Did OP say this at some point?

I have a theory about drunk driving and DUIs.

Almost everyone has made bad/questionable mistakes regarding drinking and driving before. Everyone has had a few beers and driven when they probably shouldn't have. These casual drinkers (which is the category 99% of us fall into) maybe make a bad/questionable decision a few times a year if that much. This person probably isn't that dangerous and probably isn't going to get busted for a DUI. Not to say these people never get busted and never cause wrecks and that it is Ok to drive like this, but bear with me.

Now let's look at the drinkers. They usually drink 4-5 nights a week. Drink and drive almost every night and when the casual drinkers maybe drive when they should not, the drinkers drive when they are just [censored]-faced.

The drinkers are much more likely to get popped for a DUI because they do it more often, and are much more likely to be piss drunk while driving and therefore, much more dangerous.

My theory is this, the vast majority of those with DUIs fall into the second category.

Every single person that I have known IRL that has gotten a DUI has been in the second category. Therefore, if someone has a DUI, I am much more inclined to think they have a problem based on my theory. Now, if you have more than 1 DUI, forget it, you have problems.

GL to you, OP, but if you have 3 DUIs before 20, you are a huge degenerate drunk no matter what you say and you probably deserve the time and need some serious help. I hope everything works out for you.

No, but like usual threads like these change from the scope of the op into a more general discussion regarding DUI laws, and other situations like Bicycles Biatch. op deserves time, is a degenerate drunk, and probably an overall nightmare, but that doesn't justify 2.5 years in jail. He did not hurt or kill anybody, are people really suggesting that he should receive such a harsh sentence because he "potentially could have killed someone"? Have we really started handing out years in prison due to someone potentially doing something, as opposed to actually having done it?

DUI laws have completely [censored] on the principle of proportionality.

This surprises me.
Like tuq, I have known quite a few people who got DUI's who aren't very big drinkers and happened to be pulled over at the wrong time when they were not that badly inebriated.

Came very close to happening to me one time and I'm about the weakest of the weak drinkers. Maybe 2 drinks about once a week, maybe twice.

no, you don't think he deserves that much time (obv you think that and I agree with you. I wasn't trying to debate how fair his sentence was) or you disagree with my theory?

No, he didn't say that in the op, no he doesn't deserve that much time. Yea, your hypothesis definitely makes sense from a statistical, as well as practical standpoint. How you're saying that should impact DUI laws (are you? i'm not sure) is unclear to me however.

No, I'm not saying it should impact laws one way or another. Merely pointing out how I think about it.

Obviously I have no statistical basis for my theory and my personal experiences with those who have been busted for DUI have shaped my views on the subject. But I think that goes for everyone in this thread.

I agree 100% w/ Ding Dong. Face it, if you don't drink a lot; you don't drive when you do drink. Look at it this way, a cop pulls someone over for speeding. Do you really think it's the only time the driver was speeding?

How hard is it to say to yourself, "I've had 3 or 4 beers tonight, I shouldn't be driving."?

I drink a lot. I don't start to get a decent buzz until I have 7 or 8 beers; yet I know that I am legally drunk even if I have 4 or 5. I didn't start drinking until I was about 21-22, and I would be shitfaced after 5 or 6 when I first started.

BTW- For those of you w/ AAA, you can call them up and they will get a cab for you for free if you are a member. I think it's free for the first 2 or 3 miles and then a charge after that.

Would I be out of line feeling he got what he deserved if I told you guys that a drunk driver had killed my 2 year old daughter?

Does that change your feelings about whether he deserves jail time for a habit he is OBVIOUSLY not going to change?

Or is that still callous, unfeeling, and unreasonable?

Roger that. fwiw, I'd definitely agree that the majority of people who have been popped for DUI fall into the second category.

I successfully resisted making a poker analogy here. Go garcia1000!

If that happened I'm very sorry, but that's an argument from emotion and should not hold weight according to the law. That's the very platform upon which MADD was built, and they're making a mockery of the courts everytime they influence an increase in sentencing for DUI offenders. Emotion has gotten way too involved

I would fall into the second category. I was pulled over AFTER I had safely pulled into a parking space at a Waffle House. When I had turned off the car the blue lights went on behind me after a cop had followed me into the parking lot. He ran through all his [censored] on my friends (all of which were noticeably drunk and under 21) and then came over to talk to me with the 2 extra officers he had called for no apparent reason other than intimidation. I passed all the field tests and he confirmed this to me right away and then again later in the police report. However, the second officer literally shoved a breathalyzer in my mouth while I was talking to the first officer and got a reading. I blew a .05, but was still booked for DUI since I was 19 at the time. The reason the officer cited for pulling me over was that he "thought" my tag was expired even though it wasn't which he also confirmed. In reality, I was pulled over for being a kid and being out at night.

While I think there is merit in your argument about the LENGTH of the punishment, the above quoted is the dumbest [censored] I've read.

First, it's very results-oriented.

Second, while attemped murder is worse than DUI, if I try to shoot someone and miss, should I not be punished?

the greatest part about these threads is seeing the posters that people usually bend over backwards to suck their dicks, sit here and show their true colors for the complete idiots and waste of human live they really are irl.

op...i hope you spend a miserable 2 years in prison and that it convinces you not to drink and drive again.

if it doesn't...i hope you rott in hell.

buh-bye

I'm gonna avoid to resort to personal attacks, but you appear to have a personal stake in this matter and have shown an inability to think about this objectively.

