Why People Hate Lawyers (JAWM)

[Ravin]

The policy perspective question SKL put forth is interesting. We currently treat driving legally as a license--it isn't a right. The state can put all sorts of burdens on driving they can't on other potentially dangerous activities that are protected by right--such as gun ownership.

 

Some off the cuff ideas for things that could be done, now or in the near future:

 

--Don't permit anyone under 18 or 21 to have a license to drive.

 

--Require all motor vehicles to be equipped with breathalyzer and owner interlocks--no one can drive it but the owner, and the owner has to blow clean to drive.

 

--Eliminate private individual class driving licenses altogether and require CDLs. This would require major overhaul of public transit systems and making roads more bicycle friendly.

 

--Shift to self-driving cars. 

 

--Make driver's licenses and vehicle ownership more expensive than it already is to deter driving.

 

--Don't permit on-site consumption alcohol sales to anyone who arrived at the business selling by motor vehicle without a designated driver.

 

--Equip vehicles and cell phones with an interlock system that requires the phone to be plugged in to the vehicle and rendered inoperable for unsafe functions while the vehicle is running. The phone could possibly replace the car key.

 

[Murphy101]

Right, and your job is to make sure rights are not trampled upon, not to find the loopholes that will make important laws ineffective. Usually it's a well-paid private defense attorney who does the latter.

 

A public defender doesn't "lose" a case if the defendant goes to jail because he is patently guilty.

Yes it is the job of the defense attorney to use the law to defend their client.

 

There's no such thing as technicalities or loopholes.

 

It's just the law. The same law for everyone.

 

And not one client is guilty until they are convicted of the crime.

 

They are innocent until then.

 

Because that is also the law.

 

In the case of the OP, there was no LEGAL blood draw. Which means for determination of guilt, there might as well never been one at all. It is not evidence of anything other than the cops didn't do their job legally. And bc they didn't, they are the ones responsible for possibly letting a drunk continue to drive.

 

Don't drive drunk.

Follow the law, whether citizen or law enforcement.

 

These are the only two lessons to be learned from this case. And neither is the fault of lawyers.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Murphy101

[shawthorne44]

I know someone that is in jail for 10 years for his DUI's.   Although really it is for not doing what the judge said he should do to get his life together like working a full-time job.   Everyone that knows him, is happy he is in jail.  He won't be able to get passed-put-drunk while in jail.   Although, in his case, I don't believe he ever hurt someone in a car accident.  He was too drunk to stay on the road for long.   He was in many one-car accidents.   But, part of that was luck, and he certainly won't be drunk driving while in jail.  This guy is so bad, that once my parents notices parked police lights on the street behind their house.   Dad went out to see what was up and saw a guy passed out ON THE ROAD.   As in where someone would run over him, but it hadn't happened.   Dad couldn't see the guy at all except it was probably a white guy.   Dad said, "Is that (drunk's first name)?".  It was.  

[Murphy101]

The policy perspective question SKL put forth is interesting. We currently treat driving legally as a license--it isn't a right. The state can put all sorts of burdens on driving they can't on other potentially dangerous activities that are protected by right--such as gun ownership.

 

Some off the cuff ideas for things that could be done, now or in the near future:

 

--Don't permit anyone under 18 or 21 to have a license to drive.

 

--Require all motor vehicles to be equipped with breathalyzer and owner interlocks--no one can drive it but the owner, and the owner has to blow clean to drive.

 

--Eliminate private individual class driving licenses altogether and require CDLs. This would require major overhaul of public transit systems and making roads more bicycle friendly.

 

--Shift to self-driving cars.

 

--Make driver's licenses and vehicle ownership more expensive than it already is to deter driving.

 

--Don't permit on-site consumption alcohol sales to anyone who arrived at the business selling by motor vehicle without a designated driver.

 

--Equip vehicles and cell phones with an interlock system that requires the phone to be plugged in to the vehicle and rendered inoperable for unsafe functions while the vehicle is running. The phone could possibly replace the car key.

I'm unsure how I feel about it bc I can easily imagine dozens of ways it would be misused and abused by government and crooks, but...

 

I have often thought that the easier thing would be to create cars with driver license ignition. Iow, instead of a key or button, you'd have to insert your driver's license, maybe a mini version that you could put on your keychain.

 

DUI? Won't start.

Breath on it before inserting and if it has too high an alcohol content or drugs - won't start.

Not assigned to that car by the owner? Won't start.

 

I can see a LOT of problems with it, but these would be efficient positives.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Murphy101

[goldberry]

I have conflicted feelings about this.  Previously I thought that no one should get off on a technicality when they were clearly guilty.  In the last couple of years, though, I have read some convincing arguments for the other side.  Honesty and accountability in our legal system is a hugely important issue, because the legal system has the power to deprive someone of their freedom.

 

One lawyer explained that the fact of the person "getting off" is not about that person.  It's about the fact that if there is no accountability to enforce how we honor a person's rights, then what keeps law enforcement from violating those whenever they think "they have a good reason".  And if we allow leeway in what "a good reason" is to violate rights, you will inevitably have people abusing that.  We have people abusing that now, and one of the few things that keep it in check is the knowledge that if it is discovered, it will not result in the desired outcome (the person will not be convicted). 

 

I agree that the immediate outcome (a guilty person is set free) is horrible.  But the question is whether the other outcome (escalating abuse of people's constitutional rights) is any better.  

[Bluegoat]

Right, and your job is to make sure rights are not trampled upon, not to find the loopholes that will make important laws ineffective.  Usually it's a well-paid private defense attorney who does the latter.

 

A public defender doesn't "lose" a case if the defendant goes to jail because he is patently guilty.

 

What?  That sounds like a great way to have a system where the rich get off and the poor get screwed - even more than is already the case.

 

The system doesn't work if a person's lawyer isn't working for him.  Just because the person is a public defender does not mean that he or she is "really" working in the public interest.

 

The whole system is set up so the individual's lawyer deliberatly takes a more narrow view of focusing on the client's interest.  It prevents conflicts of interest and unfairness that would in itself undermine justice in a fundamental way. 

 

What was creepy to me about the OP is that the guy didn't seem to understand that that is a limited position, not a holistic one, and it is pretty scary if people in charge of serving the justice system aren't capable of that level of moral reasoning.

[fraidycat]

You are confusing reckless with premeditation.

 

The law is what it is and I can deal with that, but driving drunk and killing is not premeditated murder.

 

I do think people should lose their license after two DUIs though.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying I that I want the law/definition of pre-meditation reinterpreted to include the recklessness/a-holeness of two specific traffic violations, which includes DUI and texting.

 

A narrow expansion of the law as it currently reads.

 

I am in favor of more measures to catch offenders using ideas like Ravin posted.

 

I also wish all cars had cell phone scrambling/blocking technology while the car is in motion. But that presents a problem for GPS navigation. I haven't got it all figured out yet.

[Bluegoat]

About this issue of "not getting off on technicalities."

 

Who is it that gets to decide what is a technicality, and what is an important law? 

 

Well, gee, it is a judge.

 

I would really hope that everyone can see why it would make no sense for it to be the police, or the procecution, or the defence.

 

There are good reasons that rules exist for collecting evidence, or for getting to trial in a timely manner, and so on.  If these things are undermined they lead to significant problems.  It isn't even that there is only one right way to do such things, but consistency is actually important.

 

There are reasons that generally a judge is not going to accept the argument that it was ok, in this case, to ignore those rules, just because we "know" that the person is guilty.

 

There are systems where that kind of thing happens a lot, and most of us would not want to live in them.

 

[creekland]

About this issue of "not getting off on technicalities."

 

Who is it that gets to decide what is a technicality, and what is an important law? 

 

Well, gee, it is a judge.

 

I would really hope that everyone can see why it would make no sense for it to be the police, or the procecution, or the defence.

 

There are good reasons that rules exist for collecting evidence, or for getting to trial in a timely manner, and so on.  If these things are undermined they lead to significant problems.  It isn't even that there is only one right way to do such things, but consistency is actually important.

 

There are reasons that generally a judge is not going to accept the argument that it was ok, in this case, to ignore those rules, just because we "know" that the person is guilty.

 

There are systems where that kind of thing happens a lot, and most of us would not want to live in them.

 

Dred Scott shows us that even top judges are always correct with their opinions, no?

 

In general though, I agree with you EXCEPT that I doubt the police in charge ignored those rules because they knew the dude was drunk.  I suspect they thought they were doing things in accordance with the law (getting compliance thinking he knew English).  I also suspect he either knew English enough or made a good show of it if he didn't.  Had he outright denied consent, I bet they would have gone for the warrant.

 

I wish there had been a camera so we all would know rather than speculate.

