Crapo arrested on DUI

[Badger]

Leaving aside the absolutely brain-dead and ill-informed arguments for legalizing drunk driving Crapo won't suffer serious political fallout here. He's heavily popular, making the right mea culpas, and has 4 years before facing re-election (3.5 to a primary, I guess). Yeah, the fact he's an LDS bishop in a state with a large Mormon population (especially among GOP primary voters, i'd guess) adds a wrinkle. But if Vitter can survive with nary a scratch, so will Crapo.

[Badger]

Current DUI/DWI penalties are fine.

you support coerced 12-step participation for non-addicts and non-alcoholics?

<facepalm>

[Badger]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

that's fine, but we still must balance a. the human costs of criminalization with the perceived human benefits and b. further assess causality: the harsher penalities may not be driving down the rate and recidivism, it could be the public health campaign, something else, etc.

It is unquestionably both public education combined with deterring penalties that have driven the number of drunk driving deaths and maimings down in recent years--DRAMATICALLY. It would seem by any reasonable measure that the criminalization of grossly irresponsible behavior of getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle moving dozens of miles an hour while under the influence, measured against the lives and limbs saved SHOULD be a no brainer.

[Badger]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

that's fine, but we still must balance a. the human costs of criminalization with the perceived human benefits and b. further assess causality: the harsher penalities may not be driving down the rate and recidivism, it could be the public health campaign, something else, etc.

It is unquestionably both public education combined with deterring penalties that have driven the number of drunk driving deaths and maimings down in recent years--DRAMATICALLY. It would seem by any reasonable measure that the criminalization of grossly irresponsible behavior of getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle moving dozens of miles an hour while under the influence, measured against the lives and limbs saved SHOULD be a no brainer.

In my .11 DUI episode (plea bargained down after 18 months to a wet reckless, because I insisted that their was a possible lack of probable cause to stop me in the first instance defense), for a first time offense, I got 14 hours in jail, could not drive for a month, then six months of only to work and back and to DUI classes, 10 Saturdays at DUI classes plus a MADD session, can't drive with any alcohol in me for 3 years, and have about $15,000 over time in higher insurance premiums. Is that penalty harsh enough in your opinion Badger?

Hell no! Public flogging through the streets you miscreant!!

Seriously, Torie, what you received was plenty. My outrage is at libertards and the shamelessly irresponsible in this thread and elsewhere who suggest decriminalizing impaired driving.

[Badger]

I can't believe people in this thread are defending drunk driving.

There are those on this forum who will say anything to get attention.  Tweed, Opebo, etc. will espouse insane and illogical and dangerous views because we react to them.

I think the strawman you are quoting is something that was designed just "to get attention."  If someone is drunk and driving that is clearly a problem and I don't see anyone in this thread defending that sort of behavior.  The problem with you and your attention seeking friend is somewhere along the way someone forgot to teach you, people are unique and no one with a high school level of science knowledge would ever make the ridiculous claim that one blood level obtained by a suspect test like a breathalyzer is definitive proof of the same level of mental impairment in 100% of the population 100% of the time.  And it is certainly not enough to label one person completely fine and one person a felon.  Breathalyzers and the 0.08% limit are a farce and a joke.

It's unbelievable in a first world country with a constitution people are routinely imprisoned with nothing more than a 0.08% breathalyzer result and the half @$$ed testimony of a cop.  I mean if 0.08% was used for something like a modest fine I could understand.  But a felony conviction?!

I'm going to ignore the usual brigade of attention whores and libertards, but I respect you enough, Link, to tell you you're just plain wrong here.

Most people reach the point of appreciable impairment (the standard legal definition for "under the influence") once they pass a .04 BAC level. The large majority of people reach that past .06 to .07. At .08 BAC even the 1 in a 1000 exceptional individual on the bell curve for alcohol tolerance (whether due to personal metabolism and/or drinking habits or a combination) IS to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty appreciably impaired in their mental/physical coordination/driving abilities.

The .08 legal standard actually is already high enough to include a number of people who are actually under the influence (and fun fact: people can be and are convicted of DUI when they're under a .08 but have had too much to drink to adequately control their driving, they just aren't per se guilty for a prohibited BAC) in order to protect the rights of the small minority with high tolerance.

I base this on having presented the testimony and reports of VERY knowledgeable forensic toxicologists who know as much on the subject as anyone in Ohio. I'll spare you the hours of scientific jargon and simply summarize: "You're wrong".