I was reading through this thread about a cyclist who was killed by a motorist and getting pretty mad over the people who say it’s “just a mistake” and how it will “ruin his life” if he’s not allowed to drive again. I also skimmed an MPSIMS thread a week ago (sorry no link) in which the OP had had their license revoked for three DWIs and got it back three years later, and was rejoicing over being allowed freedom. This, to me, is not acceptable.
I believe that driving privileges are too easily handed out and too easily given back. We use our societal reliance on cars as an excuse for giving dangerous people their licenses back. Oh, it will ruin their life if they can’t drive, we say. Well, I can’t drive, and while I’ve had to make some lifestyle changes due to that (living in a bus-equipped city, turning down employment that would take me away from bus lines) I can adjust to it. Why shouldn’t a killer (albeit one who didn’t mean it and is real real sorry) be forced to make these lifestyle changes? It doesn’t “ruin their life;” it changes it, and I think that after one has acted recklessly with a car one deserves to have his life change. Is it really such a punishment to have to bicycle, or take a bus, or rely on another person to take you places, for the rest of your life? Many of us cope with such limitations daily, and haven’t even killed anyone!
I think that people who have committed vehicular manslaughter should have their right to drive permanently revoked, and people who have any more than one DWI/DUI should suffer same. I can excuse one mistake, but the minimum suspension of privileges should still be something like five years, and after that, they should have to have an attendant/witness in the car with them for one year. This could be their spouse or a relative, anyone over 16 who knows them.
We wouldn’t let a murderer (even one who was drunk, just-acting-recklessly-and-didn’t-mean-it, or insane) legally get his hands on a gun again. We limit his freedom despite the fact that a gun can be quite useful, and your life might be limited in some ways if you don’t have one. Why do we let these driving killers have access to their weapon? Does it really “ruin someone’s life” to have this privilege revoked? I think not.
I agree, although I think provoking someone’s driving priviledges for life should be reserved for repeated offenders. The guy who rammed into the bicyclist wouldn’t fit that bill, but I don’t see anything wrong with barring him from an automobile for, say, ten years or so.
Accidents happen. I can’t say that I’ve ever text-messaged anyone while driving, but I’ve done some other stupid stuff. Like messing with the car radio, examining my nose for boogers in the rearview mirror, and eating hamburgers over precariously placed napkins. Am I a generally unsafe driver? Well, I don’t think so. I’ve only been in one accident in my twelve years of driving and it was the other guy’s fault for running the red light. But I could have been Mr. Text Messenger, sure. Except maybe I would have been Ms. Searching-for-a-Dollar-for-the-Toll Booth or Ms. Cleaning-Up-the-Spilled-Juice-Box-that-Fell-On-the-Floor.
What good does it to exact harsh penalties on a person who commits an accident? A good punishment can motivate someone to be more careful in the future, but if they never get a chance to redeem themselves, what would be the point?
While I don’t tend to support harsher DWI penalties, I think ignition interlock devices can be a reasonable compromise. In many cities, it is almost impossible to get around on public transit. Remember, if they are in the criminal justice system, they can’t just move to a public transit city.
Not that I believe in social commentary but . . .
I see teenagers text messaging in classes (not mine), movies, and now driving. By not revoking his driving priviledges, what is the judge saying? Your social life is more important than a person’s life? This is not a numbers game where every 10 times you do something stupid while driving your entitled to plow into 1 cyclist. If you have an honest accident, that’s different - this is negligence resulting in a person’s death.
Let me use the Dukakis question on all of you. Suppose this kid was text messaging and ran over your spouse, child, parent, etc. What do you think a fair punishment would be? 10 years no driving? OK, but I’d still want some jail time.
My grandpa had his license taken away (he’s 91) and he still does just fine. The money he would spend on his car he spends on buses and taxies instead.
I donated my car to chairty 3 years ago. I take the bus or a taxi. No problem - in fact, I actually save an obscene amout of money taking taxies everywhere.
This whole “ruin his life” line is garbage. Lots of people don’t have cars, and don’t drive and get along just fine.
Personally, I’m in favor of a one-strike-and-your-out policy when it comes to drunk driving - do it once, no license for you, ever. Obviously, I’m biased in this belief, but I can live with that.
In New Mexico the Constitution has a line to the effect of not being able to take away one’s mode of transportation, because not everywhere in the country has buses, and people need to get around. Also social isolation is not a good thing for people in that we use our social networks as tools in our every day lives that support the way we work.
I however choose to live in New York where I do not need a car.
Ruin? No. Curtail? Definately. Here in Miami, public transportation is a joke. The only monrails go from nowhere you want to go to nowhere you want to be. Our buses are seriously underfunded, and you can’t put in a subway system, because our aquifer is only 6 feet down. Without a car I could not make it to school and work on time. If I were a wizard at managing bus schedules I would still have an extra three to four hours tacked onto my communute, because it takes three different buses to get from home to school, and the ride from home to work is a half hour longer than driving myself. Taking away my driving privilages here in Miami would force me to chose between working a dead end job, and not getting an education, or going into debt to finish school.
