todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/01/85)
I do not support the notion of confiscating vehicles used in DWI crimes for the following reason: The severity this punishment is related to something that has no connection with conditions of the crime. Suppose I have two cars (I do). I have an old junker (I do) and a new Mercedes (I don't). If I am caught driving under the influence of alcohol, my punishment will vary drastically depending on which car I am driving. If I lose my junker, I'll be dismayed, but not very much so. If I lose my Mercedes, I will be outraged since I am still paying $700/month for the next five years without a car to show for it. Some might point out that differences will be minimized by the correlation of car value and personal wealth, but this is fallacious reasoning. I can see, under the car confiscation concept, that many people will have "party cars" that are aging Pintos or Gremlins that are used when the owner feels like raising hell. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/03/85)
In article <264@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >I can see, under the car confiscation concept, that many people >will have "party cars" that are aging Pintos or Gremlins that >are used when the owner feels like raising hell. Obvious solution: When caught driving drunk not only is the vehicle used confiscated but _all_ vehicles belonging to the drunk driver are confiscated along with their driver's license. (If they haven't got a license they obviously don't need a car). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (08/04/85)
In article <624@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >In article <264@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >>I can see, under the car confiscation concept, that many people >>will have "party cars" that are aging Pintos or Gremlins that >>are used when the owner feels like raising hell. > >Obvious solution: > >When caught driving drunk not only is the vehicle used confiscated but >_all_ vehicles belonging to the drunk driver are confiscated along with >their driver's license. (If they haven't got a license they obviously don't >need a car). Obvious workaround: Form a dummy corporation and register all the cars in *its* name. (It worked for E.F. Hutton, didn't it?) AWR
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/06/85)
> In article <264@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: > >I can see, under the car confiscation concept, that many people > >will have "party cars" that are aging Pintos or Gremlins that > >are used when the owner feels like raising hell. > > Obvious solution: > > When caught driving drunk not only is the vehicle used confiscated but > _all_ vehicles belonging to the drunk driver are confiscated along with > their driver's license. (If they haven't got a license they obviously don't > need a car). > It's me again! I'll just incorporate and put all the cars I own under the name of my corporation. I'll still keep a "party car" in case the state must confiscate something. I'm not advocating drunk driving, I just had to point out the bogacity (bogus-ness) of the above response. The wealthy types will in fact try my suggestion for weasling out of punishment. Face it guys, THE CAR CONFISCATION IDEA WON'T WORK! It's full of holes and besides, the severity of the punishment depends on factors wholly external to the crime-i.e. the value of the car(s) confiscated. If you'd heard my original brilliant idea that started all the DWI postings you'd see the only sensible solution to the whole damn problem! Flame off! ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/08/85)
The car confiscation solution to drunk driving may be full of holes, but I have a feeling that it would work for probably 85% of the cases. Someone who is rich enough would probably just hire a driver to squire them around if they planned on a bender. It would be cheaper. It would eliminate rich drunk drivers. It would put the fear into all of the rest of the drunk drivers. Nothing we do will ever stop drunk driving. But, we have to try and make a dent in the current problem. Car confiscation seems to be start in that direction. Sure there will be cases where the family may be put into jeopardy, and provisions would have to be made for those cases. No law or rule could ever hope to stop every problem, but a start has to be made to address the problem in a more severe manner. T. C. Wheeler
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/10/85)
Confiscating cars used by drunk drivers only complicates matters. Just fine the driver $5,000. If he can't pay, then sell the dept to a collection agency, or require him to work it off in community service (ideally including all Friday and Saturday evenings). If you want to punish someone for lending a car to a driver who turns out to be so irresponsible as to drive drunk, then this could warrant a more reasonable fine of about $200. By the way, drunk driving, with all its dangers, has been around for decades. Why did everybody wait till the last couple of years to jump on the anti-drunk-driving bandwagon? Is this the new fad of the year? Frank Silbermann
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (08/11/85)
In article <123@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >By the way, drunk driving, with all its dangers, has been around for decades. >Why did everybody wait till the last couple of years to jump on the >anti-drunk-driving bandwagon? Is this the new fad of the year? Because the right-wing lunatics are trying to blame everything on the so-called "liberals" (you know, the ones who advocate "permissiveness", whatever that is). The aforementioned "liberals" are running scared (as you would if you were being outspent by an order of magnitude) and are so afraid of being called "soft" on crime/Communism/whatever that they capitulate. Just ask [Mass. governor] Mike Dukakis, who at one time had enough integrity to resist such demagoguery! (Or any of the House members who switched their votes on aid to the contras!) AWR