 

What it's going to come down to is a decision that LE always has to get a warrant and can't just go for stated or implied compliance.  What a waste of time.

 

I also wish there were a way to still get treatment or have driving supervision for a time in cases like these (guilty, but free due to technicalities).  There would be nothing on any sort of criminal record, but perhaps the actual problem would get solved, potentially saving someone down the road.

 

My ideal would always have treatment and/or driving supervision as a first resort over jail anyway.  Well, almost always.  Not in cases where the first time causes major damage (or death) to someone's life.

[Ravin]

Right, and your job is to make sure rights are not trampled upon, not to find the loopholes that will make important laws ineffective.  Usually it's a well-paid private defense attorney who does the latter.

 

A public defender doesn't "lose" a case if the defendant goes to jail because he is patently guilty.

 

This is true. However, a public defender has the same duty of zealous advocacy for his clients as a private defense attorney does. It's not the defense attorney's job to evaluate whether their client is guilty, and the same effort should be put forth to defend a client regardless of the attorney's personal opinion of the truth of the matter. What a private attorney can bring that a public defender can't be expected to is expensive whiz-bang experts, custom designed animated scenario demonstration videos, and stuff like that. Usually, a public defender has no more resources to defend the clients than the prosecutor has to prosecute them, and often much less. Requiring that evidence be held to the standards of due process is not a loophole in the law--it's putting enforcement of statutes to the standards of a higher law, the U.S. Constitution.

 

That said, a trial can be understood as very much a carefully orchestrated form of storytelling, in which the story can only be told through the presentation of a very specific set of information, which is screened for reliability, relevance to the questions which must be answered, undue prejudice against the accused, and whether it was obtained fairly. Each side is allowed to spin the information in a way favoring that side, and the jury has to decide which version better fits the facts. If a fact is left out because law enforcement and the prosecutor didn't do their jobs, then they will not meet the burden of proof, even if the defense's closing argument consists of nothing but pointing out what's missing. But affirmative defenses have their place too, and part of the process is cross-examination to help the trier of fact determine how truthful and reliable the evidence presented is.

 

The prosecutor has to prove the person did it. The person accused does not have to prove his or her innocence. If a person is "patently" guilty, then the prosecutor should be able to do the job of proving it, even with the defense attorney putting her through her paces and challenging every piece of evidence, every step of the way.

 

Trials are a kind of verbal combat, and like any ritualized combat, there are very specific rules. One of those is that might (of the government) doesn't make right. Just because a person is accused doesn't mean they are guilty. Catching them on video doesn't mean they are guilty. Videos can be misleading, and don't show what's going on inside a person's head, which is very relevant to what specific crime they may have committed in many cases.

 

Sometimes (okay, often) attorneys get caught up in the ritual, and forget the stakes. This is true on both sides--criminal defense attorneys don't want the guilty to walk, per se, we just don't want the innocent to be wrongly accused and convicted, or the rights of anyone to be trampled in getting to a conviction, but the burden isn't on the defense attorney to do anything but shield the defendant in any way permitted. There ARE ethical boundaries. For example, you can't hide tangible physical evidence for the client, and you can't knowingly allow the client or his witnesses to get on the stand and lie to the court.

 

On the other side, prosecutors are charged not simply with winning, but with seeing justice done--that means winning fairly, not playing dirty.

[Bluegoat]

Dred Scott shows us that even top judges are always correct with their opinions, no?

 

In general though, I agree with you EXCEPT that I doubt the police in charge ignored those rules because they knew the dude was drunk.  I suspect they thought they were doing things in accordance with the law (getting compliance thinking he knew English).  I also suspect he either knew English enough or made a good show of it if he didn't.  Had he outright denied consent, I bet they would have gone for the warrant.

 

I wish there had been a camera so we all would know rather than speculate.

 

What it's going to come down to is a decision that LE always has to get a warrant and can't just go for stated or implied compliance.  What a waste of time.

 

I also wish there were a way to still get treatment or have driving supervision for a time in cases like these (guilty, but free due to technicalities).  There would be nothing on any sort of criminal record, but perhaps the actual problem would get solved, potentially saving someone down the road.

 

My ideal would always have treatment and/or driving supervision as a first resort over jail anyway.  Well, almost always.  Not in cases where the first time causes major damage (or death) to someone's life.

