Drunk Driving Laws Are Out of Control - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#543914
this is something I've been saying for awhile. Most of these ridiculous laws are due to procrustean neo-prohibitionist groups like MADD. No reasonable person wants to condone Drunk driving, however the entire process has become extreme. It's scary to see a 5th and 6th amendment right(s) be vitiated, for a drunk driver, but a murderer gets treated better. I think at this point reform is impossible there have been almost 2,400 anti-drunk driving laws passed in 25 years, needless to say we need some of them, perferably the ones that actually deal with a drunk driver, as an american with rights, versus the superfluity. I think MADD is a perfect example of the power of Government funded lobbies.



Drunk Driving Laws Are Out of Control
by Radley Balko



When Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich went to the hospital recently for an irregular heartbeat, he told his doctor he was a heavy drinker: a six-pack per day. Later, Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation sent Emerich a letter. His driver's license had been revoked. If Emerich wanted it back, he'd need to prove to Pennsylvania authorities that he was competent to drive. His doctor had turned him in, as required by state law.

The Pennsylvania law is old (it dates back to the 1960s), but it's hardly unusual. Courts and lawmakers have stripped DWI defendants of the presumption of innocence - along with several other common criminal justice protections we afford to the likes of accused rapists, murderers and pedophiles.

In the 1990 case Michigan v. Sitz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the magnitude of the drunken driving problem outweighed the "slight" intrusion into motorists' protections against unreasonable search effected by roadblock sobriety checkpoints. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled that the 25,000 roadway deaths due to alcohol were reason enough to set aside the Fourth Amendment.

The problem is that the 25,000 number was awfully misleading. It included any highway fatality in which alcohol was in any way involved: a sober motorist striking an intoxicated pedestrian, for example.

It's a number that's still used today. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times examined accident data and estimated that in the previous year, of the 18,000 "alcohol-related" traffic fatalities drunk driving activists cited the year before, only about 5,000 involved a drunk driver taking the life of a sober driver, pedestrian, or passenger.

Unfortunately, courts and legislatures still regularly cite the inflated "alcohol-related" number when justifying new laws that chip away at our civil liberties.

For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that states may legislate away a motorist's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that police officers could forcibly extract blood from anyone suspected of drunk driving. Other courts have ruled that prosecutors aren't obligated to provide defendants with blood or breath test samples for independent testing (even though both are feasible and relatively cheap to do). In almost every other facet of criminal law, defendants are given access to the evidence against them.

These decisions haven't gone unnoticed in state legislatures. Forty-one states now reserve the right to revoke drunken driving defendants' licenses before they're ever brought to trial. Thirty-seven states now impose harsher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside sobriety tests than on those who take them and fail. Seventeen states have laws denying drunk driving defendants the same opportunities to plea bargain given to those accused of violent crimes.

Until recently, New York City cops could seize the cars of first-offender drunk driving suspects upon arrest. Those acquitted or otherwise cleared of charges were still required to file civil suits to get their cars back, which typically cost thousands of dollars. The city of Los Angeles still seizes the cars of suspected first-time drunk drivers, as well as the cars of those suspected of drug activity and soliciting prostitutes.

Newer laws are even worse. As of last month, Washington State now requires anyone arrested (not convicted -- arrested) for drunken driving to install an "ignition interlock" device, which forces the driver to blow into a breath test tube before starting the car, and at regular intervals while driving. A second law mandates that juries hear all drunken driving cases. It then instructs juries to consider the evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," absurd evidentiary standard at odds with everything the American criminal justice system is supposed to stand for.

Even scarier are the laws that didn't pass, but will inevitably be introduced again. New Mexico's state legislature nearly passed a law that would mandate ignition interlock devices on every car sold in the state beginning in 2008, regardless of the buyer's driving record. Drivers would have been required to pass a breath test to start the car, then again every 10 minutes while driving. Car computer systems would have kept records of the tests, which would have been downloaded at service centers and sent to law enforcement officials for evaluation. New York considered a similar law.

That isn't to say we ought to ease up on drunken drivers. But our laws should be grounded in sound science and the presumption of innocence, not in hysteria. They should target repeat offenders and severely impaired drunks, not social drinkers who straddle the legal threshold. Though the threat of drunken driving has significantly diminished over the last 20 years, it's still routinely overstated by anti-alcohol activists and lawmakers. Even if the threat were as severe as it's often portrayed, casting aside basic criminal protections and civil liberties is the wrong way to address it.

http://www.catoinstitute.net/dailys/07-27-04.html
User avatar
By Noumenon
#550085
Interesting. I definitely agree that drunk driving laws have gone too far, but there is little we can do about it. As long as a problem persists, government will just keep passsing more and more laws to "fix" it, even if it does no good. This is just a logical consequence of the persistent idea that government can solve all problems. We need to replace this idea with the idea that the market can solve many problems the government cannot. See, if we had more truly private roads in addition to public ones, people who are fed up with the tyranny of government over transportation could just choose to not take government roads. Problem solved.
By Saf
#550177
Noumenon - The problem isn't government addressing the problem, the problem is that the United States government never tries new things. They pick Solution A for drunk driving, and then beat the dead horse for decades. Obviously our current drunk driving laws don't work, but that doesn't mean the government can't address the issue of drunk driving.
By Steven_K
#550577
How would privatized roads lower fatalities from drunk driving?
By Saf
#550727
ROFL! Privitised AND public roads would be hilarious, if the gov't chases you you just run onto a private road. How would you stop me from using your private road? Could you afford your own police service at the same time?
User avatar
By Noumenon
#550826
Saf wrote:Noumenon - The problem isn't government addressing the problem, the problem is that the United States government never tries new things. They pick Solution A for drunk driving, and then beat the dead horse for decades. Obviously our current drunk driving laws don't work, but that doesn't mean the government can't address the issue of drunk driving.


Of course they can work, but at what cost? We could set up roadblocks on every major highway and check to make sure no is ever drunk while driving. Unfortunately, that would be a great inconvenience to everyone. Choice is the best way to solve problems. People who don't mind the inconvenience can drive on roads that are harsh on drunk driving. People who would rather have convenience over safety can choose roads that are less harsh on drunk driving. Government only gives you one choice, though, so it leaves many people unsatisfied. Let the market open up more choices, and more people will be satisfied.

StevenK wrote:How would privatized roads lower fatalities from drunk driving?


Thats not the point at all. Remember, safety has to be balanced with liberty. We could make sure no one ever dies from drunk driving ever again by banning cars. That is not something we would accept, because we value our liberty to drive over preventing a few thousand deaths per year.

My point is that with privatized roads, you have the ability to choose between safety and liberty. Some roads will be more safe at the expense of liberty, and others will be more free at the expense of safety. Which one you choose will be dependent on how much you value safety and liberty.

ROFL! Privitised AND public roads would be hilarious, if the gov't chases you you just run onto a private road. How would you stop me from using your private road? Could you afford your own police service at the same time?


Are you telling me its inconceivable for a private road that is in business to make money to hire a few security cars to prevent speeding/drunk driving/trespassing/etc? I'm sure they could work out a deal to catch and return criminals from the public roads.
By | I, CWAS |
#607937
Noumenon
Of course they can work, but at what cost? We could set up roadblocks on every major highway and check to make sure no is ever drunk while driving. Unfortunately, that would be a great inconvenience to everyone. Choice is the best way to solve problems. People who don't mind the inconvenience can drive on roads that are harsh on drunk driving. People who would rather have convenience over safety can choose roads that are less harsh on drunk driving. Government only gives you one choice, though, so it leaves many people unsatisfied. Let the market open up more choices, and more people will be satisfied


I still say that this would only clog the courts with torts and such brought by owners of the private roads. The personality of the drunk driver is capricious at best, then we have to deal with those who drink and drive, you can enter a private road sober, and still end up drunk. I don't see any reason, or light evidence to suggest this would solve the drunk driving epidemic. I do agree, that government is the problem. The tyrannical, neo-prohibitionist groups like MADD have too much influence.

