MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, October 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 55.0° 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 Bludgeon » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:32 am

pjbogart wrote: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?


Well I didn't word that very well about the statute of limitations, what I mean is I consider it to be extreme and unreasonable that a person who got one DUI in 1988 or even 1968, were they to get pulled over today by a cop in the right frame of mind, they could still be charged with a second offense DUI now in 2013, thirty, forty, fifty years later does not matter how long, now you are charged with a second offense and it doesn't matter if you're under the legal limit, because there is no legal limit for second offenders - ANY alcohol at all, any weed at all, any narcotic at all, you enter the court system after decades of good behavior as a repeat offender when I mean, come on, 0.01% BAC is enough to get you the ticket; meaning you don't even have to be drunk.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby snoqueen » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:35 am

I support long prison terms for vehicular homicide by DUI because it's no different than any other type of murder.


How about cell phone talkers who run down pedestrians or plow into the back of stopped vehicles and kill people? I'd like the law to target any behavior that is part of a crash-causing pattern. That's why I think we need to write the laws after first examining the details of fatal or major crashes.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11638
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:40 am

wack wack wrote:
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.

I always like snow even when we're on opposites. To me, in this case, I think she's spot on. I'm not proposing that any drinking drivers be let off, I'm saying at best our approach to this problem is reckless and counterproductive.

In my opinion it seems like the needle is moving a bit on this issue. When I posed the subject I was cynically girding for the inevitable flame fest. Actually it looks like not so many people are as quick to float false connotations as they used to be. I would have to guess the reason for that is also that snow's right, that once the penalties grow out of proportion to the infraction, you really do start losing public support. I'm also surprised there has been any resistance at all to the debate about it going on at the capital.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:58 am

A second DUI in Wisconsin with a blood alcohol level under .08 is considered a misdemeanor.


Factors affecting sentence. The Wisconsin courts look at the following when determining fines, penalties and jail time:
-The person’s driving record for the last 10 years
-Whether or not a child under 16 was in the vehicle
-If a car accident was involved or whether someone was seriously injured or killed
-If a person has been convicted two or more times within a 10 year period, the court may revoke that person’s driving privileges for not less than one year and not more than 18 months. The court can extend the revocation by the total number of days the person is sentenced to jail or prison.


http://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/du ... -wisconsin

I had the privilege of being a support person for someone who had to take an alcohol assessment class after a second DUI. One thing that surprised me is that the .08 number is kind of an automatic cut off. You can actually get your first DUI under that if the cop deems you too drunk to drive. The case might get thrown out with a good lawyer, but there was a person in the class with their first DUI who blew a .05.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby gargantua » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:16 am

green union terrace chair wrote:Driving drunk is never an accident and is always intentional.


So, you know for a fact that people always intentionally exceed the .08 standard for drunken driving? Please cite the source for this fact.
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby green union terrace chair » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:29 am

gargantua wrote:
green union terrace chair wrote:Driving drunk is never an accident and is always intentional.


So, you know for a fact that people always intentionally exceed the .08 standard for drunken driving? Please cite the source for this fact.

That's not what I said and when you hit .08 you don't magically become incapable of driving. People at .06 and .07 should stay off the road as well. It's a trite PSA message, but "Buzzed driving IS drunk driving."

If you have to think about whether or not you've had too many to drive, you've already put yourself in a bad spot.
green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:40 am

green union terrace chair wrote: People at .06 and .07 should stay off the road as well.


Same with people who haven't had enough sleep, people who have a migraine, people who've got a nasty cold, people who are in a bad mood, people who are stressed...

My point is that there are many factors that facilitate bad driving. It's most definitely the drivers discretion whether they think they're fit to drive. I'm not advocating for drunk driving, but this "buzzed" driving definition is pretty vague.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby DCB » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:59 am

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?

We already endorse shooting people for walking while intoxicated. Punching seems pretty mild in comparison.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby david cohen » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:22 pm

Bludge- how can the victim (who is deceased) have thoughts about whether he/she was killed by a drunk or sober driver? That's bizarre man. Can you please rephrase what you are asking me?

I think drunk drivers make a choice to get behind the wheel. They'd have to be living under a rock to not know that driving drunk can kill themselves and others. Their total disregard for the lives of others is why I think they should get a 25 yr minimum. If they wanna kill themselves, they can do it some other way...but not at the expense of the rest of us and our loved ones.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:39 pm

Was it not obvious that I was poking fun at your position to point out it's absurdity?
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby pjbogart » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:46 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Well I didn't word that very well about the statute of limitations, what I mean is I consider it to be extreme and unreasonable that a person who got one DUI in 1988 or even 1968, were they to get pulled over today by a cop in the right frame of mind, they could still be charged with a second offense DUI now in 2013, thirty, forty, fifty years later does not matter how long, now you are charged with a second offense and it doesn't matter if you're under the legal limit, because there is no legal limit for second offenders - ANY alcohol at all, any weed at all, any narcotic at all, you enter the court system after decades of good behavior as a repeat offender when I mean, come on, 0.01% BAC is enough to get you the ticket; meaning you don't even have to be drunk.


