Sex offenders and drunk driving

[Gabriella84]

I can understand everyone's stance about sex offenders. I feel the same way about people who are convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence.
Those convicted of DWI are a menace to society and should be kept of the road. Permanently, if possible. I also don't want to live around one. If I have kids, I don't want them to be killed just by walking around when some drunk comes crashing through.
Our laws on DWI are WAY too lenient. First-time offenders should face mandatory jail sentences and should have their licenses suspended for a year when they get out. Repeat offenders should either be banned from driving, or forced to drive cars designating them as drunks.
I believe all repeat DWI offenders should have to register. They are at least as dangerous as sex offenders, probably more. These people maim and kill with no respect for life. You hear about it all the time. Alcoholism is just as chronic as predators. They should not be allowed to live around schools, or in neighborhoods that have kids.

Don't think I am just kidding, either. I'm not. I am VERY serious about this. Alcoholics are the true scum of the earth, because they are responsible for nothing positive.

 

[archangel]

I can understand everyone's stance about sex offenders. I feel the same way about people who are convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence.
Those convicted of DWI are a menace to society and should be kept of the road. Permanently, if possible. I also don't want to live around one. If I have kids, I don't want them to be killed just by walking around when some drunk comes crashing through.
Our laws on DWI are WAY too lenient. First-time offenders should face mandatory jail sentences and should have their licenses suspended for a year when they get out. Repeat offenders should either be banned from driving, or forced to drive cars designating them as drunks.
I believe all repeat DWI offenders should have to register. They are at least as dangerous as sex offenders, probably more. These people maim and kill with no respect for life. You hear about it all the time. Alcoholism is just as chronic as predators. They should not be allowed to live around schools, or in neighborhoods that have kids.

Don't think I am just kidding, either. I'm not. I am VERY serious about this. Alcoholics are the true scum of the earth, because they are responsible for nothing positive.

did your parents abuse drugs or alcohol...my experience in life dictates that those who yell the loudest...were those most effected...what say you...or are you just expressing a professors view?

 

[Markainion]

did your parents abuse drugs or alcohol...my experience in life dictates that those who yell the loudest...were those most effected...what say you...or are you just expressing a professors view?

I was wondering the something. But there is some wisdom in what she says. There should be no excuse for lack of control in society. If a drunk or druggie does harm to someone he or she should be monitored until we know the have gained with out question control.

Sex offenders shouldn’t be monitored unless we know they are a true danger to society. I don’t wont a poor judge to convict a person for a sex crime like an 18 teen year old having sex with a 17 teen year old. Rare but does happen. Crime should fit the punishment, and if the crime is lack of control then monitoring them is fair. But, no excuse should be allowed for those that hurt others.

 

[archangel]

I was wondering the something. But there is some wisdom in what she says. There should be no excuse for lack of control in society. If a drunk or druggie does harm to someone he or she should be monitored until we know the have gained with out question control.

Sex offenders shouldn’t be monitored unless we know they are a true danger to society. I don’t wont a poor judge to convict a person for a sex crime like an 18 teen year old having sex with a 17 teen year old. Rare but does happen. Crime should fit the punishment, and if the crime is lack of control then monitoring them is fair. But, no excuse should be allowed for those that hurt others.

she was not talking about two underage teens who lost control of their hormones....so I agree with you on that one..however she makes alot of claims...of which I am suspicious as they relate to professors opinions and not experience....just a thought!

 

[Markainion]

she was not talking about two underage teens who lost control of their hormones....so I agree with you on that one..however she makes alot of claims...of which I am suspicious as they relate to professors opinions and not experience....just a thought!

I have no clue who Gabby is? But I will give her credit when she make a good point. Even if rare.

 

[Gabriella84]

My parents have never smoked or drank. Not since they have been married, anyway. I am sure they probably drank in college.

I have counseled a couple of girls that told heartbreaking stories. One girl was so shattered, she might need permanent counseling. She was walking home from an after-school activity, on the inside of the sidewalk with two other girls. A car driven by an intoxicated driver lost control, veered up on the sidewalk and struck the other two. One was killed.
I met with another who was in a car struck by a drunken driver. Her mother was killed, her father disabled for life. The other driver drove off and was so drunk, he didn't remember hitting the car.

Sex offenders are horrible people who should be locked up. But at least their victims usually live.

 

[USViking]

I can understand everyone's stance about sex offenders. I feel the same way about people who are convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence.
Those convicted of DWI are a menace to society and should be kept of the road. Permanently, if possible. I also don't want to live around one. If I have kids, I don't want them to be killed just by walking around when some drunk comes crashing through.
Our laws on DWI are WAY too lenient. First-time offenders should face mandatory jail sentences and should have their licenses suspended for a year when they get out. Repeat offenders should either be banned from driving, or forced to drive cars designating them as drunks.
I believe all repeat DWI offenders should have to register. They are at least as dangerous as sex offenders, probably more. These people maim and kill with no respect for life. You hear about it all the time. Alcoholism is just as chronic as predators. They should not be allowed to live around schools, or in neighborhoods that have kids.

