- The fact that they were arrested is sufficient grounds to know there’s a problem.
- Driving is a privilege, not a right.
The writer had a point about the alcohol imits. Alcohol affects people differently. And “laws” require objective measures. And while we’re being objective, we should note that there is virtually no evidence that BACs below .1 contribute to fatal accidents (other than the fact that the government calls every accident in which a participant registers a BAC as a “drunk driving accident. Every one. If a meteor fell out of the sky on a car driven by someone who’d had three beers in two hours, it’d be called a “drunk driving accident”. This is done at the behest of groups like MADD, who have become quite unhinged over the years; it’s dishonest at best).
So it’s correct that a BAC level doesn’t tell us everything. Is the person measuring a .08 after having been a .16 six hours earlier, but is sobering up fast? Is it someone who had four shots in thirty minutes, and is on her way up to a .18? Is it a high school kid and inexperience drinker and new driver who had three beers in two hours and is speeding around like Mario Andretti with all sorts of liquid driving skill, or is it a 35 year old experienced driver who is driving just fine but has a broken taillight and runs afoul of a cop who needs to fill his quota?
The question you have to ask yourself is “is the law’s intent to curb drunk driving deaths, or is it to create criminals by criminalizing a fairly common behavior?” Since there is no objective evidence that casual drinkers with ’08s cause deaths on the highway (that’s all people well north of .1), and the serious problems are most normally caused by repeat offenders who routinely driver well above .1, it’s most likely the latter – especiallly when you consider that the law distinguishes not one iota for the circumstances behind ones’ mild intoxication. When the sheriffs put up a roadblock and start breathalizying people wholesale and corralling everyone who blows a .08, they’re not asking themselves “is this person on the up or down swing, do they have a history, can they rationally be expected to be a problem”.
No, they’re just racking up the fines. DUI is HUGE moneymaker, in fines, whiskeyplate fees, forfeited vehicles, court workloads (requiring more court staff, which feeds bureaucratic empires) and so on. It’s in the state’s interest to make sure there are more arrests. Cynically, it means they control more people (which Emmer’s second proposal would have partially rectified); without the cynicsim, it is an amazing amount of money coming in to government and government’s friends, the State Bar.
I was shocked when I wrote about this a few months ago that something close to 10% of Minnesotans have had some kind of drunk driving arrest. 10%? That’s astounding. Are 10% of the drivers on the road a danger? If that were true, none of us should be on the street.
It’s absurd, of course. Absent any kind of objective data linking .08 BAC with statistically significant numbers of fatalities (to say nothing of being *responsible* for them, which is another whole thing), it’s about nothing more than criminalizing behavior.
The letter from Sandra Berg cast aspersions about Rep. Emmer’s support for two bills in the legislature last year (18 years after his most recent DUI arrest); one that would allow those accused of drunk driving to keep their licenses under certain circumstances, and another that’d take DUI arrests off the public record after 10 years of good behavior.
Here’s the deal principles are hard. The thing about a principal is that it can hurt you as well as help you. Due process and “innocent until proven guilty” are principles, which most of us agree are good ideas. But sometimes those principles mean an alleged murderer goes free due to a hung jury. Ouch.
So when the letter writer writes “I think the arrest is sufficient prima facie grounds for [seizing licenses on arrest rather than conviction] to be a prudent thing” – well, isn’t that true for EVERY crime? Think of what we could do for street crime if we just locked up everyone accused of any crime at all! Or if we gave cops portable “Field Lethal Injection Kits” to use on accused murderers!
Saying “Driving is a privilege” doesn’t cut it; it’s a privilege that is a vital part of being able to earn a living for most people. The fact is, in every other crime judges have (per the Fifth Amendment) the right to consider extenuating circumstances in assessing the accused’s circumstances between arraignment and trial; someone accused of five murders who has a twenty year criminal record and a speedboat waiting to take him to Venezuela might not get bail; someone in jail for the first time for having 15 unpaid parking tickets might get sprung for $100 and no other consequences. Why is drunk driving any different? Why can someone who got a .08 and has no record at all get the incredible burden of being without a drivers license, the same as someone with a .2 who’s already had several accidents and arrests?
Because a well-heeled, emotionally manipulative pressure group has made due process an unfashionable principle, that’s why.
So here’s the question; do you believe in the principles of due process and innocence until proven guilty by court and jury? Or do you only believe in it for crimes where there is no emotional baggage attached?
Walter Scott Hudson writes on the subject.
Now a comment, from King Banaian...
A few points to be made:
1. No law gets rid of ALL accidents. That’s a chimera, and behind it hides a great deal of bad argumentation. The question is whether .08 or .10 or .12 is a big difference in terms of public safety. Decisions are made at the margin.
2. At that margin, it doesn’t appear that many fatalities occur for BAC under .15. But is fatalities the right metric, or is it property damage, serious injury, or …?
3. How long does it take to write a DUI ticket? My understanding is that it’s more than an hour, perhaps 2. So how many other drunk drivers, perhaps over .15, are not caught while the cop writes up the poor schlub with the .09? See Radley Balko for more, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5167
4. I would argue with Mitch about the “more than a privilege” point. That is one very slippery slope. Either rights are limited to what’s in the Constitution or we go into the penumbra-making business. Conservatives cannot win that game.
5. What is the recidivism rate for DUI? MADD says it’s quite high. I don’t see a lot of good research on this. If it is high, I think you have to score that point in MADD’s favor, which argues for suspension-while-waiting.
6. Put this together and I would say I could trade a higher BAC limit for the continuation of suspension rules, until we have good data on recidivism.
Enough is enough.
Over the past nine months I have proudly and quietly supported my husband Tom as he’s gone from a long-shot bid for Governor to the verge of victory. He’s been able to do that because Tom is who he is: a principled conservative who would never lie to you. He says what he means and means what he says.
The closer Tom has come to getting the endorsement for Governor, the more mud has been thrown at him. It has been very painful to watch, but I remained quiet because I know how politics works. Tom has run campaigns in the past, and we have seen some pretty dirty politics and have learned to live with it.
But I can’t stay quiet any more. The latest attacks suggesting that Tom isn’t pro-life are disgusting and untrue.
Over the past few years I have gotten to know Tom’s opponent, and always I respected his work for the conservative cause. Like a lot of you, I have lost that respect.
We’ve already had to explain to our seven children the dirty attacks that have occurred in this campaign. It has been difficult for them to understand why people would lie about their dad.
Tom and I have been married for 24 years. And one thing I know is that Tom lives his beliefs, lives his principles, is not beholden to anyone and would never betray them or you just to win.
Tom isn’t like that. And I would never let him behave like that.
Jacquie
Let me say this another way, fuck you Marty. Once you are defeated go the fuck back to Marshall and go be a spiteful little bitch there. We don't need you in this party anymore, you and your cronies are what is wrong with the Republican party not Tom.
Fuck off.
No comments:
Post a Comment