Getting killed is not a good thing for people either. And it’s not like you have to be isolated; the perps can use bikes, or take taxis, or whatever. Or move to the city. I know that if my relative was killed, I wouldn’t much like the idea of his killer being given a weapon again just so he can get on with his life.
Well, if they were in the criminal justice system and “accidentally” killed someone because they waved their gun around and it went off, would you give them their gun back because they need it to do their job? I think you’d tell them to get another line of work. Besides, any cop who would text message or eat while driving (and I forgot to say, I’d rank both those offenses up there with drinking and driving and punish them similarly) shouldn’t be a cop anyway. I’d expect cops to have more common sense.
Because most accidents can be prevented. I’m referring to those accidents that are caused by drinking, or careless driving, or using text messaging while driving. If this kid had been punished harshly that would have been a great deterrent for other kids who might do such stupid things. Now, the message seems to be that if you kill a cyclist (and how dare someone travel around on a conveyance that doesn’t burn fuel!), you get a slap on the wrist. I also don’t think redemption is the only important thing when it comes to the criminal justice system; I think punishment is important too. This kid would be forced to think about his crime every time he looked around at the smelly crazy people sitting around him on the bus. That’s justice.
Why is this case an accident? An accident, according to me, would be something like having a blow-out, losing control of the automobile and crushing a law-abiding citizen. In what way is an accident constituted by deliberately deciding to abdicate concern for the freedom and life of others on the road? I have zero problem with taking this dangerous imbecile out of the auto pool, by revoking his privileges permanently. As if this is “punishment” – it’s not punishment. It’s removing a growth from the body public – perhaps he should also be punished. I wouldn’t know.
So don’t text message while driving. Don’t drink while driving. Don’t make some fool mistake that could get someone else killed. If the penalty for being reckless means that you’d have a really sucky life (or have to move; there’s other cities besides Miami), wouldn’t that compel you to be extra-careful about your driving?
Well, I think he should get jail time plus ten years without driving. I hope you don’t think I believe he should get off lightly, just because I’m acknowledging that it was an accident.
I think people tend to get excited about accidents only when death is involved. Justifiably so, but would people still be calling for heavy penalities if Mr. Text Messenger had only broken the bicyclist’s leg? What if he instead of ramming into a person, he had run into brick wall, killing no one? Wouldn’t the same level of recklessness be involved?
To be consistent, it seems to me that anyone who gets into a reckless accident, regardless of whether there is loss of life involved, should have their licenses revoked for a significant period of time. Run a red light and slam into another car, bam! No driving for five years. Zoom down a rain-slicked road twenty miles over the speed limit and cause a three-car pile up? No driving for eleventy-billion years. These harsh penalties will surely make drivers safer. :rolleyes:
I’m not sure any of us would be willing to give up our driver’s licenses for life due to split-second errs in judgement made from behind the wheel. But I agree with the OP that no one’s life will be ruined by permanently revoking their driving priviledges.
Taking away someones ability to drive can alter their lifestyle considerably, or if in a major metro area w/ a good (rail based) mass transit system it could be a minor issue, or even almost a non-issue.
But people who live in such cities, who’s lives are not going to be effected much would most likely not be driving in the 1st place, so they won’t get into this situation.
You could say that a life is ruined if someone just can’t ajust to city living, become depressed and sucidial.
I think such a punishment would lead to a lot fewer convictions in a jury setting.
After thinking about it some more I would like to see a technological solution, and perhaps a restriction of the type of vehical one can opperate, like passenger cars only (no light trucks or trucks), and a weight/power restriction of that car (4 cylinder, naturally asperiated, no more then 2500 lbs.)
Why is text messaging only limited to social life issues? Who enforces this? What is the penality for using text msgs for business reasons? (Or dare I say it, EMERGENCY reasons)?
I’d simply like to point out that, so far as I see, nobody claimed in the other thread that losing one’s driving priviledges would ruin someone’s life. They said that a felony conviction would ruin someone’s life, which is a much different question. Merely a little distortion that deserved to be cleared up.
I think the OP is slightly confused by what it is some people were saying is ruining the individual’s life. It’s not the taking away of the driving license but rather the felony record (had the judicial system gone that route).
Well, it’s not technically a simulpost but Ravenman’s posting wasn’t there when I typed mine!
BTW, one of my classmates at community college has a felony conviction and he was doing rather well. Tim Allan, of Home Improvement fame, also has a felony conviction and it’s certain he’s doing rather well. Both individuals chose to leave behind the felonious conduct.
[QUOTE=davenportavenger
I think that people who have committed vehicular manslaughter should have their right to drive permanently revoked, and people who have any more than one DWI/DUI should suffer same. I can excuse one mistake, but the minimum suspension of privileges should still be something like five years, and after that, they should have to have an attendant/witness in the car with them for one year. This could be their spouse or a relative, anyone over 16 who knows them.[/QUOTE]
The Vice President of the United States has two DWI convictions. Would you take Mr. Cheney’s license?