 

Sometimes there is lack of clarity.  I expect they did think they were ok.  Now, the situation in similar circumstances in the future may be more clear - they police can change their approach accordingly.  Or, it just may be an instance where the judge has to decide what was really going on as best he can - that is not a failure of the system, such situations are always going to occur from time to time.  Sometimes people misjudge the situation, and it isn't really anyone's fault.

 

I just don't see this as a huge deal.

 

As for whether judges are infallible, of course no one believes that, but compared to a bunch of random members of the public watching a video, I'll go with the judge.

[Ravin]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying I that I want the law/definition of pre-meditation reinterpreted to include the recklessness/a-holeness of two specific traffic violations, which includes DUI and texting.

 

A narrow expansion of the law as it currently reads.

 

I am in favor of more measures to catch offenders using ideas like Ravin posted.

 

I also wish all cars had cell phone scrambling/blocking technology while the car is in motion. But that presents a problem for GPS navigation. I haven't got it all figured out yet.

 

That would not be narrow. That would completely undermine the entire basis of the criminal law. You are suggesting we treat DUI and texting while driving--in the absence of any actual harm done by the specific instance of either act--be treated as equal to taking a gun and shooting someone, intending to kill them, without succeeding in doing so.

[creekland]

I just don't see this as a huge deal.

 

As for whether judges are infallible, of course no one believes that, but compared to a bunch of random members of the public watching a video, I'll go with the judge.

 

Due to your first statement, my guess is you don't know anyone close who has personally had their life significantly changed by a drunk driver.  In that case, lucky you.  Who knows how you would feel if/when that changes.

 

If there had been a video (maybe there was?), I'd like to think the judge would have watched it too.  Sometimes LE is in the wrong.  Sometimes not.  When it's "he said/she said," we'll never really know who was correct.  A video/picture is 1000x better than words.  A judge is supposed to side on the defendant's side if in doubt, correct?  She may not have known herself.  Just because she took the side she felt she had to does not make her correct or the actual situation any better.

 

The letter of the law is not always the best thing out there.  I honestly wish common sense could come into play at times - esp when lives are at stake.  But then again I often wish the ideal world existed rather than the real world we have to deal with.

 

Of course, in my ideal world everyone would use their brain and not drive drunk or distracted...

[fraidycat]

That would not be narrow. That would completely undermine the entire basis of the criminal law. You are suggesting we treat DUI and texting while driving--in the absence of any actual harm done by the specific instance of either act--be treated as equal to taking a gun and shooting someone, intending to kill them, without succeeding in doing so.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Every single time someone texts and drives or DUI, the likelihood of an innocent person losing their RIGHT to LIVE rises. The rights of the perfectly innocent victims being completely stripped doesn't seem to matter in these "criminal rights" discussions. If you text or drive drunk, knowing the dangers, you ARE intending to kill someone, because it is a known outcome - just like it is a known outcome of pulling the trigger of a loaded weapon. Sometimes you even succeed. Innocent people die at the hands of texters and drunk drivers every day.

[Ravin]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Every single time someone texts and drives or DUI, the likelihood of an innocent person losing their RIGHT to LIVE rises. The rights of the perfectly innocent victims being completely stripped doesn't seem to matter in these "criminal rights" discussions. If you text or drive drunk, knowing the dangers, you ARE intending to kill someone, because it is a known outcome - just like it is a known outcome of pulling the trigger of a loaded weapon. Sometimes you even succeed. Innocent people die at the hands of texters and drunk drivers every day.

 

By this logic, we just shouldn't drive cars at all, because it's a known risk.

[Bluegoat]

Due to your first statement, my guess is you don't know anyone close who has personally had their life significantly changed by a drunk driver.  In that case, lucky you.  Who knows how you would feel if/when that changes.

 

If there had been a video (maybe there was?), I'd like to think the judge would have watched it too.  Sometimes LE is in the wrong.  Sometimes not.  When it's "he said/she said," we'll never really know who was correct.  A video/picture is 1000x better than words.  A judge is supposed to side on the defendant's side if in doubt, correct?  She may not have known herself.  Just because she took the side she felt she had to does not make her correct or the actual situation any better.

 

The letter of the law is not always the best thing out there.  I honestly wish common sense could come into play at times - esp when lives are at stake.  But then again I often wish the ideal world existed rather than the real world we have to deal with.

 

Of course, in my ideal world everyone would use their brain and not drive drunk or distracted...

 

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who has been affected by a crime is going to be blase about proper procedures being followed in prosecution?

