MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Wednesday, January 28, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 22.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby david cohen » Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:40 pm

I support automatic suspension for first offender DUI (.08 limit) and felony DUI the second time. I also support a mandatory minimum of 25 yrs in prison for vehicular homicide by DUI. The fuckers who kill people while driving drunk in Wisconsin get off WAY TOO EASY. You can rationalize drinking and driving all you want.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:49 pm

First time offenders can get an occupational exemption to any suspension and it's not even a misdemeanor. Wisconsin has the most lenient DUI laws in the nation. I can't imagine they could get any more lenient than they are now.

We also have one of the highest rates of drunk driving.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20381
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:27 pm

david cohen wrote:I support automatic suspension for first offender DUI (.08 limit) and felony DUI the second time. I also support a mandatory minimum of 25 yrs in prison for vehicular homicide by DUI. The fuckers who kill people while driving drunk in Wisconsin get off WAY TOO EASY. You can rationalize drinking and driving all you want.

Way to illustrate my point, thanks. What else should we do to them? People are drinking and driving, I don't really see a good reason why a police officer should not be able to punch them in the face? If you think about the consequences of getting into an accident, is it really so far fetched to say that a cop should be able to break your nose on the first offense? Really, these $10k fines are too small - we ought to be treating people with a BAC of 0.08% the same way we treat terrorists - seize their bank accounts. Plus, "drunk" drivers are getting way too uppity with this whole "productive members of society" charade, it would be better if we can ruin their careers and prevent them from being able to go to work anyway.

To be very thorough, we should just go ahead and assume that every "drunk" driver is the person responsible for the accident (no matter who caused it), because sober drivers never drive like fucking retards. Is there even a statistic on how many sober people get into accidents? (/sarcasm). If we can just find a way to take ALL the fatal crashes that are going on in the world, and sort of mentally assign blame to only the "drunk" drivers, we could really feel very good about ourselves.

Agreed? We'll just put all the blame on them drinkers, sort of use their transgression as a way to absolve (the vast majority) of stupid fucking clueless sober drivers who probably kill way more people and get a hundred dollar fine for it (because even though they're sober they don't know what the fuck they're doing). Then, we'll just keep ratcheting up the penalties to the point that driving safely home with a mild buzz gets you the same penalty as someone who robbed and assaulted a liquor store owner. Same thing, right? Driving safely home vs. assault + larceny.

And we'll convince ourselves that 0.08% BAC denotes "intoxication", while we're at it.

Even though all these life impairing penalties are doing zip, zap, zero to decrease the vehicular homicide rate because our approach is stupid, wayward and ineffective, what we should try to do is get this echo chamber going where the hysterics can drown out all reason.

What would be best is if we could drop this whole "solving the problem" focus, and just blanketly start terrorizing the citizenry. Good idea, David.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby snoqueen » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:46 pm

I find myself not exactly agreeing, but at least getting part of your point. We want to reduce drunk driving fatalities and injuries. What is the best way to do so? The answer should be sought in a data-oriented way not by making laws that will not be followed or are extreme.

If you get sufficiently extreme laws even the cops will start handing out minor tickets for nearly-irrelevant infractions (taillights? failure to wear a seatbelt?) instead of sticking people at an apparent .06 blood alcohol with expensive and severe penalties. It may not be desirable, but that's what happens when laws are passed that don't fit with people's conception of what is dangerous and what are proportional penalties.

Look. I think speed limits should be enforced very literally. I am in a tiny minority in thinking this. Almost everybody believes "five miles over" or "ten miles over" is normal. I believe this is insane, and I believe driving the speed limit would save lives every year and it's a big shame we don't do it. However, I do not expect in a million years we'll see enforcement to the letter of the law for the simple reason the general public (along with the police) just don't see it as realistic.

You already see speeding tickets written in a rounded-down manner for that reason, and if you take a ticket to court judges take a similar approach particularly for first timers. (The only ones who use data-driven penalties seem to be auto insurance companies, because it's their money on the line.)

I'm saying the same will happen with laws mandating very low BAC levels for driving. They'll be seen as unrealistic and people will fudge and cheat.

