dbrown@avsdT.BERKNET (Dennis Brown) (08/20/85)
> > 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. Be that as it is, the problem is there and something must be done! If the people who are busted for DWI are put to labour for the county, and or state for a give period of time, no matter what there income is, to bad if you lose you job dummy you can not drink and drive, then I feel that will be a more fair way to deal with this problem. The law is for the protection of the people, I wonder about that sometimes! I hope that this is not a fad but that it will wake up some people to the problem and that something will finally be done with this horrable problem. .......
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/27/85)
In article <160@avsdT.BERKNET> dbrown@avsdT.BERKNET (Dennis Brown) writes: >> 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. > >Be that as it is, the problem is there and something must be done! >If the people who are busted for DWI are put to labour for the county, >and or state for a give period of time, no matter what there income is, >to bad if you lose you job dummy you can not drink and drive, then I feel >that will be a more fair way to deal with this problem. The law is for the >protection of the people, I wonder about that sometimes! I hope that this >is not a fad but that it will wake up some people to the problem and that >something will finally be done with this horrable problem. ....... Something is being done. People are realizing that the problem is real and serious, and the current law is starting to be enforced. The same change in attitudes is causing more and more people to avoid drinking and driving. This doesn't happen by magic, of course; it requires people like you and me to keep pressing the point until it is accepted. All I am saying is that we don't need NEW LAWS. If drunk driving is socially unacceptable, the current laws suffice. If it is socially acceptable, juries won't convict for any penalty sufficiently strong to deter it. Just because the current movement (against drunk driving) is a fad does not mean the problem is not serious, nor that it will not succeed. It does mean that the period when it will be in public view is limited, so any change in attitudes must be well underway in a short period of time. I believe such a change is in fact underway. I could be proved wrong.