly unbelievable how little alcohol it takes to be over the limit.

I blew a .09 and did not feel drunk. If I needed to I would have gotten behind the wheel and not thought anything about it. That was scary to me.

So I have a little leeway with drunk drivers in that I do NOT think it is the worst crime ever.

Drivers who are two and three times the legal limit - throw the book at them and anyone around them who should have known not to let him drive.

 

[dejr_8]

In my 18 years of Law Enforcement (Three of those as a State Trooper) I have had a "few" interacations with DUI's...these are a few "Highlights":

1. Had to go to not one, but two houses to tell parents that their children they had just sent off to the prom hours ago would not be coming home because someone got blasted and got behind the wheel of a car. Then had the privilige of escorting those same parents to identify their children.

2. Had to physically restrain a hysterical mother after she was told her 6 month old did not survive the drunk that plowed into her minivan.

3. Sprinted up a major interstate to a waiting Life Flight Helicopter holding a dying two year old because someone "had a couple of beers" after work.

4. Watched helplessly as a young soon to be mother was frantically worked on by EMS because someone "just had a drink" at a Christmas Eve Party...she nor the baby survived.

5. Listened as a father stoically recounted watching his 18 year old sneak out of the house and take off in his car to his buddies party. The last time he would see his son alive again...

Now.....ask me how I feel about drunk drivers......

Would these events be any different if the driver causing the accident had been distracted using a cell phone (or texting)? Also what you are not supplying is the BAC of the drivers. Were they at 0.08, 0.12, 0.2?

 

[Jennasis]

How hard is it to simply NOT drink if you are going to be driving? Are there NO other beverages you could have? Two drinks with dinner could mean the death of someone (including yourself) were you to get behind the wheel. If I had two drinks, I would be unable to keep my eys open (I'm a lightweight), thusly I don't drink at all. And all alcohol tasteslike sock-sweat to me.

I don't think the BAC %'s are too low.

 

[DisneyFed]

Would these events be any different if the driver causing the accident had been distracted using a cell phone (or texting)? Also what you are not supplying is the BAC of the drivers. Were they at 0.08, 0.12, 0.2?

You know, in my opinion, stupid is as stupid does.....never worked a fatality because of texting, simply because I was a trooper back in the stone ages when most "car phones" were in a bag or mounted to a floor--and there were a WHOLE lot fewer of them....so "events" were fewer and farther between. My buddies who still work the road are ruthless on people who are on phones and wreck...

You kill somebody because you did something stupid in a car, you deserve to have the whole book thrown at you--the same way as if you killed somebody doing something stupid with a gun, and yeah, worked a few of those too....

Sorry, I don't remember the "exact" BAC of the drivers.....I can tell you that these were all when the BAC of my state was 0.1%, so the threshold was higher...oh yeah, and they were all found guilty...

You know what the common denominator here is??? No one appears to want to take responsibility for their actions...whether it's with a bottle or a cell phone....always the same thing....

 

[bicker]

How hard is it to simply NOT drink if you are going to be driving? Are there NO other beverages you could have?

To be fair, I think enough stupidity stems from alcoholic beverages, regardless of context, for that to (again) be the top of a slippery slope back to prohibition. And (again), the same sort of thing could be said for talking to your passengers, not requiring a sound barrier between the babies in the back-seat and the driver in the front-seat, etc.

I think it is enough to say that you shouldn't drink and drive. And that you shouldn't drive while distracted in any significant way. The injection of beverage choice into the mix just confuses things afaic.

 

[bicker]

You know what the common denominator here is??? No one appears to want to take responsibility for their actions...whether it's with a bottle or a cell phone....always the same thing....

Abso-friggen-lutely.

And that's actually applicable to over half of the controversial issues posted here on the Community Forum; two sides, for and against personal responsibility. (Funny that those arrayed against personal responsibility never see it that way. )

 

[sunnyday123]

In my 18 years of Law Enforcement (Three of those as a State Trooper) I have had a "few" interacations with DUI's...these are a few "Highlights":

1. Had to go to not one, but two houses to tell parents that their children they had just sent off to the prom hours ago would not be coming home because someone got blasted and got behind the wheel of a car. Then had the privilige of escorting those same parents to identify their children.

2. Had to physically restrain a hysterical mother after she was told her 6 month old did not survive the drunk that plowed into her minivan.

3. Sprinted up a major interstate to a waiting Life Flight Helicopter holding a dying two year old because someone "had a couple of beers" after work.

4. Watched helplessly as a young soon to be mother was frantically worked on by EMS because someone "just had a drink" at a Christmas Eve Party...she nor the baby survived.

5. Listened as a father stoically recounted watching his 18 year old sneak out of the house and take off in his car to his buddies party. The last time he would see his son alive again...

Now.....ask me how I feel about drunk drivers......

Would these events be any different if the driver causing the accident had been distracted using a cell phone (or texting)? Also what you are not supplying is the BAC of the drivers. Were they at 0.08, 0.12, 0.2?

I don't think the BAC of the drivers matters. If you were the parents of any of those victims, would it have made a difference to you?

 

[bicker]

If you were the parents of any of those victims, would it have made a difference to you?

That's why victims aren't allowed on juries in court cases against those involved in the incident that made them victims.