Don't think I am just kidding, either. I'm not. I am VERY serious about this. Alcoholics are the true scum of the earth, because they are responsible for nothing positive.

I agree completely that we are far too lenient
on drunk drivers, and feel that the menace they
pose may be as great as that of any other class
of criminal except for terrorists.

I have read that some Nordic countries (Norway,
Sweden, and Iceland) have pretty well solved
the drunk driving problem with draconian laws:

1. One strike and you're out: permanent
loss of driving privilege, fine, and jail.

2. Repeat offenders do long, hard time, with
ruinous fines.

3. 0.6% (0.3?) blood alcohol level considered intoxicated.
That 's about 1-2 beers for an average-sized male.

I would like to see these exact laws implemented
and enforced world-wide. It might save 20,000 lives
a year in the US alone.

 

[5stringJeff]

My only word of caution would be that a BAC of .06 is ridiculously low. In most states, it's .08, which is low enough. Now I'm certainly not advocating drunk driving, but I don't think lowering the limits is the right answer.

In WA, we have automatic jail time for DUI offenders, plus a one-year license suspension. Repeat offenders get those breathalyzer starters for their cars - after they get out of more jail and get their license back from another suspension. It has seemed to work pretty well.

 

[pegwinn]

Of the two, sex offenders are the worst. Hands down. The victims may live, but rarely have a normal life. Sex Offenders are the worst, hands down, because they are in full control and still predatory. I would volunteer to shoot sex offenders. Three rounds. First in the knee so they hit the ground. Second in the midsection so they feel real pain. Third in the grape about twelve hours later if they didn't bleed out.

I aint giving drunks a pass either. I think you are responsible and more importantly accountable for anything you do. If you are drunk and kill someone, you should get the death penalty anyway. If you are drunk and slap the wife around, you should do time for assault. The sobriety condition should be a matter of aggravation (as opposed to extenuation or mitigation).

Just my two cents.

 

[USViking]

My only word of caution would be that a BAC of .06 is ridiculously low. In most states, it's .08, which is low enough. Now I'm certainly not advocating drunk driving, but I don't think lowering the limits is the right answer.

I'm afraid we have an issue of disagreement:
I do not think .06 is at all low, and I would
prefer 0.00 to 0.08.

Stay off the damn road if you've been drinking, Mack.

In WA, we have automatic jail time for DUI offenders, plus a one-year license suspension. Repeat offenders get those breathalyzer starters for their cars - after they get out of more jail and get their license back from another suspension. It has seemed to work pretty well.

In NC, I am not sure about the jail time except
for repeat offenders. I think the license suspension
is about the same. If we got breathalizer starters
in NC I've missed it.

None of this ain't gonna keep Macks from driving enough
to suit me, except for the breathalyzer starters- I say
put those things in every motor vehicle, including police cars,
and the President's limo.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm afraid we have an issue of disagreement:
I do not think .06 is at all low, and I would
prefer 0.00 to 0.08.

Stay off the damn road if you've been drinking, Mack.

OK, I'm not advocating drunk driving. But if someone has a glass of beer or wine with dinner, there's little to no effect on that person's driving.

 

[Gem]

I'm afraid we have an issue of disagreement:
I do not think .06 is at all low, and I would
prefer 0.00 to 0.08.

Stay off the damn road if you've been drinking, Mack.

Ok, give me a break. Lets live in the really real world for just a second. I am not advocating drunk driving...I am however, advocating a society that actually makes sense. A swig of listerine in the morning would send people to jail in your example...it just isn't logical or plausible.

I am all for incredibly strict punishments for those who receive DUIs...however I think a 0.00 BAC is ludicrous.

If we were serious about stopping all traffic accidents we would install breathalizers in every car before it could be started, deny driver's licenses to anyone under the age of 25, and make cars that do not go above 35 mph....why? Because although the idiots who do not take responsibility for their own actions and drive drunk are criminals who deserve to be punished , MOST car accidents are cause by sober driver error. Kids under the age of 25 who are too immature to handle the responsibilties or multi-tasking needed to concentrate on all driving factors...the elderly who need to get to the grocery store, even if their eyesight doesn't allow them to drive legally...the man who feels that getting to his destination 3 minutes earlier is worth the risk of driving 75 in a 55 zone...

Address the dangers of drunk driving...yes...but putting unrealistic limits on being able to responsibly have a beer with some friends after work sets us up for a society in which all aspects of personal responsibilty are no longer a matter of choice...but rather a matter of governmental regulation.

p.s. just a side note...it is a bit unrealistic to compare statistics in the U.S. with many European nations due to the size of our nation and the way our nation has developed. In Germany, for example, a German youth can drink several beers with friends and then walk, ride a bike, or take a train home. Most people in the United States do not live in large cities with well developed public transportation systems, but rather large, spread-out urban/suburban sprawls where driving is a neccesity. Again, not excusing DWIs...just stating that when European nations ban people from driving for a year it is often not as severe as such a decision would be here...because the public transportation in Europe is so much more available as an option for getting around.