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/11/85)
Governor Cuomo of New York has just signed a bill providing for the impounding of cars driven by (a) a drunk driver, who (b) has his/her license currently suspended or revoked for drunk driving.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/13/85)
In article <123@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >Confiscating cars used by drunk drivers only complicates matters. >Just fine the driver $5,000. If he can't pay, then sell the dept >to a collection agency, or require him to work it off in community >service (ideally including all Friday and Saturday evenings). Fines are not at all a fair punishment. Some people won't notice the loss of $5,000; others will go broke without the income from their second job (in the evenings). Just requiring community service would be better. Really, this whole discussion is rather silly. The current laws are quite adequate, and provide appropriate penalties. They can be enforced as people become aware that drunk driving really is a serious offense. This seems to be happening. >By the way, drunk driving, with all its dangers, has been around for decades. >Why did everybody wait till the last couple of years to jump on the >anti-drunk-driving bandwagon? Is this the new fad of the year? Yes.
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/14/85)
In article <123@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >Confiscating cars used by drunk drivers only complicates matters. >Just fine the driver $5,000. If he can't pay, then sell the dept >to a collection agency, or require him to work it off in community >service (ideally including all Friday and Saturday evenings). I think it simplifies matters. No jails to build, no new taxes to impose, the impound facilities and auctions are already in place and the program is self-supporting through the sale of confiscated vehicles. Fines and community service have failed to work to date. >If you want to punish someone for lending a car to a driver >who turns out to be so irresponsible as to drive drunk, >then this could warrant a more reasonable fine of about $200. The object is not to punish but to deter. A $200 fine isn't enough to keep some people from littering let alone loaning a car to a friend. >By the way, drunk driving, with all its dangers, has been around for decades. >Why did everybody wait till the last couple of years to jump on the >anti-drunk-driving bandwagon? Is this the new fad of the year? People have been complaining about drunk driving for decades. It's only recently that groups like MADD have managed to get the attention of the media and raise enough cash to counter the liquor lobbies. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/14/85)
In article <1039@ulysses.UUCP> smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) writes: >Governor Cuomo of New York has just signed a bill providing for the impounding >of cars driven by (a) a drunk driver, who (b) has his/her license currently >suspended or revoked for drunk driving. BRAVO! A first step! My(?) voice has been heard, crying in the wilderness! -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/14/85)
In article <675@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >I think it (confiscating cars used by drunk drivers) simplifies matters. >No jails to build, no new taxes to impose, the impound facilities >and auctions are already in place and the program is >self-supporting through the sale of confiscated vehicles. >Fines and community service have failed to work to date. >>If you want to punish someone for lending a car to a driver >>who turns out to be so irresponsible as to drive drunk, >>then this could warrant a more reasonable fine of about $200. >The object is not to punish but to deter. A $200 fine isn't enough to keep >some people from littering let alone loaning a car to a friend. Why do you want do deter people from lending cars? I think it would be damned inconvenient if nobody would lend me a car if I really needed it. Not that I'm a drunk driver, but a friend may worry that there's always a first time. Frank Silbermann
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/14/85)
> Governor Cuomo of New York has just signed a bill providing for the impounding > of cars driven by (a) a drunk driver, who (b) has his/her license currently > suspended or revoked for drunk driving. You're kidding! And I thought he was the democrats' brightest hope. Oh well, there's always John Glenn :-).
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/15/85)
In article <184@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >The car confiscation solution to drunk driving may be full of holes, but >I have a feeling that it would work for probably 85% of the cases. I can see it now. All the little speed traps in Georgia will be converted into drunk-driving traps. No more small stuff -- let's go for the big time! Just provide the policement with faulty alchohol detectors, stop all cars with out-of-state tags, and arrest the driver for drunk driving (whether or not he's sober). Then sell his car back to him. :-( Frank Silbermann And if that doesn't work, we'll confiscate their bank accounts, so they won't have any money to buy liquor!