Carnal, I think we’re done here. I’m talking about DUI, not “slow witted morons” or seniors. I’ll agree that testing reaction times would greatly reduce the number of senior drivers. Now, does your idea to test reaction times as part of driving tests have anything to do with DUI?
Yes, they are committing the same crime, which is driving with a BAC of over .08. The difference is one of degree, not kind. And I would argue that the first person would likely receive a lighter sentence than the second once they are convicted, given similar histories, so they are unlikely to face the same punishment.
There are many laws where being just over the line is the same as being quite a bit over it. If I get busted with one gram of crystal meth, did I break the law any less than if I had 10 grams?
I’d disagree on that, with a disclaimer stating that my anecdotes do not equal data. Outside of seniors and some selfish alcoholics I know, drinking and driving is pretty harshly denounced by everyone I’ve encountered.
That argument could be made for any crime, not just DUI. Without getting too much into the fuck-up that is the US penal system, I’d happily release some drug users or prostitutes to make room for drunk drivers.
Does your stance on a bright line law regarding BAC have anything to do with the “moral luck” concept this thread is about? Maybe we should both shut up.
We didn’t make up the conclusion out of whole cloth. Your post in question was moving in a certain direction, and it wasn’t a huge leap to assume that you were saying that reaction time should be measured instead of BAC to determine impairment.
You later clarified that this was not your intent, which is fine. It doesn’t make other people incompetent for reading that the first post in question seemed to be driving toward a particular point.
Perhaps you should write with greater precision to avoid this from happening again, instead of blaming other people, if the misunderstanding bothers you so much.
I’d argue that there is another reason why a drunk driver killing someone should be punished more severely than if there was no death. That reason is to stop vigilantes from taking the law into their own hands. If a family member of mine was killed by a drunk, I might be tempted to take the law into my own hands. If I feel that the law punished him fairly, I am far less likely to do so.
Now that’s just crazy talk. Do you even internet bro?
Right. At 0.7, the prosecution has to prove that you were actually impaired, for example by proving that your reaction time was noticeably abnormal. If they can’t prove actual impairment, then you are supposed to be found not guilty. If you are at 0.8 or above, all they have to prove is that you were 0.8 or above - they don’t have to show any actual evidence of medical impairment, and no amount of evidence of non-impairment (in a practical sense) will get you off.