Alcohol kills one person every ten seconds

goingtoverona

http://news.yahoo.com/alcohol-kills-one-person-every-10-seconds-worldwide-131403384.html

personally I like alcohol occasionally, the original gateway drug, i do wish that drunk driving fatalities were considered more like murder and not like you accidentally ran over your neighbors dog.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Killing someone while driving drunk almost always results in some form of criminal charges for murder.

My best friend was killed by a drunk driver. The prick didn't even have a license- it was his 4th impaired charge. It is events like these, in my past, that have me extremely pessimistic at our pathetically weak judicial system.

We try so hard to be so mindful for rodent-like criminals... and... in so many cases... someone pays for it down the line. Just like Gerry did.

One impaired... c'mon, man- you lose your license and do some community service. Two impaireds... geezuz... you're not getting this are you? Serve time. Three impaireds... sorry, you're clearly a threat- spend a lot of time.

The tragic thing here? For a guy to get charged 4 times... that likely means he was driving 400+ times shitfaced. By no means are we the most efficient at identifying and detaining drunk drivers. Short of roadblocks- which so many on here strongly oppose- a guy literally has to get into an accident before we can pull him off the road and detain him.

goingtoverona

ouch man that sucks, sorry to hear about your friend. unfortunately people still feel like it's just an accident when it comes to hurting people like that rather than an assault on another human being committed during the commission of a crime(driving drunk).

i remember seeing a story in Houston about this guy that mowed down two joggers and he got 11 years and could be up for parole in 6. just amazing. there was also a little campaign there by the cops to stop drunk driving because so many of them were getting mowed down while doing traffic stops and helping stranded people on the side of the road. the police chief himself came on tv and with a desperation in his face was basically begging the public to stop drinking and driving and killing all his police officers.

and here at least, it's rare for drunks to get charged with murder, manslaughter is why they serve so little time.

hedonist

I'm sorry about your friend, Thirty. Your consequential response about number of times charged is right on - and forget it if you're famous or otherwise coddled by the justice system.

And, it's not just alcohol - it's DUI, period. Or driving distracted (hello, texters)...just as prone to mowing someone down as being wasted. Really, being impaired in any way. Just so fucking stupid and selfish.

I found the information about consumption and abstinence in certain countries to be interesting too. Seems misuse is a problem all over.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

hedonist said:

I'm sorry about your friend, Thirty. Your consequential response about number of times charged is right on - and forget it if you're famous or otherwise coddled by the justice system.

And, it's not just alcohol - it's DUI, period. Or driving distracted (hello, texters)...just as prone to mowing someone down as being wasted. Really, being impaired in any way. Just so fucking stupid and selfish.

I found the information about consumption and abstinence in certain countries to be interesting too. Seems misuse is a problem all over.

Our former Premier, Gord Campbell, got a DUI while vacationing in Hawaii.

This spoiled man got elected and proceeded to attack every public sector in the interest of privatization and big business. Rich people got richer and old people, sick people, poor people, and unionized workers got hit hard so that could happen.

The big tough talker cried- literally cried- at the podium with some super good sniffles saying he was sorry for his indiscretion and begged for forgiveness... then... after he dried his eyes... he continued on his crusade to really stick it to the average joe and make life difficult for the have nots.

So... in the event you are powerful and get pulled over for being hammered... you'll have to cry and say you are sorry.

catefrances

murder is a legal term implying intent. killing someone whilst driving drunk does not imply intent therefore it is manslaughter. we as humans engage in a lot of risky activity that can end in death.. of others and ourselves and unless we go out intentionally to kill someone (whist in a drunken state) then it can not be considered murder. nor should it be.

PJ_Soul

goingtoverona said:

http://news.yahoo.com/alcohol-kills-one-person-every-10-seconds-worldwide-131403384.html

personally I like alcohol occasionally, the original gateway drug, i do wish that drunk driving fatalities were considered more like murder and not like you accidentally ran over your neighbors dog.

People usually get prison sentences for killing people while driving drunk (at least in Canada). Just last week some guy got 7.5 years for accidentally running over and killing a couple of women on the side of the road while drunk and for the resulting hit and run charge (the women had stopped to help another driver - good Samaritans).... Yes, he should have gotten 25 years or something, but still, 7.5 years is not a slap on the wrist either.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Equip all vehicles with breathalyzer starters. If someone gives them their breath to start the car, they get the same punishment as the driver. Oh wait, that would infringe on my rights to keep my breath to myself!