 

Why not just bring out the mob justice?

 

Many people affected by all kinds of crime manage to understand the reasons for allowing the judge to decide what is an important point, and what is not - even when it is actually a case that affects them directly.  It's generally considered a failing, if an understandable one, when people can't do this.

 

Possibly a video might have helped, but there are still going to be all kinds of instances where it will be up to someone - that is, the judge - to make a determination about what went on.  Videoing everything is probably not a great solution.  We will never manage to catch and prosecute every individual who drives when drunk or high.

[Bluegoat]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Every single time someone texts and drives or DUI, the likelihood of an innocent person losing their RIGHT to LIVE rises. The rights of the perfectly innocent victims being completely stripped doesn't seem to matter in these "criminal rights" discussions. If you text or drive drunk, knowing the dangers, you ARE intending to kill someone, because it is a known outcome - just like it is a known outcome of pulling the trigger of a loaded weapon. Sometimes you even succeed. Innocent people die at the hands of texters and drunk drivers every day.

 

There is a big difference between doing something that I know increases my risk of death, like driving race cars on the road, and running my car off a bridge in order to kill myself.  And the same is true if I carelessly kill someone car racing, or deliberately run someone down to murder them.  Knowing something is a possible outcome isn't the same as trying to make that particular outcome happen.

 

If the law was changed in the way you are suggesting, then there would be a requirement to find a new word to describe deliberately using a vehicle as a murder weapon, which is also a thing.

 

I can't see much point in describing something inaccurately just to create a greater punishment.  If that thing deserves a greater punishment, just change that.

[fraidycat]

By this logic, we just shouldn't drive cars at all, because it's a known risk.

There are accidents and there are a-holes.

 

The risk is reduced by following the laws that are in place to accomplish exactly that - reduce the risk. If one disregards those laws, they should be charged accordingly.

 

Look, we both know that my wish will never happen. Criminal rights are more important than victim rights. It's the system we have. There's no point in furthering this part of the discussion because we'll just go around in circles.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There are accidents and there are a-holes.

 

The risk is reduced by following the laws that are in place to accomplish exactly that - reduce the risk. If one disregards those laws, they should be charged accordingly.

 

Look, we both know that my wish will never happen. Criminal rights are more important than victim rights. It's the system we have. There's no point in furthering this part of the discussion because we'll just go around in circles.

Except the "rights" that protect criminals also protect the innocent.

[fraidycat]

There is a big difference between doing something that I know increases my risk of death, like driving race cars on the road, and running my car off a bridge in order to kill myself. And the same is true if I carelessly kill someone car racing, or deliberately run someone down to murder them. Knowing something is a possible outcome isn't the same as trying to make that particular outcome happen.

 

If the law was changed in the way you are suggesting, then there would be a requirement to find a new word to describe deliberately using a vehicle as a murder weapon, which is also a thing.

 

I can't see much point in describing something inaccurately just to create a greater punishment. If that thing deserves a greater punishment, just change that.

Ok, then I'll revise my wish to the charge being equivalent to attempted or pre-meditated murder.

[fraidycat]

Except the "rights" that protect criminals also protect the innocent.

Except where the innocent lost their right to life. That can't be recovered.

Edited March 30, 2016 by fraidycat

[Bluegoat]

Ok, then I'll revise my wish to the charge being equivalent to attempted or pre-meditated murder.

 

So - what do you say when someone attempts murder, and only gets the same punishment as someone who was driving carelessly?  It seems pretty likely that people would complain about that.

[Ravin]

There are accidents and there are a-holes.

 

The risk is reduced by following the laws that are in place to accomplish exactly that - reduce the risk. If one disregards those laws, they should be charged accordingly.

 

Look, we both know that my wish will never happen. Criminal rights are more important than victim rights. It's the system we have. There's no point in furthering this part of the discussion because we'll just go around in circles.

 

In the instances where there IS a victim because someone DOES actually cause an accident through reckless behavior such as DUI or texting while driving, there are criminal penalties proportionate to the harm done.

 

What you are wishing for is MAYBE COULD HAVE to carry the same criminal penalty as ACTUALLY DID do something. Criminal law punishes "actually did do something." 

 

The most effective deterrent of the maybe's, as I said above, would be to increase the chances of them getting caught without something catastrophic happening. Enacting draconian punishment would not have that effect of deterring the dangerous activity.

[bolt.]