I have to be honest, one benificial aspect of private roads would be the fact that drunk driving would be allowed, however I doubt the government would peacefully give up its monopoly on tolls, and the plebs would never settle for roads that allow drinking and driving. Then again I am biased, If I owned a private road, say a stretch of ten miles, with an offramp, I would charge a $3.00-$20.00 toll, based on certain factors--including sobriety. I would not exclude anyone, drunk or sober-even a criminal fleeing the jurisdiction of the police, just charge them a higher rate.


Thats not the point at all. Remember, safety has to be balanced with liberty


Agreed.

I shouldn't say I'm completly adverse to private roads, but this is one of those issues where the government and the vast, vast, vast majority of citizens feel so stongly about , that I doubt it could ever come to be.
User avatar
By Paradigm
#607959
I'm a little sketchy on the idea of private roads. Like railroads, I tend to think of them as natural monopolies. Sure, someone else can build another road, but that doesn't mean it's competing with your road. And wouldn't you have to negotiate its construction with city planners?
By Theimmortal1
#608045
I agree a private/public road combination would be a good start.


ROFL! Privitised AND public roads would be hilarious, if the gov't chases you you just run onto a private road. How would you stop me from using your private road? Could you afford your own police service at the same time?


Well first of all, obviously the governmental police could chase you onto a private road. For example currently if the government is chasing someone and sees them run into a gas station on the side of the road they would be allowed to go get them into that private business. Same would be with the private road. The government just wouldn't be able to set up checkpoints/speed traps etc on this private road. Just the same as the government can't just walk into private property and just chill there for a few hours to see if theres any crime being committed.

That being said, police service would be twofold. Firstly it depends on your restrictions being placed on this private road (speed/dangerous driving) if you have restrictions, you can hire your own personal security guy. These guys would fine the people that violate your own personal laws. However if there is a bigger incident, say a huge crash, or something of the sort, you can call the governmental services to come help out. Just the same if someone comes into your home and has a heart attack...you can call an ambulance.



How would privatized roads lower fatalities from drunk driving?


it depends. If the private roads allow drunk driving, and then theres going to be quite a bit of drunk driving on these roads. fatalities on these roads will increase. However on public roads they will decrease. This is because the government has less roads to patrol and therefore has more cops per road. Therefore the amount of speeder and DD will decrease.



owever I doubt the government would peacefully give up its monopoly on tolls, and the plebs would never settle for roads that allow drinking and driving. Then again I am biased, If I owned a private road, say a stretch of ten miles, with an offramp, I would charge a $3.00-$20.00 toll, based on certain factors--including sobriety. I would not exclude anyone, drunk or sober-even a criminal fleeing the jurisdiction of the police, just charge them a higher rate.


In the near future this will never happen obviously. However, IMO society will move more and more towards liberty and freedoms. Hence this idea of private roads will be a much more viable topic of discussion in 20 or 30 years. And I agree, I would charge higher prices, but only if theres not much competition. I will charge whatever it is to get maximum profit. However, like I said earlier you couldn't aid a criminal fleeing the police. The criminal isn't leaving the jurisdiction of the police, unless your road is its own county/city/state/country. Which obviously it isn't. Your road is simply a private business.
#14768482
| I, CWAS | wrote:this is something I've been saying for awhile. Most of these ridiculous laws are due to procrustean neo-prohibitionist groups like MADD. No reasonable person wants to condone Drunk driving, however the entire process has become extreme. It's scary to see a 5th and 6th amendment right(s) be vitiated, for a drunk driver, but a murderer gets treated better. I think at this point reform is impossible there have been almost 2,400 anti-drunk driving laws passed in 25 years, needless to say we need some of them, perferably the ones that actually deal with a drunk driver, as an american with rights, versus the superfluity. I think MADD is a perfect example of the power ofMichigan dui classes Government funded lobbies.