I'm not saying any of this is good, so don't jump all over me on those grounds. I'm the messenger, and I'm saying that's what happens when you pass laws that penalize activities in a manner that appears disproportionate. Look at the penalties we used to see (and in some places, still do) for possession of marijuana for another example.

I drink less than a handful of alcoholic beverages in an entire year these days and never drive afterward, so don't jump to the conclusion I'm rationalizing my own behaviors. either.

I'd like to see data-driven analysis of drunk-driver accidents and then legislation that responds to the data with the goal of increased highway and street safety by getting the drivers who cause the damage off the roads. I don't know where the breakpoints will be, but that's what we elect legislators to work out.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby rabble » Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:20 pm

gargantua wrote:
rabble wrote:Yes. In Europe they have decent public transport and we don't.

So instead of advocating better public transport, we're drifting towards lax drunk driving laws which isn't all that surprising. More third world behavior.


Are we really drifting toward lax drunk driving laws? When was the last time Wisconsin's drunk driving penalties were made more lenient?

Point taken.

I took one post from Bludgie and deduced "drifting toward lax DUI laws." My mistake. I don't know what I was thinking.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6693
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby gargantua » Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:29 pm

I want to be sure to state clearly that I don't think WI's laws should be made more lenient. I think I tend to agree with Sno's thoughts by and large.

There was testimony in the Legislature today that making a 3rd offense a felony would cost the state an additional $500 million annually in increased prison costs. Supporters of the proposal believe it won't be anywhere near that much because it would create such a strong deterrent effect.

I wonder if anyone checked to see what happened in other states that made a similar change. There is an objective answer to this question based on the real world experience of other states. Why are they pretending that we have to guess?
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4479
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby david cohen » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:11 pm

tell ya'll what...let some fucking lush kill someone you love and they get 5 years (2.2 with good behavior) and then we'll talk. There's no excuse for drinking too much and driving. 1-2 beers i can understand, but Bucky is out of control on this issue.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:20 pm

:shock:
A point I think TPF'ers have conspicuoulsy missed is that you can get this ten thousand dollar fine for driving "under the influence" of marijuana: fine - jail/prison - revocation - probation - ankle bracelet - you name it. And that the penalties are successively more extreme for 2nd or 3rd "offense".

[I mean, can you get a pizza in this town that isn't delivered by someone who drove it there on marijuana?]

Example: you could have gotten a DUI thirty or forty YEARS ago. Now you get pulled over by a small town cop in the sticks who smells pot, establishes that you are "under the influence," the state can hit you like a house of bricks witha "second offense" charge that's could cost you five figures and jail time.

Next, the law says that once you get a "first offense", the state's legal blood alcohol content limit is right out the window.

So after your one DUI you got back when 'Nightrider' was on primetime TV, you get pulled over last year for a 'second offense' on marijuana; NOW you had a drink at a Barbeque ten, eleven hours ago, are so sober you could pass a calculus exam, you get pulled over with a 0.01% blood alcohol level, that's an incredibly expensive third offense.

Honestly you could be doing some pretty hard time and living like a convict for that marijuana and the almost non-existant BAC.

This doesn't strike more people as heavy handed, cumbersome, even abusive? Because you get pulled over in Portage or Clintonville, WI, - that kind of nothing is exactly what those municipalities will use state law to basically incapacitate your life over.
Last edited by Bludgeon on Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:25 pm

snoqueen wrote:I'd like to see data-driven analysis of drunk-driver accidents and then legislation that responds to the data with the goal of increased highway and street safety by getting the drivers who cause the damage off the roads. I don't know where the breakpoints will be, but that's what we elect legislators to work out.


^ That's like the sanest thing I've ever seen anybody say on TDPF... I think, ever.