Maybe we need "attempted negligent manslaughter"?

 

What would someone be charged with if they "just happened to be playing wildly with a sword in a crowded public place"?

Edited March 30, 2016 by bolt.

[Bluegoat]

Maybe we need "attempted negligent manslaughter"?

 

What would someone be charged with if they "just happened to be playing wildly with a sword in a crowded public place"?

 

Doesn't the "attempted" cacel out the "negligent"?

 

I think the answer to your second question varies depending on where you are, but it isn't attempted murder.

[Ravin]

Maybe we need "attempted negligent manslaughter"?

 

What would someone be charged with if they "just happened to be playing wildly with a sword in a crowded public place"?

 

Depending on the jurisdiction...

 

disorderly conduct

reckless endangerment

criminal nuisance

possibly aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon

 

If they don't actually physically hurt someone.

 

If they actually touch/injure someone...

 

battery

aggravated battery (deadly weapon)

assault and battery

aggravated assault and battery

mayhem (if someone is seriously and permanently injured).

 

You can't have an attempted negligent act; Negligence by definition is failure to exercise a duty you had to another person, resulting in harm to that person. You either are or you aren't negligent. You can't "attempt" to be negligent.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Except where the innocent lost their right to life. That can't be recovered.

And neither can the years someone who is falsely convicted spends in prison. And it isn't like we haven't executed innocent people as well.

[Murphy101]

Except where the innocent lost their right to life. That can't be recovered.

No it can't but just because an accident caused a death doesn't mean it was anything more than an accident.

 

We have laws for reckless driving and I'm satisfied with that.

 

We have laws for drunk driving and I'm satisfied with that.

 

Turning every preventable accident, even when it doesn't result in an actual accident, into murder won't stop the accidents. Education and prevention on safer practices will at least reduce them.

[fraidycat]

No it can't but just because an accident caused a death doesn't mean it was anything more than an accident.

 

We have laws for reckless driving and I'm satisfied with that.

 

We have laws for drunk driving and I'm satisfied with that.

 

Turning every preventable accident, even when it doesn't result in an actual accident, into murder won't stop the accidents. Education and prevention on safer practices will at least reduce them.

True accidents are not preventable. Blown tire, falling rocks, flash flood, medical emergency, mechanical failure, etc.

 

Collisions are a whole other ball o' wax. Preventable. By following the laws and rules of the road re: speed laws, accounting for weather, paying attention to the task of driving vs. cell phones, not cutting across several lanes at once, driving sober, etc.

 

Proportionally, there are very few traffic accidents and very many preventable collisions.

[creekland]

Many people affected by all kinds of crime manage to understand the reasons for allowing the judge to decide what is an important point, and what is not - even when it is actually a case that affects them directly.  It's generally considered a failing, if an understandable one, when people can't do this.

 

Let's just leave it at the point where I'll admit I know many who fail then.

 

There are many out there who feel something different ought to happen rather than just letting the guilty walk away with total freedom when it's merely a technicality that they got set free.

 

Not supposed guilt and tried before the trial.  Real guilt, but inadmissible due to some mistake somewhere along the lines.

 

To those who feel there should be no mistakes, let the first one of us who has never made a mistake be the first to through stones.

 

 

[fraidycat]

And neither can the years someone who is falsely convicted spends in prison. And it isn't like we haven't executed innocent people as well.

I haven't said anything to contradict this. I haven't commented on the original case that prompted this thread. There are procedures that the police did not follow properly in this case. Fine. I have no problem with due process. All I said is I think charges and penalties should be stiffer for texting and DUI. When due process is followed properly, it would hopefully result in a safer driving environment for all of us, removing more deliberately reckless (homicidal) drivers from the roads.

[Murphy101]

True accidents are not preventable. Blown tire, falling rocks, flash flood, medical emergency, mechanical failure, etc.

 

Collisions are a whole other ball o' wax. Preventable. By following the laws and rules of the road re: speed laws, accounting for weather, paying attention to the task of driving vs. cell phones, not cutting across several lanes at once, driving sober, etc.

 

Proportionally, there are very few traffic accidents and very many preventable collisions.

This entire post is blarney.

 

Nearly all accidents are preventable. With the exception of acts of God, most accidents are in fact preventable. Nearly always if the situation is carefully looked into, there will be a moment or several moments where it could have been prevented. General traffic accidents are extremely common. Far more common than accidents that result in major collisions. Even as common as either are, we still feel comfortable driving and most of us don't live in fear that every car trip is going to be a near death experience or worse.