Drunk Driving Laws Are Out of Control
by Radley Balko



When Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich went to the hospital recently for an irregular heartbeat, he told his doctor he was a heavy drinker: a six-pack per day. Later, Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation sent Emerich a letter. His driver's license had been revoked. If Emerich wanted it back, he'd need to prove to Pennsylvania authorities that he was competent to drive. His doctor had turned him in, as required by state law.

The Pennsylvania law is old (it dates back to the 1960s), but it's hardly unusual. Courts and lawmakers have stripped DWI defendants of the presumption of innocence - along with several other common criminal justice protections we afford to the likes of accused rapists, murderers and pedophiles.

In the 1990 case Michigan v. Sitz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the magnitude of the drunken driving problem outweighed the "slight" intrusion into motorists' protections against unreasonable search effected by roadblock sobriety checkpoints. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled that the 25,000 roadway deaths due to alcohol were reason enough to set aside the Fourth Amendment.

The problem is that the 25,000 number was awfully misleading. It included any highway fatality in which alcohol was in any way involved: a sober motorist striking an intoxicated pedestrian, for example.

It's a number that's still used today. In 2002, the Los Angeles Times examined accident data and estimated that in the previous year, of the 18,000 "alcohol-related" traffic fatalities drunk driving activists cited the year before, only about 5,000 involved a drunk driver taking the life of a sober driver, pedestrian, or passenger.

Unfortunately, courts and legislatures still regularly cite the inflated "alcohol-related" number when justifying new laws that chip away at our civil liberties.

For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that states may legislate away a motorist's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that police officers could forcibly extract blood from anyone suspected of drunk driving. Other courts have ruled that prosecutors aren't obligated to provide defendants with blood or breath test samples for independent testing (even though both are feasible and relatively cheap to do). In almost every other facet of criminal law, defendants are given access to the evidence against them.

These decisions haven't gone unnoticed in state legislatures. Forty-one states now reserve the right to revoke drunken driving defendants' licenses before they're ever brought to trial. Thirty-seven states now impose harsher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside sobriety tests than on those who take them and fail. Seventeen states have laws denying drunk driving defendants the same opportunities to plea bargain given to those accused of violent crimes.

Until recently, New York City cops could seize the cars of first-offender drunk driving suspects upon arrest. Those acquitted or otherwise cleared of charges were still required to file civil suits to get their cars back, which typically cost thousands of dollars. The city of Los Angeles still seizes the cars of suspected first-time drunk drivers, as well as the cars of those suspected of drug activity and soliciting prostitutes.

Newer laws are even worse. As of last month, Washington State now requires anyone arrested (not convicted -- arrested) for drunken driving to install an "ignition interlock" device, which forces the driver to blow into a breath test tube before starting the car, and at regular intervals while driving. A second law mandates that juries hear all drunken driving cases. It then instructs juries to consider the evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," absurd evidentiary standard at odds with everything the American criminal justice system is supposed to stand for.

Even scarier are the laws that didn't pass, but will inevitably be introduced again. New Mexico's state legislature nearly passed a law that would mandate ignition interlock devices on every car sold in the state beginning in 2008, regardless of the buyer's driving record. Drivers would have been required to pass a breath test to start the car, then again every 10 minutes while driving. Car computer systems would have kept records of the tests, which would have been downloaded at service centers and sent to law enforcement officials for evaluation. New York considered a similar law.

That isn't to say we ought to ease up on drunken drivers. But our laws should be grounded in sound science and the presumption of innocence, not in hysteria. They should target repeat offenders and severely impaired drunks, not social drinkers who straddle the legal threshold. Though the threat of drunken driving has significantly diminished over the last 20 years, it's still routinely overstated by anti-alcohol activists and lawmakers. Even if the threat were as severe as it's often portrayed, casting aside basic criminal protections and civil liberties is the wrong way to address it.

http://www.catoinstitute.net/dailys/07-27-04.html


Hi
Each state treats drunk driving differently. Sometimes it's called Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), or Operating Under the Influence (OUI). The links below have some general guidelines about DUI and other related crimes, as well as links to the DUI laws in each state.

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]