 

[Powerman]

Great reply Gem. Nice to see some common sense. I will openly admit that I was arrested for drunk driving. Blew a .093 which is slightly above our state limit of 0.08

I was in no way a threat to anyone on the road. There was virtually no traffic at the time and I got pulled over for doing 60 in a 55. I was driving all of one mile from a friends house to my house and it will cost me roughly 10 thousand dollars in legal fees and insurance hikes when it is all said and done. I did 32 hours community service, spent one night in jail, and had to attend 12 hours of substance abuse classes, a MADD meeting, and had to go to a driving class that cost me 100 dollars. On top of all that I had to call a probation officer twice a day from my house and at the time I didn't have a land line so I had to set up a land line service. I was unable to leave town during the time I was under supervised probation and also had a 7PM cerfew. I also had my license suspended for 6 months although after one month they gave me a hardship license so that I could drive to and from work. I could only drive on certain designated roads and had to have documentation of where I could drive allowed by the DMV with me.

I would say that DWI laws are strict enough. If you get in a major high speed accident then you should face stricter punishments.

 

[pegwinn]

Great reply Gem. Nice to see some common sense. I will openly admit that I was arrested for drunk driving. Blew a .093 which is slightly above our state limit of 0.08

I was in no way a threat to anyone on the road. There was virtually no traffic at the time and I got pulled over for doing 60 in a 55. I was driving all of one mile from a friends house to my house and it will cost me roughly 10 thousand dollars in legal fees and insurance hikes when it is all said and done. I did 32 hours community service, spent one night in jail, and had to attend 12 hours of substance abuse classes, a MADD meeting, and had to go to a driving class that cost me 100 dollars. On top of all that I had to call a probation officer twice a day from my house and at the time I didn't have a land line so I had to set up a land line service. I was unable to leave town during the time I was under supervised probation and also had a 7PM cerfew. I also had my license suspended for 6 months although after one month they gave me a hardship license so that I could drive to and from work. I could only drive on certain designated roads and had to have documentation of where I could drive allowed by the DMV with me.

I would say that DWI laws are strict enough. If you get in a major high speed accident then you should face stricter punishments.

No offence PM, but if you knew the law and you knew the consequences, I can only ask: Why? I honestly don't expect an answer as I used to ask that question to underage Marines who had to appear in front of me. They never had a good answer. But, I am glad to see that you appear to've paid a fair price, and thank goodness no one was hurt.

 

[Gunny]

I'm afraid we have an issue of disagreement:
I do not think .06 is at all low, and I would
prefer 0.00 to 0.08.

Stay off the damn road if you've been drinking, Mack.






In NC, I am not sure about the jail time except
for repeat offenders. I think the license suspension
is about the same. If we got breathalizer starters
in NC I've missed it.

None of this ain't gonna keep Macks from driving enough
to suit me, except for the breathalyzer starters- I say
put those things in every motor vehicle, including police cars,
and the President's limo.

Not much of a totalitarian, are you?

 

[USViking]

Not much of a totalitarian, are you?

Not much of a douchebag, are you?

 

[Gabriella84]

What makes you think he isn't?

 

[USViking]

What makes you think he isn't?

Fact of the matter is that everything makes me think he is.

 

[Annie]

Guys, think you can tone down the name calling and get on with the discussion. You are not going to be egged on by the likes of Gabby? :shocked:

 

[dilloduck]

I can understand everyone's stance about sex offenders. I feel the same way about people who are convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence.
Those convicted of DWI are a menace to society and should be kept of the road. Permanently, if possible. I also don't want to live around one. If I have kids, I don't want them to be killed just by walking around when some drunk comes crashing through.
Our laws on DWI are WAY too lenient. First-time offenders should face mandatory jail sentences and should have their licenses suspended for a year when they get out. Repeat offenders should either be banned from driving, or forced to drive cars designating them as drunks.
I believe all repeat DWI offenders should have to register. They are at least as dangerous as sex offenders, probably more. These people maim and kill with no respect for life. You hear about it all the time. Alcoholism is just as chronic as predators. They should not be allowed to live around schools, or in neighborhoods that have kids.

Don't think I am just kidding, either. I'm not. I am VERY serious about this. Alcoholics are the true scum of the earth, because they are responsible for nothing positive.

Cracking down on drunk driving would alter "Americana" so drastically I can't even begin to enumerate the social, economic, medical, etc etc implications.
Wanna try to duke it out with the alcohol lobbyists for starters? Good luck!
Nice sentiment but Americans would rather accept the death and destruction than deal with a drunk driving prohibition. Just the facts maam.