DUI Laws are Unnecessary

[Kamehameha34]

DUI laws aim to prevent vehicular manslaughter, a crime which is already proscribed.

However, if a driver is intoxicated on the road, and does not commit vehicular manslaughter, there is still legal recourse. Why?

The increased possibility of manslaughter. Say that a vehicle is a machine capable of killing, and to get a DUI is to increase that chance. It's like saying if you go wave a gun around in public, you're going to get into trouble. But not as much as if you go wave a gun around in public and shoot someone. Same thing with driving, driving under the influence and getting caught, or DUI and killing/injuring someone.

[Kamehameha34]

No, not the same thing.

Waving a gun around in public disturbs the peace.

Being drunk while following the rules of the road doesn't.


We don't use laws to decrease the likelihood of crime. We use laws to punish crime. If we did, why not just ban alcohol? Cars?

[Osborn F Enready]

I fully agree, and will aid you in defending this argument Kameha.

[Milton Bradley]

Help stamp out, and abolish redundancy.

Department of Redundancy Department.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, not the same thing. Waving a gun around in public disturbs the peace. Being drunk while following the rules of the road doesn't. We don't use laws to decrease the likelihood of crime. We use laws to punish crime. If we did, why not just ban alcohol? Cars?

When do drunks follow the rules of the road?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gambr1nus When do drunks follow the rules of the road?

Tuesdays and thursdays. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what kind of a question was that?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Tuesdays and thursdays. :rolleyes: Seriously, what kind of a question was that?

What kind of answer was that?

People get pulled over and ticketed with DUIs because they are driving impaired. I've never known someone to get pulled over for the sake of being pulled over only to find them intoxicated. I see people swerving the roads all the time, sometimes I see them stopped. Other times I see people stopped with them failing sobriety checks horribly.

[Kamehameha34]

What kind of answer was that?

A dumb answer for a dumb question.

People get pulled over and ticketed with DUIs because they are driving impaired. I've never known someone to get pulled over for the sake of being pulled over only to find them intoxicated. I see people swerving the roads all the time, sometimes I see them stopped. Other times I see people stopped with them failing sobriety checks horribly.

So, because you see people swerving on the road, you're assuming

a. That they are all drunk
b. That there aren't any drunks not swerving around

Your logic doesn't work on any level.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 DUI laws aim to prevent vehicular manslaughter, a crime which is already proscribed. However, if a driver is intoxicated on the road, and does not commit vehicular manslaughter, there is still legal recourse. Why?

Deterrence maybe? I have many friends who like to drink at dinner, but refrain from doing so when they know they will have to drive home afterwards. Without this law, they will all be driving home whilst intoxicated. If even one in ten of them kills someone, then that is one tragedy too many.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: tinybear Deterrence maybe? I have many friends who like to drink at dinner, but refrain from doing so when they know they will have to drive home afterwards. Without this law, they will all be driving home whilst intoxicated. If even one in ten of them kills someone, then that is one tragedy too many.

The increased possibility of being brought in for vehicular manslaughter is deterrence enough.

I know I'll not tolerate trampling on civil liberties for "deterrence", when I'm a citizen.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Waving a gun around in public disturbs the peace. Being drunk while following the rules of the road doesn't. We don't use laws to decrease the likelihood of crime. We use laws to punish crime. If we did, why not just ban alcohol? Cars?

By this logic why not abolish red lights at intersections? Adults can negotiate an intersection without a law designed to decrease the likelihood of a crime/accident. Right? Wrong. Red light laws are designed to prevent mishaps. We don't wait for crashes and then sort out the mess in court later.

Same with drunk driving. To borrow your first analogy, a drunk driver behind the wheel of a car is the equivalent of waving a loaded gun in public. We prohibit both activities for the probability of harm to innocent people.

Besides, one of the "rules of the road" is driving while sober. Those rules are set by local government. Violate those rules and you go straight to jail--as needed.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A dumb answer for a dumb question. So, because you see people swerving on the road, you're assuming a. That they are all drunk b. That there aren't any drunks not swerving around Your logic doesn't work on any level.