[goldberry]

Well I for one always wondered why attempted murder carries lesser sentences than actual murder.  People have thought they murdered someone and then left them for dead.  The person survived, so the criminal received a lesser sentence.  What's up with that?  

 

I agree that there is a different level of accountability when someone hurts someone because of violating the law rather than hurting someone because they were following the law but things went bad.  That would be negligence, right?  Rather than "involuntary".  So don't we already have categories for that?

 

ETA, it's like my daughter when she was young.  Spilling milk is an accident.  Spilling milk on the couch when I have told her not to drink milk on the couch is a different "accident" than spilling milk at the table  :glare: . And yes, I almost cried... 

Edited March 30, 2016 by goldberry

[fraidycat]

This entire post is blarney.

 

Nearly all accidents are preventable. With the exception of acts of God, most accidents are in fact preventable. Nearly always if the situation is carefully looked into, there will be a moment or several moments where it could have been prevented. General traffic accidents are extremely common. Far more common than accidents that result in major collisions. Even as common as either are, we still feel comfortable driving and most of us don't live in fear that every car trip is going to be a near death experience or worse.

This entire post is blarney.

 

You just rewrote in your own words exactly what I said, except I listed examples of your so-called "acts of God", so I'm not sure where you get your "blarney" statement from. I said nothing about MAJOR collisions. I said collision. As in, a vehicle colliding with or coming in contact with, another object. That object might be a building, a fence, another vehicle, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian. And I also said that most are preventable, and very few are not.

 

Nowhere did I mention who is or is not scared to do it. What has that got to do anything I wrote? If you want to argue, please at least argue with my actual words and not some contrived anxieties that have nothing to do with my actual statements.

Edited March 30, 2016 by fraidycat

[chocolatechip]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Every single time someone texts and drives or DUI, the likelihood of an innocent person losing their RIGHT to LIVE rises. The rights of the perfectly innocent victims being completely stripped doesn't seem to matter in these "criminal rights" discussions. If you text or drive drunk, knowing the dangers, you ARE intending to kill someone, because it is a known outcome - just like it is a known outcome of pulling the trigger of a loaded weapon. Sometimes you even succeed. Innocent people die at the hands of texters and drunk drivers every day.

I think this is a giant slippery slope. Innocent people die at the hands on non-drunk, non-texting, non-speeding, law-abiding drivers too. So if you drive at all are you guilty of premeditated murder? If you drive in windy weather are you then? At night? In the snow? With passengers? There are endless factors that add risk to what is already a dangerous activity. To say that by texting while driving or driving drunk you are INTENDING to kill someone is frankly ridiculous.

[goldberry]

I think this is a giant slippery slope. Innocent people die at the hands on non-drunk, non-texting, non-speeding, law-abiding drivers too. So if you drive at all are you guilty of premeditated murder? If you drive in windy weather are you then? At night? In the snow? With passengers? There are endless factors that add risk to what is already a dangerous activity. To say that by texting while driving or driving drunk you are INTENDING to kill someone is frankly ridiculous.

 

I'm not saying I agree with fraidy, but all the things you listed are legal while driving. The law has determined that those things are within an acceptable range of risk.  Texting and driving drunk are not legal (here), and anyone who does those things is aware they are breaking the law.  The fact that you might injure or kill someone with your negligence is a real possibility.  The fact that most people don't believe that possibility applies to *them* doesn't change that. 

 

The same thing applies to speeding.  I have exceeded the speed limit (although I don't do so often), and thankfully nothing happened.  Someone else might exceed the speed limit and kill someone.  When I choose to exceed the speed limit, whether consciously or not I am saying my desire to get somewhere quickly is more important than being a safe driver.  That's the reality.  

 

I don't know how you quantify that or what accountability there should be, but it is not ridiculous that the person making that choice is choosing to accept those possibilities.

[fraidycat]

I think this is a giant slippery slope. Innocent people die at the hands on non-drunk, non-texting, non-speeding, law-abiding drivers too. So if you drive at all are you guilty of premeditated murder? If you drive in windy weather are you then? At night? In the snow? With passengers? There are endless factors that add risk to what is already a dangerous activity. To say that by texting while driving or driving drunk you are INTENDING to kill someone is frankly ridiculous.

She said with a straight face, while trotting out the tired use of a logical fallacy...

