That doesn’t mean he’s any more likely to drive drunk. His driving license shouldn’t come into question at all unless he shows himself to be an unsafe driver.
Well, even beautiful states like California can have ugly laws.
I’m glad you are not a polititian making laws Mr2001. Though with your twisted logic and pathetic pleas, it doesn’t surprise me that you are just a smuck on the internet.
[QUOTE=erislover]
They cannot drive if they are in jail. Get it?
Im not trying to solve everything. I’m trying to answer the question in the OP.
Surely you are responding to some other poster. Where did I say they want to do it?
What did I say to piss you off? I know this is the Pit but are bad manners required as well as allowed? I never postulated a conspiracy. I expressly stated that a threat, while not directed at me intentionally, is no less a threat. Dangerous driving is a threat to public safety and sould be treated as such. Perhaps we do not need more or stricter laws; perhaps strict enforcement of current laws would be sufficient. And as far as people losing their licenses and continuing to drive, well if they cannot purchase or register or insure a car it certainly becomes more difficult, doesn’t it? They would have to steal or borrow one.
In my state, jail is already the punishment. What more do you want for a victimless crime?
It was an “accident”. Given the hallmark of accidents is their unintended existence, one has to suppose that so-called “accidents” merely give the pretense of unintention.
It IS treated as such. Check your laws.
I’m absolutely flummoxed by your position. People with suspensions are out there getting caught and having their license suspended and driving again. You think this is an acceptable punishment for ignoring their suspended license? You keep saying that more laws and punishment aren’t the solution.
And if you really think that drunk driving is a victemless crime, I suggest you pop into a MADD meeting.
Since it is completely impossible for me to state myself any more clearly, I will simply ask you to look up the laws in your own area and tell me what the punishment for driving with a suspended license or without any license is.
[QUOTE=erislover]
OK let’s see if we can get together on this, because I am now having a hard time understanding where we differ. In the first place, I think jail is called for in cases of repeat offenders; it was my understanding you thought this to be too harsh. Secondly, I understand how one could consider dangerous driving to be victimless in the sense that if a wreck does not occur then no physicsl damage was done; however, dangerous driving is a threat to cause such damage. If I walk into a bar randomly pointing a gun and threatening to start shooting, where is the victim? If I am reading you correctly, until I pull the trigger no harm has occurred.
What I meant by using qoutes around accident less to suggest intent than predictability. If I choose to dig in my yard without first finding where gas, water, phone, etc. lines are then I do not consider it an accident if I puncture one, even though my intent might be exactly the opposite. Similarly, if someone is speeding, changing lanes without looking, putting on make-up and talking on a cell phone it is not an accident if a wreck results, even if it was not intended.
It may be treated as such by statute but in practice, not so much.
Eh? Okaaaaaay. In Illinois, like most states, it is up to the judge, here the maximum sentance is 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine. The secretary of state is pushing for mandatory jail sentences for anyone caught driving on a suspended or revoked driver’s license. Nearly 75,000 drivers were arrested for driving on a suspended or revoked license in 1998. See http://www.sos.state.il.us/press/2000/august/000831d1.html
Sadly this was proposed in 2000 and still has yet to be put in place. I agree with Jesse, toss 'em in the slammer when they’re caught violating their suspension, sadly that’s not on the books yet.
No, the call for more punishment is too harsh. The call for judging these people for acting on human nature is too harsh. Instead of punishing people more, if we wish to solve the problem I think more creative solutions need to be attempted that do not focus on punishment, which I think we have quite enough of already.
In order to illustrate this, I would suggest that the answer to the question, “Why are people driving if their license is suspended?” is not, “Because we haven’t punished them enough.” Punishment deterrs… to a point. After that, it becomes excessive for dubious gain.
But this is another matter altogether. There are more reasons than recklessness for losing a license, and the suggested solution as increased punishment was for people with suspended licenses. As should be clear by now, even if the underlying reasons are not, it is my contention that this is not going to have the desired effect.
Threatening people directly or indirectly is a type of harm. I do not mean to suggest or otherwise imply that such people should be able to have a license under normal conditions. I do mean to suggest that removing their license or punishing them more for driving without it is not actually going to solve the problem of keeping dangerous individuals from threatening others (note that I didn’t say “off the road” which is only a special case of general solutions).
Fair enough. I would not personally express negligence in that way, but I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.
But I think the question is: is this what stands in the way of getting these people off the streets? I don’t think so.
And what you are asking for is mandatory jail time in all circumstances of a suspended/revoked/un-licensed operation? Just trying to be clear.
erislover,
I have to be away from the computer for a day or so but when I return I will read back over this thread. Perhaps I have missed something. I think we both have the same goal in mind but I am not clear on how to achieve it without punishment. I will elaborate further.
TRT
Now that’s just not true… I exist in real life too. And with a name like Smuck, I’ve got to be good!
My non-scientific, anecdotal evidence, gathered while being a teenage drug addict, showed that teens who obtained and consumed booze illegally were pretty likely to drive while tanked. Of course, that *was * many moons ago.
However, I took a traffic school class over the internet just this week. The course presented statistics that young drivers )ages 16-24) accounted for a vastly disproportionate amount of the accidents in California (just over 50%). The numbers are even worse for accidents with fatalities. And as you have probably guessed, most of *those * accidents involved alcohol.
So. Tryanny? Over-reaction? Or reasoned response? A case could be made for all three.
Well, I don’t know if things have changed, but I didn’t know that many teens that drove. Maybe I just grew up in an underprivileged area. 
Even if we accept the “most accidents involved alcohol” as an implication, that accidents always involved alcohol (thus, ostensibly, strengthening your position), that if you were in an accident you must have been drinking, it goes no way to demonstrate that if you drink alcohol you must be in an accident.
Even if it were scientific, we would need to know if they’re any more likely to drive drunk than adults who obtain booze legally.
Those statistics are somewhat misleading. Elderly drivers are as dangerous as young drivers in terms of accidents per mile; they just don’t drive as much.
So don’t break the laws when driving, and you won’t have to worry!
Jesus Christ.
Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if the only way to get your license suspended were to break the laws while driving? Sadly, that’s not the case, at least in California as spooje points out.
True. The elderly are also overrepresented in those stats.