PJ_Soul

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

Equip all vehicles with breathalyzer starters. If someone gives them their breath to start the car, they get the same punishment as the driver. Oh wait, that would infringe on my rights to keep my breath to myself!

Yeah, that's a great technology.... they would have to figure out how to ensure that the driver is the one blowing into the car though... Not much stopping someone from paying some sober guy walking by on the street $5 to blow for him I don't think.... :-? Why would someone actually in the car with the drunk driver who's sober not just drive the car?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

PJ_Soul said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

Equip all vehicles with breathalyzer starters. If someone gives them their breath to start the car, they get the same punishment as the driver. Oh wait, that would infringe on my rights to keep my breath to myself!

Yeah, that's a great technology.... they would have to figure out how to ensure that the driver is the one blowing into the car though... Not much stopping someone from paying some sober guy walking by on the street $5 to blow for him I don't think.... :-? Why would someone actually in the car with the drunk driver who's sober not just drive the car?

I would hope some random sober guy would say "fuck you!", but who knows. There are loads of people out there that do inexplicably stupid things.

Maybe you have to blow to start the car but then again randomly again at some point during the drive when the car is at a stop light?

PJ_Soul

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

Equip all vehicles with breathalyzer starters. If someone gives them their breath to start the car, they get the same punishment as the driver. Oh wait, that would infringe on my rights to keep my breath to myself!

Yeah, that's a great technology.... they would have to figure out how to ensure that the driver is the one blowing into the car though... Not much stopping someone from paying some sober guy walking by on the street $5 to blow for him I don't think.... :-? Why would someone actually in the car with the drunk driver who's sober not just drive the car?

I would hope some random sober guy would say "fuck you!", but who knows. There are loads of people out there that do inexplicably stupid things.

Maybe you have to blow to start the car but then again randomly again at some point during the drive when the car is at a stop light?

Yeah, I was thinking that it could be incorporated into the seatbelt function - must be buckled for breathalizer to work and if it's unbuckled then the car turns off and you have to start over.... but the problem of who is actually blowing still remains even if the thing you blow into is attached near the face on the seatbelt. Your idea is good - would certainly cut down on it... I can totally see homeless people/squeegee kids blowing for people at lights for $10 though. Really in most cases, if something is meant to stop people from doing something, people will find a way to cheat it.... Kind of seems like they'd have to incorporate some kind of DNA indentifier. Tests the spit of the blower.... I wonder if anything like that is possible yet??? That would probably be fairly foolproof.

hedonist

Don't those devices, which I admit could be beneficial, also remove the driver's responsibility to just be, I don't know...responsible? I don't want to be penalized for the stupidity of others (time, additional cost of the car).

If there's reason for someone's car to have these implemented, fair enough. But, if one's at the point where they're not allowed to drive unless those are in place, maybe they just shouldn't be driving anymore. Or pay for these add-ons themselves.

(I know, I know - always a way around!)

goingtoverona

@catefrances, i think punishment for drunk driving fatalities should be closer to the punishment for murder than manslaughter. it's killing a person during the commission of a crime. if a guy goes into a bank to rob it, shoots at the vault and the bullet ricochets and kills someone...that shouldn't be manslaughter because it was an accident and he didn't mean to do it. drunk driving is illegal because morons kill people. a person chooses to drive drunk knowing they could kill someone. that's not an accident, it's a choice.

@pjsoul, 7.5 years might be what was given, but that doesn't guarantee that's how much time will be served. depending on the crime, a person can be up for parole by the time they complete a quarter of their sentence.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hedonist said:

Don't those devices, which I admit could be beneficial, also remove the driver's responsibility to just be, I don't know...responsible? I don't want to be penalized for the stupidity of others (time, additional cost of the car).

If there's reason for someone's car to have these implemented, fair enough. But, if one's at the point where they're not allowed to drive unless those are in place, maybe they just shouldn't be driving anymore. Or pay for these add-ons themselves.

(I know, I know - always a way around!)

You are on the right track here. I think our society holds driving as more a right than a privilege, which is what it is. In winnipeg, first offence is loss of license for a year. Not sure after that, but if you kill someone while drunk, it should be treated as something worse than manslaughter.

brianlux

Alcohol is a tough one. I like alcohol but I also know people who were directly or indirectly killed because of it. If only we could encourage drinkers to cover each others backs- drive a friend home, call a cab, take their keys, whatever- especially at younger ages. I know it's not just a youth issue but that's where a lot of it happens.

Last weekend I went wine tasting with my wife and another couple (such a yuppie thing to do :-)) )and I was the designated driver and had a great time. :-)

vant0037

I can tell you that officers stop a lot of people for suspicion of DWI. Most of them do not involve accidents. There are devices like Ignition Interlock, which requires a breath test before the vehicle will start. In many states, convicted DWI offenders MUST use the device before they get their license back. And so there are jails and treatment facilities and "DWI saturations" (e.g. increased officer patrol specifically for DWI in certain areas and times, such as holidays). There are prison sentences and probationary sentences and mandatory minimums and yet there continue to be new DWIs.

The fact that every so often, there is a fatal DWI accident doesn't mean we need more officers or roadblocks or jails or sentences. Instead, we need to remember that like any crime, DWI results from a lapse in judgment. Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug.

For some reason, alcohol is seen as different than other drugs. Perhaps that's the point from which we should start when looking for new and effective ways to curb drunk driving.

I see a lot of people who get DWIs. I can tell you that there are a lot of repeat offenders, and a lot of first time offenders. Quite a lot of them have issues with chemical dependency (whether they realize it or not). Very few of them are evil people.

PJ_Soul

I literally have never known anyone who hasn't driven while over the legal limit. Except me, since I've always been proudly car-free.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 said:

I can tell you that officers stop a lot of people for suspicion of DWI. Most of them do not involve accidents. There are devices like Ignition Interlock, which requires a breath test before the vehicle will start. In many states, convicted DWI offenders MUST use the device before they get their license back. And so there are jails and treatment facilities and "DWI saturations" (e.g. increased officer patrol specifically for DWI in certain areas and times, such as holidays). There are prison sentences and probationary sentences and mandatory minimums and yet there continue to be new DWIs.

The fact that every so often, there is a fatal DWI accident doesn't mean we need more officers or roadblocks or jails or sentences. Instead, we need to remember that like any crime, DWI results from a lapse in judgment. Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug.

For some reason, alcohol is seen as different than other drugs. Perhaps that's the point from which we should start when looking for new and effective ways to curb drunk driving.

I see a lot of people who get DWIs. I can tell you that there are a lot of repeat offenders, and a lot of first time offenders. Quite a lot of them have issues with chemical dependency (whether they realize it or not). Very few of them are evil people.

I'm not trying to deliberately be confrontational, but I'm having a little difficulty fully comprehending exactly what it is you are trying to say. Your points are fair, but what are you speaking to? When you speak to the effect of alcohol on habitual users... are you suggesting we be more understanding of drunks that get into deadly accidents? When you allude to the infrequency of these events or categorize DUIs as 'just another crime' are you saying we should not get too worked up about these (as you put it) 'lapses in judgement'?

When you say, "Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug"... I say that the people who commit these crimes did not get out of bed drunk. In short, knowing their propensity for getting drunk or the likeliness of them getting drunk, they had better have a plan to get home after getting drunk without using their vehicle. If they drive to a pub sober, get drunk, and then drive home- killing someone for not having taken the precautions necessary to safeguard the public and themselves from the drunk driving situation... then this is tantamount to negligence in my eyes.

I know there are moments when things get out of control and someone gets drunk someplace where they had not planned on doing so. In these moments, if someone makes the drunken choice to drive home and runs over people at a crosswalk... I would not be inclined to support them. From my way of thinking, getting drunk is a progressive thing and at a very minimum... at some point in the process of moving from sober to impaired... such an individual should weigh the risk factor associated with continuing to drink... knowing they have to drive home.

In short, in most cases, I hold the opinion that there are sober moments when people have the potential to make safe choices. Neglecting to do so in this window of opportunity is criminal. I don't care what people think when they are drunk... they're drunk. I care about what people think and do when they are sober and choose to move forward.

chadwick

i know of a guy or two that have done the following while court ordered to use the breath interlock ignition gadget

both guys had the thing installed on their vehicles

one guy did a macgyver move unhooking wires & rerouting them as to bipass whatever it is... that worked

another guy has his sober friends blow into the device leaving him with his running vehicle

this is the face of alcoholism

both the above have had multiple drunk driving charges

they will not be quitting anytime soon

i even seriously doubt lengthy jail or prison time would have them sober up once freed from the clink

for many life is a continuous good-times party

chadwick

yet marijuana is still illegal in nearly every state or country & every ten seconds marijuana users are not dying

hedonist

Good post, Thirty. To your last sentence, I'd add that they have some (soberly-thought-out) plan in place so that driving while hammered isn't even an option.