[goldberry]

I remember when I was younger there was a teen driver that ran a stop sign and killed someone in another vehicle.  This was a smart kid headed for college, and he ended up in jail for manslaughter instead.  I had run a stop sign before.  It was really just sheer luck that I didn't hurt anyone, and I realized that did not make me any better than him, or make him any worse than me.  When we break the law, the chances of harm are very real, and anyone driving should understand those possibilities. Saying, "I didn't really mean to hurt anyone" doesn't really cut it.  If you choose to break the law, you are making a voluntary choice that could possibly result in harm to yourself or others.

[SKL]

Well it sounds like in the present case, this person actually let the cop test his alcohol level, and then afterward said "oh I didn't understand his English" or whatever.  Sounds like he went to his lawyer and said, "I was drunk all right, and yeah, I let them test me, so what can I do now?"

 

It sounds like a gray area of consent, which the attorney is using to thwart the law.

 

With some lawyers, the standard practice is to deny and accuse the cops of wrongdoing, whether it's true or not.  Then you have the cop on the defensive trying to prove that he actually did follow procedure instead of the drunk driver on the defensive for driving drunk.  Yes, I know sometimes cops break the rules, but not every time.  Stuff like this "yay i got a stinking drunk client off" doesn't do much for the credibility of accused deniers.

 

And that's the other side of ethics here.  These actions undermine the ability of a truly aggrieved defendant to have a fair day in court.  Indirectly they probably lead to the incarceration of people who shouldn't be in jail.

[Tsuga]

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying I that I want the law/definition of pre-meditation reinterpreted to include the recklessness/a-holeness of two specific traffic violations, which includes DUI and texting.

 

A narrow expansion of the law as it currently reads.

 

I am in favor of more measures to catch offenders using ideas like Ravin posted.

 

I also wish all cars had cell phone scrambling/blocking technology while the car is in motion. But that presents a problem for GPS navigation. I haven't got it all figured out yet.

So, you understand what premeditation means in regular parlance and in the law, and you are suggesting that we change the meaning so that people will receive harsher punishments?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the sentencing for reckless behavior, and leave the English language alone?

[fraidycat]

So, you understand what premeditation means in regular parlance and in the law, and you are suggesting that we change the meaning so that people will receive harsher punishments?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the sentencing for reckless behavior, and leave the English language alone?

Since you came back late and may not have read all the replies I will answer this.

 

I've amended my wish to include the phrase "equivalent to" premeditated murder.

 

I still believe that making the choice to DUI or text while driving is making a direct choice to endanger the lives of others. Hence, pre-meditation.

[Tsuga]

Since you came back late and may not have read all the replies I will answer this.

 

I've amended my wish to include the phrase "equivalent to" premeditated murder.

 

I still believe that making the choice to DUI or text while driving is making a direct choice to endanger the lives of others. Hence, pre-meditation.

I really have zero patience for DUIs. Like negative infinity. I agree that it is a choice.

 

But we make choices every day that involve risks and benefits. Every day I may choose to put my kids in a car when it is safer to stay home. Or I let them bike to the park. When a drunk person decides to drive, they don't think, "I want a particular person to die. I will drive drink to make that happen." They think, "This isn't THAT dangerous. It's worth the risk."

 

That simply is not premeditation.

 

However, I agree with you that in this case, when walking or cabbing or calling an ambulance is ALWAYS an option, the punishments should be equivalent.

[eternalsummer]

I think drunk people, especially people who drive drunk habitually, often do not assess the risk correctly; surely they are not suicidal (largely) and drunk drivers must kill themselves more often than other motorists.  

 

Similarly, old people, tired people, young/new drivers, people who are just terrible at driving (I know a few) - all of them drive too, and have higher levels of risk than your average, sober, 30-50, well-rested driver.  Old people, the stats say, tend to be somewhat better at assessing the risk correctly - while they have more accidents per driving time/miles than other groups, they also drive a lot less, and tend to avoid high traffic times, probably because they know their skills are not great.

 

One of the problematic effects of alcohol, in my experience, is that it tells you the bad ideas you have are not bad ideas, and the risky thing you want to do is not that risky.  

 

For people who have driven drunk, putting in one of those in-car breathalyser things that won't start unless you're sober seems like a good idea.

[Lizzie in Ma]

Ugh, not a fan of lawyers.  Also not a fan of people driving drunk. 

Edited April 3, 2016 by Lizzie in Ma