5/12/08

How about an opinion here?

I am of a FIRM belief that drunken driving is the most dumbety dumbass thing that people can do. It is right up there on my list of pet peeves. And I have a list, believe that. I'm not a drinker myself - never have been - and I don't have anything against folks that can control themselves while imbibing, at least to the point of not endangering everyone else's lives by getting behind the wheel. BUT, really, we need tougher laws on the drinker/drivers.

I HAVE A SOLUTION ...

Make alcohol illegal! Just kidding. Sort of. I mean, what's the purpose to it other than to screw with your system ... just like drugs. That's a whole different rant there.

Anyway, my solution:

Why not just take their damned car when they're caught? Seriously. I think that even the deepest drunk driver might think twice about it if they lose their CAR. And their license as well. Yes, yes. I realize that there are some people that can buy another fairly cheaply, and yet others can afford to buy a different colored BM'er for every day of the week but damn it! Crack down on these effers.

Imagine the revenue for the city/county/state that could be made from the auctioning of said cars. I need to get one of these politicians in on this one. Could be a deal breaker. Or vote maker as the case may be.

It's amazing to me what is considered socially acceptable when you're drinking these days as compared to when I was young and partying. (Yet another rant but along the same lines so I just threw it in here. :o)

Cab driving has finally made me jaded. More jaded than I was to begin with anyway. ;o)

11 comments:

Mad William said...

Thank you! I have been saying this for years. Why do we give these dip shits so many chances? Take their figgin cars! No second chances. You drink and drive and you loose your car on the spot.
There is absolutely no excuse.

Dave2 said...

I agree 100%... but it will never happen.

I was involved in an accident where I was hit by a car whose driver had no insurance. Even though he nailed me... hit two other cars... sideswiped a bus... AND fled the scene of the crime... after they caught him they did NOTHING.

Ultimately it was decided that he was too poor and taking away his license or car was a hardship. He wasn't fined because he had no money. NOTHING HAPPENED.

As for me? I not only had to pay a deductible, but my insurance rates went up. So much for justice.

Christopher Harley said...

Zero tolerance laws, like the ones you're advocating, have already left the United States with the highest per capita incarceration rates on the planet. Though you're not calling for jail time, your remedy will eventually lead offenders toward more desperate actions that will place them deeper in the criminal justice system until some inevitably end up in prison or on the probation/parole roles.

If people can't be passively coerced into driving less simply because of the social stigmas that surround the excess burning of fossil fuels or the outright dangers of being behind the wheel when so many terribly ill-equipped, uninsured drivers are among them, what makes us think they will stop once they've lost their old beater car or a driver's license.

There's several other questions that need to be addressed. Should asset seizure occur on the spot or after the criminal conviction? Should the defendant's automobile be impounded until after the trial? What happens if it's the family car or it's not registered to the driver? Is there a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven? Is law enforcement ever proven wrong and, if they are, would there be an undue financial burden placed on the suspect now proven innocent?

The Oregon Constitution has reversed its stance on broad asset seizure practices. In the upcoming election an important modification is in the works to safeguard pets and livestock that are seized in suspected criminal cases. The amendment is understandable due to the lives of the animals in prolonged confinement while the defendant awaits trial. Private property, and your constitutionally protected right to secure it, should be a freedom you protect at all costs. Sometimes the best way to protect that freedom is to insure that you stand up for the rights of others, even if we question their guilt.

kapgar said...

I would love to see stricter anti-DUI laws, but, like Dave2 said, it will never happen. Mostly because the politicians that pass the laws would have to be subject to them as well. And they'd all wind up in prison as a result.

Hmmm...

PASS THAT LAW!!!

Sizzle said...

Taking the car away is a great idea and yes, sadly, it probably won't happen. :(

lyle said...

I think DUI Roadblocks are a good idea. Yeah, you're placing undue scrutiny on a lot of people who are abiding by the law...

But then you sit back and think about some of the numbers. 35% of people on the road after midnight on the weekends are intoxicated, etc.

I'd support at least giving it a shot, and if it doesn't work, fine, scrap it.

Taking away people's car and license is something i support whole-heartedly if you kill or gravely injure someone, or if you have multiple offenses. But not so much for someone who screws up one time, and very possibly will never drive drunk again in their lives.

Not only that, I might be wrong, but aren't the fines associated for a drunk driving ticket easily around $5,000? I could find some pretty nice used cars for that price.

Aussie Cabbie said...

Similar laws to what your proposing are about to be passed here....Here being Queensland Australia...you drink and drive you lose the car...hell here you get caught dragracing,doin burnouts etc you lose the car..1st offense 48 hours 2nd offence 3 months 3rd offense you lose the car for good..plus the fine is up there with the space shuttle it's that huge...also the police here just block off a road and everyone goin down that road gets to blow in the bag BAC% here is.05..for new drivers it's ZERO.

rantingravenlunatic said...

Sounds good on paper, but it will never fly because then they (the ones that make the laws) would have to abide by it. To go off on a tangent a bit - I think when people finally get sent to jail/prison they have it too easy. Rights?? You are prisoners for God's sake, you gave those up a long time ago.

whall said...

I agree with @rantingravenlunatic - laws don't get passed that impact the lawmakers too much.

Can you imagine the bru-haha when a taxpayer-funded car got impounded due to DUI!?

Bryan said...

Stricter DUI laws? Absolutely! Do whatever it takes to get these menaces off the road. We don't do enough in the US to help get these people off the road.

Seizing the car? Sure, why not! But the little voice in me says that we need to have a judge rule that the accused should lose his car or be fined or go to jail. I am totally for seeing the criminal feel some pain over this. But I am totally against allowing the police to see a car, seize a car, and have that be the end of it. People still deserve due process, are still innocent until proven guilty, and should have their day in court. But then the judge should take the car away.

Roadblocks? A nice idea, but I have to say "whoa" to anything that infringes on my constitutional guarantee to not be stopped until the accuser has probable cause that a crime has been committed. But, hey! If the driver is drunk, they will give the officer that probable cause pretty quickly. I would just hate to see us get too used to being "randomly" stopped on the street to see if we have committed a crime.

Toria said...

Does the US really not have random breath tests? NSW (Australia) has had them since the early 1980s (& that guy from Qld says they have the, so I'm going to assume that it's Australian wide).

Sometimes they're random, sometimes they're targetted - eg every road out of a town on a Friday evening, to catch those who have over-indulged at end of week drinks - but really, you can't be sure if you do drink & drive that you won't get caught.

Our politicians have been brave enough to acknowledge that the majority have right to be able to drive down the road without being killed by a drunk driver. Maybe it's time the US politicians got a few guts & did something beneficial.

And as for politicians being subject to the same rules - a senior politician here publically handed back his official car, because he'd just lost his license (due to multiple speeding offences, not DUI). Strangely most politicians will come out & admit things like that, they know it will be worse for them if they cover it up & the press finds out about it by themselves.