I'll confess that in my 20s, I drove while having absolutely no business to...didn't happen often, but it did occur more than once. One night in particular after I arrived home, guess I was on auto-pilot on the way and oh man, did it hit me moreso once I got out of the car. The gravity and potential for disastrous consequences were far from lost on me, and I've learned my lesson.

Had I been pulled over, my dumb irresponsible ass have been in a world of trouble, and rightfully so.

backseatLover12

I'm waiting for the day that alcohol becomes illegal and weed is legal everywhere. But that's a day that'll never happen. And people continue to die.

I've known someone who had 7, that's right 7, DUIs. And continues to drink and probably drive…

Drowned Out

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

Maybe you have to blow to start the car but then again randomly again at some point during the drive when the car is at a stop light?

Ya, the interlock thing requires you to blow every 10 or 15 minutes, or your car is disabled. Not sure how it works on the highway...Apparently they can be ultra-sensitive, tho...I have a friend who had one, who insists that the anti-freeze in his wiper fluid gave him a false-positive and left him stranded one winter day...that's just his story tho.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with making these standard on cars. Same with cell phone signal scramblers. I'd prefer that over random checkstops...
In the end, as hedo said, impaired driving is so much more than just drinking. I honestly feel zero detrimental net effect from certain substances that some people insist slow reaction times and increase distraction (weed), while others say there is no way they could drive high...people are in a massive panic to control this before proceeding with full legalization....while other things: script drugs, cell phones, fatigue, are not even on the table for discussion. Personally, I would feel safer with the road filled with people who would blow a .10% than people who can barely keep their eyes open.
There should be some kind of standardized reaction time testing or something that the car can perform. I don't know....

PJ_Soul

Well they've already tried prohibition of alcohol. I think it's been proven that making alcohol illegal doesn't work at all.

vant0037

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm not trying to deliberately be confrontational, but I'm having a little difficulty fully comprehending exactly what it is you are trying to say. Your points are fair, but what are you speaking to? When you speak to the effect of alcohol on habitual users... are you suggesting we be more understanding of drunks that get into deadly accidents? When you allude to the infrequency of these events or categorize DUIs as 'just another crime' are you saying we should not get too worked up about these (as you put it) 'lapses in judgement'?

It's not "just another crime." Just the opposite. If we continue to treat DWIs as "just another crime," you'll continue see people go to jail, come out and do it again. Why? Precisely because DWIs are not like other crimes. They are crimes committed under the influence of a drug, one that many, for whatever reason, are unable to avoid. Start there.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

When you say, "Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug"... I say that the people who commit these crimes did not get out of bed drunk. In short, knowing their propensity for getting drunk or the likeliness of them getting drunk, they had better have a plan to get home after getting drunk without using their vehicle. If they drive to a pub sober, get drunk, and then drive home- killing someone for not having taken the precautions necessary to safeguard the public and themselves from the drunk driving situation... then this is tantamount to negligence in my eyes.

That's the problem. Most DWI offenders are either regular, normal people who make a one-time mistake, OR they are habitual offenders who have a chemical dependency problem.

Most one-time offenders are just like you and me: people who occasionally make mistakes. I'm not willing to refer to them as rodents or throw away the key, just because there are others who make the same mistake but with far worse consequences.

Most habitual offenders are people with chemical dependency issues. Serious issues. While some of those repeat offenders are just bad people, there are many more who truly need some sort of intervention. In short, it's easy to say to an alcoholic "just stop drinking" OR "don't drink and drive," but the disease is at least half the problem. That's what alcoholism does - it quite literally impairs your judgment when you're sober.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I know there are moments when things get out of control and someone gets drunk someplace where they had not planned on doing so. In these moments, if someone makes the drunken choice to drive home and runs over people at a crosswalk... I would not be inclined to support them. From my way of thinking, getting drunk is a progressive thing and at a very minimum... at some point in the process of moving from sober to impaired... such an individual should weigh the risk factor associated with continuing to drink... knowing they have to drive home.

Again, if every person who commits a crime were to just "think better" (as this paragraph seems to imply), crime wouldn't be an issue. My point is that DWI, like most crimes, involves a serious lapse in judgment. The difference in DWIs is that the lapse in judgment in some cases can at least in part be directly related to a disease, like alcoholism. I'm not excusing it, but I'm also saying that it is far too simple - and perhaps naive - to presume that its just a matter of thinking ahead of time. That is helpful advice for people who are one-time offenders. For alcoholics, there's a lot more to it.

No one is saying there shouldn't be criminal sanctions or that they shouldn't be exactly what they are. But I worry when crimes involving chemical dependency are framed with overly simplistic takes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Van...

You have said: But I worry when crimes involving chemical dependency are framed with overly simplistic takes.

You expressed this after stating: The difference in DWIs is that the lapse in judgment in some cases can at least in part be directly related to a disease, like alcoholism. I'm not excusing it, but I'm also saying that it is far too simple - and perhaps naive - to presume that its just a matter of thinking ahead of time. That is helpful advice for people who are one-time offenders. For alcoholics, there's a lot more to it.

To my way of thinking... I worry that lenient attitudes developed through 'overly complex takes' allow for multiple offences to occur. In the case of my friend who died midday going to work on his motorcycle at the hands of (counting Gerry's death) a four time offender... such leniency cost him his life.

The discipline for drunk driving offences should be progressively stronger and at some point... very strong. As I expressed earlier, a first time offence should not mean the end of the world for the offender: you made a mistake- a big one- but fortunately nobody got hurt... don't do it again. However, the fourth offence should mean something. Did I mention the shitbird that killed Gerry got the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'? I wanted to punch his face in, but the courts felt differently- and I should feel good about that because what the fuck do I know about justice? Who knows what the dumb fuck is doing now? He may have had a fifth and sixth charge for all I know.

The thing is... if it had been his first offence... I'd feel angry, but more understanding. I'd say to myself, "What a fucking idiot. Got shitfaced and killed Gerry. Dumbass." But... this was his fourth. The pattern had clearly been established... and ignored. Thinking about it though... why wouldn't this guy have ignored the feeble ramifications for his previous offences? Sitting in a rehab session... yawning away... counting down the weeks or months before he can get back out there and really tie one on.

What's really brutal is the fact that Gerry's story is not a unique one by any stretch of the imagination. Every day some perennial loser kills some family (or parts of one) because the 'fireside chats' resulting from his previous convictions failed to do their job protecting the public.

A colossal joke. Sorry. But it is.

hedonist

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The discipline for drunk driving offences should be progressively stronger and at some point... very strong. As I expressed earlier, a first time offence should not mean the end of the world for the offender: you made a mistake- a big one- but fortunately nobody got hurt... don't do it again. However, the fourth offence should mean something. Did I mention the shitbird that killed Gerry got the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'? I wanted to punch his face in, but the courts felt differently- and I should feel good about that because what the fuck do I know about justice? Who knows what the dumb fuck is doing now? He may have had a fifth and sixth charge for all I know.

The thing is... if it had been his first offence... I'd feel angry, but more understanding. I'd say to myself, "What a fucking idiot. Got shitfaced and killed Gerry. Dumbass." But... this was his fourth. The pattern had clearly been established... and ignored. Thinking about it though... why wouldn't this guy have ignored the feeble ramifications for his previous offences? Sitting in a rehab session... yawning away... counting down the weeks or months before he can get back out there and really tie one on.

What's really brutal is the fact that Gerry's story is not a unique one by any stretch of the imagination. Every day some perennial loser kills some family (or parts of one) because the 'fireside chats' resulting from his previous convictions failed to do their job protecting the public.

A colossal joke. Sorry. But it is.

This, exactly.

The fact that he even reached a fourth time is ridiculous. At that point, some jail time should've been done. No fear of repercussions almost ensures the behavior will continue, and sadly, get worse.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

I literally have never known anyone who hasn't driven while over the legal limit. Except me, since I've always been proudly car-free.

That is very cool!

=D> ^:)^

vant0037

Look, no one is excusing what happened to your friend. That's a truly horrible thing that should've never happened. My point is that it's a really bad practice to extrapolate broad strokes based on vengeance (lets call it what it is) when everything we know about chemical addiction suggests punitive interventions ALONE won't work. Pay close attention to what I said. I didn't say lenient. I didn't say excusing what repeat offenders do.

Unfortunately, you're being unfair by (1) implying that my suggested view of DWIs somehow justified your friends death (as if a comprehensive approach to criminal justice = the supposed leniency that allowed this guy to kill your friend) and (2) describing a fact pattern that I know nothing about.

My view is that if you're only punishing an addict for their criminal act, you are ensuring they will do it again. Criminal psychology essentially proves that. My view is you punish and you rehabilitate. You do both. See?

I have no doubt that the guy who did this to your friend is a piece of shit. But I'm unwilling to toss out everything we in criminal justice know about chemical addiction and Criminal behavior because of that. Perhaps that's not what you're suggesting at all. But when you refer to some DWI offenders as rodents, it makes me wonder what's driving the view: effective policy or vengeance?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 said:

Look, no one is excusing what happened to your friend. That's a truly horrible thing that should've never happened. My point is that it's a really bad practice to extrapolate broad strokes based on vengeance (lets call it what it is) when everything we know about chemical addiction suggests punitive interventions ALONE won't work. Pay close attention to what I said. I didn't say lenient. I didn't say excusing what repeat offenders do.

Unfortunately, you're being unfair by (1) implying that my suggested view of DWIs somehow justified your friends death (as if a comprehensive approach to criminal justice = the supposed leniency that allowed this guy to kill your friend) and (2) describing a fact pattern that I know nothing about.

My view is that if you're only punishing an addict for their criminal act, you are ensuring they will do it again. Criminal psychology essentially proves that. My view is you punish and you rehabilitate. You do both. See?

I have no doubt that the guy who did this to your friend is a piece of shit. But I'm unwilling to toss out everything we in criminal justice know about chemical addiction and Criminal behavior because of that. Perhaps that's not what you're suggesting at all. But when you refer to some DWI offenders as rodents, it makes me wonder what's driving the view: effective policy or vengeance?

I'm not saying your views 'justified' Gerry's death. I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion? I value your opinion on these forums (not just MT) and I sought clarification from your first post. You offered clarification, but at that, I had a 'little bit' of a problem with some of your wording that 'seemed' to offer either a defence of the offenders or a defence of the legal system that operates to the benefit of these same people.

The prick that killed Gerry had three previous DUIs. I've said this every post and never introduced it on the one you are referencing as a fact pattern that you knew nothing about (if this is the fact pattern you are referencing).

Don't be so unwilling to toss out 'some items' relevant to criminal justice- especially when these items are flawed. Are you 100% sure we have things figured out the way they should be? To me... when something looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit. 3, 4, 5... 10 impaired charges are too many. It's a particularly bitter pill for survivors to swallow knowing their son (friend in my case) was killed by a dude who liked to drive drunk and had been convicted of doing so on three previous occasions. The death seems preventable to me under such a scenario.

I'm not talking about vengeance either. I very clearly laid out my idea that there needs to be progressive discipline applied to those that make driving drunk a habit. If they simply cannot refrain from driving while drunk... then ultimately... they need to stay behind bars. Law abiding society (Gerry) does not need to assume the risks associated with affording some guy an incredible length of rope to operate with in the name of rights and law. Do we have to wait for a drunk to kill someone before we begin to operate a little more sternly?

This attitude we possess for being so sympathetic to criminals and their rights is straight across the board. What the fuck is with multiple offences for, say, pedophilia? We have numerous people with multiple cases of pedophilia stacked against them and, in similar fashion... we tend to lean towards the offender's rights in the name of the law and... ultimately... place more kids at risk and hear of even more offences committed. This is not what I would call 'winning'. If it looks like shit...

vant0037

I guess here's my problem then: you keep saying we need "progressive" discipline. I'll assume you mean "increasingly strict penalties for every additional offense."

The problem is that most US states have that. What else are you expecting be done? That's where I'm gathering the vengeance idea from. We are already doing progressively stricter punishments.

When you keep harping on something that already exists, you sound like you're creating a scenario that doesn't exist to prove a point or just draconian.

So...if we already have progressive punishment scales, and we still have DWI deaths, I'm confused as to what else you believe should happen, which is why I kept bringing up the rehabilitation piece. Again I think rehabilitation + punishment statistically is more effective.

Maybe were just misunderstanding each other.