cwc@mhuxd.UUCP (Chip Christ) (05/17/84)
Eliminating laws that punish drunk drivers, whether or not they are involved in accidents, is plain stupid. Personally, I feel in less danger from idiots with guns than I do from drunk drivers, although I wouldn't care to encounter either. Punishing someone who has wiped out a member of my family might satisfy my base urge for revenge, but it sure wouldn't do the departed (or me, really) any damn good. Sure, the law and it's implementation are imperfect, so what? Can you name anything conceived by human-kind that is perfect? All I know is that since the State of New Jersey started its hard line enforcement, all indications are that there are a lot less drunks on the road. Tough shit that you don't feel free to get blotto after work if you have to drive home, or that the bars are loosing revenue. Chip p.s. No, I am not a tea-totaler (sp?), and yes, I have driven after drinking, before I woke up to the fact that neither my life nor anyone else's is worth it.
bprice@bmcg.UUCP (05/23/84)
Of course, there is a simple way to have and eat your cake (as it were):
the goal is to prevent drunks from damaging others, while not interfering
with individual liberty (at least that's what people say).
The way to accomplish this is to recognise that any damage the drinker does, he
does by his own choice. Then let the rest of the law take care of it.
Legally, I think this amounts to a definition that any act performed under the
influence of a drug (including alcohol) is intentional. This definition would
be suitably constructed so that the intent to get drunk (or high,...) is at
least prima facie evidence of intent to perform each act performed while drunk.
Maybe it should be stronger than prima facie--maybe it should be a non-
rebuttable presumption.
In any case, the consequences are interesting. A property-damage "accident"
becomes vandalism. An injury "accident" becomes battery; and a fatal
"accident" becomes murder. An accident fatal to the drinker is suicide--with
the appropriate insurance implications.
Why not?
--
--Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosckarl@dartvax.UUCP (S. Delage.) (06/03/84)
On the other hand, perhaps that means we now have 25% more of
teenage dolts on the streets. If they are the ones who think it's
a wonderful thing to be drinking and driving, I don't care very
much about them. What is good about laws that keep drunk drivers
off the streets ( Or at least purport to. ) is that it makes the
streets that much safer for those who do not drink and drive.
karl@dartmouth -- {cornell,astrovax,decvax,colby}!dartvax!karlark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/04/84)
> In defense of anti drunk driving laws: > > The drinking age in NJ was recently raised to 19... The mortality > rate do to drunk driving accidents among teenagers has dropped 25%... > > Jon Shapiro > Haverford College > > Sigh. This may well be true. But following that argument further, we see that we could reduce the mortality rate due to drunk driving accidents in NJ to zero by simply banning automobiles altogether.