Long story very short, the parts of laws that I find to be extreme are

    1. Lack of a statute of limitations per offense
    2. The state's 0.08 legal blood alcohol limit (IMO, ridiculous).
    3. The fact that 2nd offenders are charged with a second offense no matter what their BAC is.
    4. That states are recently combining drug laws into DUI's so that Marijuana counts as being "under the influence".
    5. That there is no separation of degree between levels of intoxication or grades of infraction - anyone and eveyrone is treated basically like a killer.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby pjbogart » Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:36 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Long story very short, the parts of laws that I find to be extreme are

    1. Lack of a statute of limitations per offense
    2. The state's 0.08 legal blood alcohol limit (IMO, ridiculous).
    3. The fact that 2nd offenders are charged with a second offense no matter what their BAC is.
    4. That states are recently combining drug laws into DUI's so that Marijuana counts as being "under the influence".
    5. That there is no separation of degree between levels of intoxication or grades of infraction - anyone and eveyrone is treated basically like a killer.


I think your argument that the law seems to seek retribution more than safety is valid, but your list makes it seem more like you want to drive drunk more often without fearing the consequences. I see no reason why a .08 BAC is unreasonable and a lack of statute of limitations is completely irrelevant. What, you're worried the police are going to come and arrest you for that time you drove drunk in 1988? I mean seriously, when would a statute of limitations issue ever arise in a DUI case?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby pjbogart » Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:44 pm

david cohen wrote:I support automatic suspension for first offender DUI (.08 limit) and felony DUI the second time. I also support a mandatory minimum of 25 yrs in prison for vehicular homicide by DUI. The fuckers who kill people while driving drunk in Wisconsin get off WAY TOO EASY. You can rationalize drinking and driving all you want.


That's a bit extreme. You realize that we pay for people to sit in a prison cell, right? And it makes me scratch my head as to why you posted this in the town vibe section...

david cohen wrote:DWI Checkpoint on Sherman Ave. Tonight

When I first saw all the lights at 10pm on a Friday night, I figured it was the Maple Bluff PD doing their "driving while brown" thing...but then, right by Vic Pierces, there was a mobile DWI Checkpoint Ahead sign. Everyone who turned off Sherman was pulled by MBPD and MPD. A few got pulled on Sherman as well. I hadn't had anything to drink at La Fete, and I don't typically drive after more than a beer anyways, but be careful out there! I don't know why I thought DWI checkpoints were illegal in Wisconsin- maybe this was a ruse for the folks who avoided it to get scrutinized?


So you hate those "fuckers" who drive drunk, but you're willing to give them a heads up on the police sting? Really?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby green union terrace chair » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:38 am

Driving drunk is never an accident and is always intentional. You are making a decision to operate a vehicle while impaired. I guarantee that most people arrested for their first DUI are not driving drunk for the first time. Someone who makes it to their second DUI has probably driven drunk a dozen or more times. Yes that should be a felony.

I care less about jail time and more about suspending or ending that person's ability to drive a car. If the only way to stop a repeat offender from operating their vehicle is to put them in jail, then so be it.
green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby david cohen » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:30 am

How the hell is posting about a checkpoint supporting those who drive drunk? Do you think drunks surf this cess pool before deciding what route to take? LOL. I support long prison terms for vehicular homicide by DUI because it's no different than any other type of murder. Yeah, prison terms cost money. Big deal.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:18 am

david cohen wrote:I support long prison terms for vehicular homicide by DUI because it's no different than any other type of murder. Yeah, prison terms cost money. Big deal.

What about committing vehicular homicide when you are driving sober? Does the victim think, "Well at least I wasn't killed by a drunk person, so this sober person who hit me should be minorly penalized for their careless driving - however if it were a person legally intoxicated, my soul would rest easier knowing they got a minimum of 25 years in prison."

How does it work, DaveCo - what's the difference?
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby wack wack » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:31 am

Bludgeon wrote:
snoqueen wrote:I'd like to see data-driven analysis of drunk-driver accidents and then legislation that responds to the data with the goal of increased highway and street safety by getting the drivers who cause the damage off the roads. I don't know where the breakpoints will be, but that's what we elect legislators to work out.


^ That's like the sanest thing I've ever seen anybody say on TDPF... I think, ever.


You should actually read the things posted here more often. Sno comes up with good stuff like this all the time, and she's not the only one.

You might not recognize it at other times because you don't agree with it, but it really is there with regularity.

That said, in this case sno's comment is fantastical... data-driven governance? Seriously? Long gone. Whoever is biggest gets whatever they want now, no reason required.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar