cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-08-2007, 02:15 PM   #1
DrumNFeather
Active LDS Ute Fan
 
DrumNFeather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nantucket : )
Posts: 2,566
DrumNFeather is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Alcohol Laws & Driving

I was listening to the first team on fox this morning and they were discussing the recent death of the St. Louis Cardinals Pitcher. One of the hosts (usually a jokester) got very passionate about this argument and said that anyone who gets a DUI should be charged with Attempted Manslaughter.

I thought this was an interesting argument and wanted to pose it to the board. I know that we've batted around alcohol laws before, but I found this solution to be particularly interesting.

His argument, of course, is that when you drink and drive you are attempting to kill someone because you impare your abilities to make sound decisions etc...And just because some people succeed and actually harm someone and you don't doesn't mean you shouldn't be charged with attempt to harm someone.

He then went on to talk about this idea that sports figures think they are invincible and that whenever that is trotted out to the public, it is a slap in the face to those affected by drunk driving accidents.
__________________
"It's not like we played the school of the blind out there." - Brian Johnson.
DrumNFeather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 02:52 PM   #2
non sequitur
Senior Member
 
non sequitur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
non sequitur is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
His argument, of course, is that when you drink and drive you are attempting to kill someone because you impare your abilities to make sound decisions etc...And just because some people succeed and actually harm someone and you don't doesn't mean you shouldn't be charged with attempt to harm someone.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as attempted manslaughter. The term is self-contradictory. Manslaughter is used when intent is diminished, but attempting to do something indicates that you have intent. Isn't it like saying you intended to do something you didn't intend to do?
__________________
...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan
non sequitur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 03:04 PM   #3
DrumNFeather
Active LDS Ute Fan
 
DrumNFeather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nantucket : )
Posts: 2,566
DrumNFeather is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as attempted manslaughter. The term is self-contradictory. Manslaughter is used when intent is diminished, but attempting to do something indicates that you have intent. Isn't it like saying you intended to do something you didn't intend to do?
Well, I think that the angle they were taking on the radio was that the consumption of alcohol along with the decision to drive goes to the intent...even if you don't mean to kill someone in the process.

You're right, the terms are contradictory, but I just found it to be an interesting discussion.
__________________
"It's not like we played the school of the blind out there." - Brian Johnson.
DrumNFeather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 03:06 PM   #4
UtahDan
Senior Member
 
UtahDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
UtahDan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as attempted manslaughter. The term is self-contradictory. Manslaughter is used when intent is diminished, but attempting to do something indicates that you have intent. Isn't it like saying you intended to do something you didn't intend to do?
The technical distinction you are drawing is correct, but I think the point is you could create a seperate offense or elevate the penalties in a way that it is treated the same. I think that Virginia has the right approach. For the garden vairety DUI case which is a first offense with a blood alcohol content at or somewhat about .08, you get a suspended jail sentence that gets triggered if you reoffend. This is in recognition of the fact that you can have one too many drinks at dinner and be at .08 which is impaired, but not falling down drunk by any means.

The next step in our scale is for second or subsequent offenses, or any offense where your BAC is .15 or above, with additional penalty enhancements above .20. With any of these there is mandatory, not waivable by the judge, jail time you must actually serve. This recognizes that if you are very drunk or a repeat offender, that you are in a totally different category and need to be out of circulation for a while. In addition, you lose your licencse for three years and driving without one under those circumstances will get you more jail. When you do get your license back you must install a devise on your vehicle that tests your blood alcohol before it will start, and then intermittently while you drive. If you are over it kills the engine.

Most DUI's are in the first category, I would say 95% or more, and the person never reoffends. People in the second category get their lives turned upside down and rightly so.

You can alway argue for tougher penalties, more time etc. I don't oppose it. You just have to do it in the context of how we punish other equally serious crimes.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo
UtahDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 03:07 PM   #5
JohnnyLingo
Senior Member
 
JohnnyLingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
JohnnyLingo has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Personally, I think it is a terrible idea. I know this lawyer and all he does is get people off of DUIs. He makes big bucks and drives a celica. My point is that are jails are full enough. I don't want to start spending billions to lock up half the country. DUI sucks bad, but we are becoming a nation that incarcerates too many of our citizens. Save the beds for the real killers and child molesters, and take out the drug addicts (treatment for them).
So what do you propose the law does with those who are guilty of DUI?
JohnnyLingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2007, 03:15 PM   #6
non sequitur
Senior Member
 
non sequitur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
non sequitur is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan View Post
The technical distinction you are drawing is correct, but I think the point is you could create a seperate offense or elevate the penalties in a way that it is treated the same. I think that Virginia has the right approach. For the garden vairety DUI case which is a first offense with a blood alcohol content at or somewhat about .08, you get a suspended jail sentence that gets triggered if you reoffend. This is in recognition of the fact that you can have one too many drinks at dinner and be at .08 which is impaired, but not falling down drunk by any means.

The next step in our scale is for second or subsequent offenses, or any offense where your BAC is .15 or above, with additional penalty enhancements above .20. With any of these there is mandatory, not waivable by the judge, jail time you must actually serve. This recognizes that if you are very drunk or a repeat offender, that you are in a totally different category and need to be out of circulation for a while. In addition, you lose your licencse for three years and driving without one under those circumstances will get you more jail. When you do get your license back you must install a devise on your vehicle that tests your blood alcohol before it will start, and then intermittently while you drive. If you are over it kills the engine.

Most DUI's are in the first category, I would say 95% or more, and the person never reoffends. People in the second category get their lives turned upside down and rightly so.

You can alway argue for tougher penalties, more time etc. I don't oppose it. You just have to do it in the context of how we punish other equally serious crimes.
That sounds like a reasonable approach. I like the idea of a sliding scale. The difference between .08 and .20 is huge. It should be treated entirely differently. Someone who is at .08 is not necessarily very impaired. Probably comparable to someone who text messages while driving.
__________________
...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan
non sequitur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2007, 10:28 PM   #7
NorCal Cat
Senior Member
 
NorCal Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where do you think?
Posts: 1,201
NorCal Cat
Default

You are attempting to kill someone when you drink and drive?

I find this argument idiotic, which is probably why you find it interesting.
NorCal Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 04:08 PM   #8
Gerdy Eysser
Junior Member
 
Gerdy Eysser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 39
Gerdy Eysser is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Cat View Post
You are attempting to kill someone when you drink and drive?

I find this argument idiotic, which is probably why you find it interesting.
That's weird, I find you to be a total idiot as well as a pillow biter.
________
Buy cannabis seeds

Last edited by Gerdy Eysser; 08-21-2011 at 11:37 AM.
Gerdy Eysser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 04:12 PM   #9
Requiem
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 474
Requiem is on a distinguished road
Default

What are the VA laws regarding taking elderly/incompetent drivers off the road? Can it be done anonymously? I would assume we are more enlightened than UT on this matter.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 05:39 PM   #10
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
That sounds like a reasonable approach. I like the idea of a sliding scale. The difference between .08 and .20 is huge. It should be treated entirely differently. Someone who is at .08 is not necessarily very impaired. Probably comparable to someone who text messages while driving.
I agree with one aspect of your comment that a BAC of .08 is not falling down drunk, but you are impaired with any BAC. The ability of any driver to handle it depends upon the driver.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.