Your comparison with attempted murder is completely idiotic. Please note the HUGE difference between the words "attempted" and "potential". This whole attempted murder thing was completely out of left field. For plowing into some kid you should be punished...for vehicular manslaughter. For driving under the influence you should be punished for *gasp* driving under the influence. DUI is a crime, people should be punished FOR THAT CRIME, not for what that crime could POSSIBLY or POTENTIALLY elicit, especially when laws are already in place to handle the elicited situation. Seriously, all these comparisons of DUI to attempted murder and the like just make you people look incapable of logical thought.


So far your only argument for such a long sentence is, "well it could possibly kill someone" or "well what if it was your kid who got crushed by a drunk driver?" as if either of those prove anything. Seriously, attempted murder?

I guess you missed the [censored] part where I said murder >>>>> DUI. If you couldn't "potentially kill someone," then DUI wouldn't be a crime.

No,rest assured I read that part but you did compare the two did you not? DUI is a crime because it's deemed to be hazardous to the general welfare of society. What's your point?

LOL. So wait, you actually think a DUI charge shouldn't be jailtime if you kill someone?

It's quite simple really. If you don't drink and drive, you won't be behind the wheel when you are intoxicated. You then can't kill someone. Why is that so hard to grasp? It doesn't take "emotion" to know you are doing a stupid thing w/ possibly deadly conscequences.

Why is it so hard for tough asses to call a cab when you are drunk? Does the $10 matter that much? Do you have a small penis and get insulted when you are told you have had too much to drink?

WTF is wrong w/ some of you people?

I did not compare the two crimes on the level of how bad each one is. I made that clear. I only wanted to show you how ridiculous your "potentially kill someone" phrase was.

And you made my point. You're speaking in circles. You said "People who drink and drive shouldn't be punished for potentially killing people," followed by "Drinking and driving is deemed a hazard to general welfare of society."

This hints that you think that DUIs shouldn't be a crime until someone is killed.

I think this type of mentality is why drunk driving laws are so messed up to begin with. First of all, these numbers are somewhat nebulous concepts to begin with. Without testing a persons blood (even that is not fool proof), it is very difficult to determine "how drunk" a person is. The fact that we have a strict cutoff point for DWI's is ridiculous (ie .07 you can drive 70 MPh in the rain with a baby in the back, .08 you are the scum of the earth). Breathalyzers are probably the most inaccurate devices in popular use next to oven thermometers. It is very hard to find data on these things (by design I suspect) but a single reading on a breathalyser could have an error bar of +-.03. These readings are practically useless. I think you are right to say that it is very much the officer's call on alot of cases, and this would probably be the most accurate way to determine if a person deserves a DWI in a vacuum. I just don't think police are smart enough/well trained enough/make enough money to be given this much power.

Equating a .05 to a .2 is just ******ed. First off how much more likely do you think a person with a .2 is than a .05 to hurt somebody? I would guess (no data though) that you would need less than 100 cases of a person driving with a .2 to show that they are much much worse than a sober person. For .05 I am honestly not sure if you could show it with 10k cases, especially when you factor in the fact that a certain percentage of .05 are really around .03. Coupled with the fact that sober driving itself is somewhat unstudied, (ie how much more likely is the worst sober driver to hurt somebody then the best). If anybody has any data on this I would love to see it and if I am wrong I will gladly change my tune.

That said, I agree that people driving drunk is a problem and something that should be punished. I wish we had better technology so that we could stop people from driving drunk. Maybe something like everybody would have to scan their ID to start a car. Then I would totally support really harsh penalties, like get caught once you can't drive for a year, twice you can't ever drive again. Though the accuracy issues would still be a problem, I would sleep much better at night knowing that your ability to drive is all that is at stake and not your freedom. Cases where people are hurt /killed would still be tough to decide punishment though. I would also would be terrified of giving the government that much power so I am not sure if it is practical even in the future.

[Highjack] Has anybody been able to buy a breathalyser that wasn't a complete piece of [censored]? I, like alot of people in their early 20s, have friends who drive when I think they shouldn't. I have bought 3 breathalyzers each one more expensive then the last and they have all sucked. I would pretty much spend any amount to get one so I could convince my friends to take a cab or wait a few hours. Granted they often lead to ******ed higher BAC prop betting but that is safer then driving drunk IMO.

As for OP, I really think it sucks that you have to spend 2 years in jail. If their was some way in which you could be free and we could assure that you wouldn't drive drunk I would support that 100% (couldn't we use house arrest for this?????). I don't really know much about life inside so I can't really help you with that. That book that was suggested before seems like a good idea. I hope things aren't too bad for you in jail and I hope you can get things back to normal when you get out.

JESUS CHRIST IF YOU KILL SOMEONE IN A VEHICLE YOU WOULD AND SHOULD GET JAILTIME FOR VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WITH A DUI ENHANCER. DUI<VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER

Do you really NOT see where you're being unclear?

There's a really really easy way to get around that. It's so easy, you will be surprised no one has thought of this. What you do is this: if you have more than 2 or 3 beers, DON'T DRIVE!!!!!! Wowowowowowowowow! What a concept! I mean really, how hard is it to call a cab?

No,I said it shouldn't be prosecuted as if you killed someone everytime you did it. My issue is not with it being a crime, my issue is with how ******ed and ridiculous the sentencing has become, and how the legal limit has been switched from .10 to .08, and will keep going down because of those god damn MADD lobbyists. And how those numbers really don't even matter anywhere cause any f'ing cop can just say "well I thought he was intoxicated" regardless of a .05 reading on the breathalyser. THAT's the type of [censored] I have issues with, not the fact that it's a crime.

Maybe if selfish pricks would quit drinking, driving, and killing people, it wouldn't have gotten this far.

What came first, the drunkards on the road or MADD?