Why is drunk driving so lightly punished?

^^ No, del diablo, it is not. Both "Attempted Homicide" and "Manslaughter", as criminal charges, have very specific legal definitions, and driving while drunk may, but does not always meet either one.

edited 4th Jun '11 7:29:36 AM by Madrugada

So much this. I accidentally drove drunk this way recently, got into my car feeling fine, pulled out and suddenly went Woahhhhhh as my legs decided they weren't going to have anything to do with this newfangled "co-ordination" business.

Pulled over very quickly into somebody's driveway, explained to the (very kind and understanding home-owner) that I wasn't fit to drive, and asked if I could please please please use their driveway until I sobered up. Fortunately they allowed it, or I would've had to've backed out onto a main road feeling utterly smashed AND hungover simultaneously.

Moral of the story is, don't drink stupid amounts and you won't have to think about this kind of thing at all.

But yes, I think drink-driving should be more heavily punished. My dream is that they should tie it into the (extremely numerous) statistics as to how many deaths are caused by drink-driving, which wouldn't be drink-driving when sober. Then they could adjust the jailtime so it was proportionate with manslaughter laws - say that you're 20% more likely to have a fatal RTA with x amount of alcohol in your system, you get 20% of a typical manslaughter sentence.

Obviously not actually workable, apart from anything else drunk drivers who cause accidents are often (sometimes? rarely? never? unknowable, I suppose) gonna be off their tits on other drugs as well, which complicates things significantly. I can dream of statistics-based punishment systems, tho.

I guess the laws where I live are unusually harsh, then. By the second offense you can basically kiss driving goodbye for the forseeable future.

Presumptive sentencing? You didn't hurt anybody but there was a X% chance that you could have,, so we're going to give you X% of the sentence you might have gotten if you had? Oh, thats a good idea.

There is a 1*e^-80% chance of the next breath you exhale causing a mass genocide, so you must be imprisoned for 1*e^-80% of forever.

Drunk driving should not be more heavily punished; drunk driving should be more lightly punished.

The legal limit in every state is 0.08 BAC. That gives you a very slightly elevated risk of being in an accident. Now, of course increasing your risk of a car accident is always a bad idea, but talking on a cell phone or driving while sleepy also increase your risk of a car accident, and there are very few laws and very light penalties for either of those.

There are even states in the US where the sentencing for outright reckless driving is less strict than the sentence for drunk driving.

Oh trust me, if a dervish was drinking he'd be punished pretty bad.

edited 4th Jun '11 12:39:23 PM by Zersk

Not sure that the Sarcasm Mode is really necessary.

• As I pointed out in my post, I am aware of the objections that could, would and should be made to such a system. It is a dream that would be workable in a perfect world.

• Drunk driving being punished at all is already based on the notion that you are causing risk to other drivers, yourself and property - surely.

• Preventing people from re-offending is one of the main arguments I hear for long prison sentences - and, in other countries, for the death penalty. A large reason for our current justice system would seem to be based on "criminals are more likely to commit further criminal acts, therefore we should prevent them from doing so".

I understand the reason for this, I think, presumably it's for simplicity and so that nobody can claim they didn't understand the law/people will not even drink the first drink. Having harsher punishments for heavier drinkers seems fair to me, but I dunno if it'd work. I'd worry that people would look at a scale of punishment and figure that risking the lower end would be acceptable.

Nah, people should not drive tired. No real excuse to avoid sleeping or having a nice cup of coffee.

edited 4th Jun '11 1:52:51 PM by mmysqueeant

I am still waiting for a legal definition for "killing somebody by accident, by doing something really stupid".
And the "by accident" is not entirely true, because you know that you can not walk straight or even react properly while being drunk. It is like speeding up to 200mph while driving in a forst with a lot of swings and no overview(basically 15 meter sight). It IS going to kill you, and the person you hit.

because you know that you can not walk straight or even react properly while being drunk.

No, people who know this don't drive drunk. It's the people who think "hey, I don't feel drunk" who do.

Then what part about consuming large amounts of alochol, or the fact they will notice quite fast that their perception is messed up did they not get?

or the fact they will notice quite fast that their perception is messed up

Didn't you get what I'm saying? They don't.

How can they not notice it?
Or is it like religious people ignoring the large purple elephant they brought into the room?

edited 4th Jun '11 2:46:52 PM by del_diablo

I think that random checkpoints should be abolished. Unless someone is driving recklessly or sloppily, cops should not be able to stop them at all.

del diablo: I take it you've never drank (or at least never been drunk)? Drunk people tend to not notice they're drunk; that's just what happens, seeing as alcohol affects your perception.

zoulza: I have drinked a bit, and I started noticing that my perception was messed up quite fast. Of course, I was comparing my movement to how I usually move, I guess normal people do not do that, nor memorize how they normally move.

Let's see, you want a definition of killing somebody by accident, by doing something really stupid..

Ok...

(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds: Voluntary - Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Involuntary - In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.

Oh, I certainly notice my coordination going down (especially after vodka). But nonetheless, I always find that my perception of how coordinated I was was quite different from reality, as told to me afterward. For example, I have a few drinks and notice that I have a bit of trouble standing straight, but still think I can walk just fine, meanwhile people who were there with me later tell me I was stumbling all over the place and looked ready to fall over.

I have no doubt that when you drink, your perception goes down a lot more than you think it does.

Yupp, my example of religious people and their pink elephant was then correct.
Ain't it like thinking that people do not bleed to death if stabbed repeatedtly properly?

That would be called Acupuncture.

Some people think it works.

Also, that would probably include phlebotomy, which does happen a lot in medicine.

edited 4th Jun '11 3:57:47 PM by blueharp

blueharp: Way to go and ignore my points.

Way to take a joke man.

Try to be a little less serious.

Though you could probably do with a little better articulation of whatever point you were trying to make.

The point is clear to anybody who can interprent what they have read.
That my general syntax is a mess? Well, blame the internet. I am at the least no 1337534r4r

Didn't notice a problem with your syntax.

or if you prefer:

Syntax yours not notice problem did I.

edited 4th Jun '11 4:32:34 PM by blueharp

del diablo, "killing somebody by accident, by doing something really stupid" Is Involuntary Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide.

However, both of those require that you actually kill someone while doing the stupid thing, not simply that you do something stupid which might have resulted in someone's death had it turned out differently. That's why not all drunk driving is negligent homicide.