Yeah, I kind of got what you were saying after I posted. The statute of limitations thing just got stuck in my craw. So basically you think that your criminal history should be more like your credit history... after awhile things just go away? I'm not sure that I agree with that, but your examples at least deserve consideration. So is alcohol consumption related crime different than other crimes in your mind? Your criminal record is pretty much permanent unless you go through the effort of having a conviction overturned or expunged.

Doing something stupid, dangerous and criminal while under the influence of alcohol has some pretty serious consequences. If you aren't arguing for more leniency, you're at least arguing for more flexibility in the law and courts. But a lot of people have personal stories to tell about a loved one who was killed by a drunk driver and you aren't going to find much sympathy from them. The way I see it, if you've been convicted of drunk driving, you're on notice that there will be zero tolerance for future infractions. If you were a registered sex offender prohibited from possessing any pornographic materials I'd have a difficult time selling you as a sympathetic figure who deserves a little bit of internet sumpin' sumpin'. You did the crime, you did the time, but there are some residuals that might dog you for the rest of your life. Consequences.

You drove drunk. You got caught and convicted. You can't do it anymore... not even a little bit. From now on you have to call a cab or have alternative transportation EVERY TIME you go out drinking. That doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. A lot of people, including me, do that even though they've never been convicted of anything. Ever. Consequences.

Aren't you a big proponent of personal responsibility anyway?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6169
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:49 pm

david cohen wrote:I think drunk drivers make a choice to get behind the wheel. They'd have to be living under a rock to not know that driving drunk can kill themselves and others. Their total disregard for the lives of others is why I think they should get a 25 yr minimum. If they wanna kill themselves, they can do it some other way...but not at the expense of the rest of us and our loved ones.

Again, what about sober people?

Are sober drivers not making a choice to get behind the wheel, when they in their ineptitude, venture out into the wild blue blacktop, dizzily convinced that cruise control is a futuristic auto pilot, blissfully unaware of lurking wizard tricks called "blind spots", just lah dee dah dancing in their prozac dream, completely oblivious to what's going on behind them, to the left of them, to the right of them, in front of them.

As much as a drunk, it's their responsibility to know that they're a completely hapless fuck behind the wheel. Should we throw your mom in prison for 25 years when she blindly smashes her victim to bits?

If the seriousness of vehicular homicide is what makes the crime worthy of a penalty so steep, explain to me the difference.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby david cohen » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:08 pm

No. you started this thread about DRUNK people, not sober people. So what do you think is a fair sentence for a drunk driver who kills someone? Would you double that if he killed two people, triple it if he killed 3 people? This shit happens in the real world, as opposed to our little forum. It's the seriousness of DRUNKEN vehicular homicide as opposed to simple negligence.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:23 pm

pjbogart wrote:Yeah, I kind of got what you were saying after I posted. The statute of limitations thing just got stuck in my craw. So basically you think that your criminal history should be more like your credit history... after awhile things just go away? I'm not sure that I agree with that, but your examples at least deserve consideration. So is alcohol consumption related crime different than other crimes in your mind? Your criminal record is pretty much permanent unless you go through the effort of having a conviction overturned or expunged.

Well, I'm going to try to resist getting into too many facets here because everything one says, they need to justify.

However I would first point out that [pretty true made up statistic] 99% of legally drunk drivers never hit anybody or anything. Meaning, we are charging them with what they might do, like "Minority Report"; we make it illegal to drive drunk, because they might get in an accident. Has anybody seen a statistic on the percentage of drunk drivers who get into accidents vs. those who drive home safely? There isn't one (i.e. can't be one). We're using the alcohol law as a proxy to charge them with a crime they might have comitted.

Image

Right or wrong, that ^ is a valid description of what we're doing. And these are severe penalties, on a par with the penalties we would use to charge people committing assault or abuse or larceny, domestic violence, or depending on the offense (3rd, 4th, 5th), comparable to shooting or stabbing or (god forbid) bludgeoning someone within an inch of their lives, just to steal their comic book collection.

Looking at the status of our repeat offense sentencing guidelines (as I've expressed I think they're ridiculous), it's in this context that I say our laws in this regard are extreme and abusive. And I don't mean just Wisconsin - this is like a national trend that I find highly disturbing. I've seen a lot of states where, once they do get a hole in one and actually cut down DUI rates, the cops just turn to PI charges (public intoxication); from my conversations I've tended to find that where police don't have much opportunity to collect on steep DUI penalties, they turn to public intoxication charges to exact at least a similar level of devestation.

Edit: also, I guess Snow and Vilas would be the ones to say for sure, but from what I've retained of conversations with various citizens and police officers over the last ... many years... my impression is that your criminal history used to be much more like (as you describe) your credit history. Things used to go away to reflect the virtue of your behavior. After all what's going to give a judge a more accurate read on the character of the accused - some shoplifting charge from when the defendent was nineteen, or the same person's clean slate of a last decade, where he or she has learned from their mistakes? To me, that's much better; because who is one person (even a judge) to judge the decisions of another? I say if we're going to assign ourselves this authority we should at least have the decency to limit our appraisal to a span of time we can say justifiably represents the person in question.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby rabble » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:31 pm

Bludgeon wrote:However I would first point out that [pretty true made up statistic] 99% of legally drunk drivers never hit anybody or anything.

Actually no. It's about 50%.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6307
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

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