I assume that there aren't any drunks not making sloppy use of common traffic skills worthy of being pulled over. Missing a stop sign, forgetting to signal, swerving, braking too late/early, other erratic behavior.

Unless your destination is so short a distance from where you were drinking to where you intend on going that you have no room to make an error in traffic law then you didn't need to drive anyhow.

I don't see how anyone could be in favor of people driving under the influence, or not receiving punishment for driving under the influence.

When someone drives impaired, or drunk, or stoned, or what have you, they should have some moral sense in themselves that tells them they are at a greater risk for motor vehicular failure.

[Zeebadee]

Making threats is a criminal offense. Drunk driving is a threat to good public order. DUI laws are merely a way to align the threat to the criminal offense, specificity being important to the legal profession.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The increased possibility of being brought in for vehicular manslaughter is deterrence enough. I know I'll not tolerate trampling on civil liberties for "deterrence", when I'm a citizen.

By parity of reasoning, I suppose you'd say there shouldn't be any speed limit on the roads and freeways, wouldn't you? I mean the prospect of killing someone when driving at excessive speeds is deterrence enough, right?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Decider By this logic why not abolish red lights at intersections? Adults can negotiate an intersection without a law designed to decrease the likelihood of a crime/accident. Right? Wrong. Red light laws are designed to prevent mishaps. We don't wait for crashes and then sort out the mess in court later.

Leave the stoplights, let the possibility and punishment for having an accident be the deterrent.

Same with drunk driving. To borrow your first analogy, a drunk driver behind the wheel of a car is the equivalent of waving a loaded gun in public. We prohibit both activities for the probability of harm to innocent people.

I specifically refuted this exact analogy.

Besides, one of the "rules of the road" is driving while sober. Those rules are set by local government. Violate those rules and you go straight to jail--as needed.

I'm obviously barring that rule.

Quote by: Gamb I assume that there aren't any drunks not making sloppy use of common traffic skills worthy of being pulled over. Missing a stop sign, forgetting to signal, swerving, braking too late/early, other erratic behavior.

You're assumptions mean nothing to me - we're in a debate.


You're doing nothing to back up your assertions, you just continue to repeat that it's "wrong".

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: tinybear By parity of reasoning, I suppose you'd say there shouldn't be any speed limit on the roads and freeways, wouldn't you? I mean the prospect of killing someone when driving at excessive speeds is deterrence enough, right?

Like I said above, leave all of the rules of the road. The one who breaks them will recieve consequences if their actions result in an actual crime.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Leave the stoplights, let the possibility and punishment for having an accident be the deterrent.

Leave the stoplights or remove them? Leave the stoplights and you are supporting driving laws for the prevention of accidents.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I specifically refuted this exact analogy.

I repaired the analogy. Laws banning gun play in public are designed to prevent accidents. They are analagous to drunk driving laws.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm obviously barring that rule.

And I'm reinstating it for reasons mentioned above.

When you are given a drivers license, you must pass a course insuring you have the ability to control your vehicle in accordance with state/national laws. When you drink in excess amounts it impairs your ability to carry out normal functions, of which would be required to operate a vehicle in accordance with those laws. This is a case where being chemically impaired would openly void your abilities to drive because at the time of intoxication you wouldn't be able to pass to get the license, therefore you shouldn't be able to drive.

If you are going to say that you, or a person in your example is not impaired enough to void his license by being chemically impaired to that extent, then you wouldn't need to worry about a law that doesn't apply to you.

And in a debate, it is typical that some assumptions would be understood so's that you wouldn't have to be redundant in your claims, i.e. driving outside of normal ability, that which you were prescribed a license with is wrong.

[Kamehameha34]

Leave the stoplights or remove them? Leave the stoplights and you are supporting driving laws for the prevention of accidents.

I said leave them. I'm saying that the rules of the road should be guidelines - and causing harm by stepping out of them is criminal.

I repaired the analogy. Laws banning gun play in public are designed to prevent accidents. They are analagous to drunk driving laws.

No, you didn't. That's disturbing the peace.

And I'm reinstating it for reasons mentioned above.

You can't just "reinstate" it.. We're debating it's validity. It stands alone. :rolleyes: