This is so off topic now, but w/e. This isn't me defending Floyd at all, this is just me taking a shot at drunk driving propaganda. I was heavily involved in SADD when I was in high school... and as a byproduct of my research learned that basically all drunk driving laws are bullshit pushed through by MADD. MADD is no different than any other special interest group with an agenda and lobbying arm. I don't blame them for being so impassioned because they lost a child or relative or someone they cared about to drunk driving... but they've lead a carefully constructed campaign of misinformation by carefully choosing which facts they present/highlight to make people think drunk driving is FAR more dangerous than it actually is. Everything from carefully curtailed studies to their misleading "drunk goggles" they give kids to simulate the experience of being over the limit... it's all bullshit.
First of all, a .19 is really bad. At this level, most people are what you would consider "hammered" and it's completely irresponsible to drive. However, it's not the same for each person, and while charts will make it sound like you're blackout drunk at this point there are tons of people who can function "normally" at a high BAC like this. And breathalyzers can be historically inaccurate. Never trust what someone "blows"... only trust a blood test.
Second, the odds of a drunk driver causing a fatality when they get behind the wheel are incredibly low. Only roughly 1 in 200 accidents (0.5%) result in a fatality. There are roughly 1.13 fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled including all conditions. On the highish side of averages, a drunk driver with 0.10 BAC is ~10 times more likely to get into a fatal accident than a normal 0.00 BAC driver. So... doing the math... a drunk driver with a 0.10 BAC has a 0.00001% chance of causing an auto fatality per mile driven. Or, to put it in more regular terms, if you have very long 10 mile drive home from a bar and are drunk you have a 1 in a million chance of being in a fatal accident. How exactly is that extremely dangerous/reckless? Those are pretty good odds, and in many professions... like construction... are considered simply acceptable daily risk. You have a MUCH higher probability of fatality in most cities simply walking around late at night then getting behind the wheel "dangerously" drunk.
Last but not least, a "normal" driver with a .10 BAC is safer than an elderly driver with a 0.00 BAC. If drunk driving is truly so dangerous and such a scourge that it needs to taken incredibly seriously and harshly punished... then why do we permit 70+ year old people to drive at all? They are, statistically, much more likely to kill someone on the road than an "average" driver who is above the legal limit.
Just some food for thought.
Is it though? Is it?
See my above post. 1 in a million he kills someone. Literally... one in a million. Don't buy the drunk driving propaganda machine.
I'm actually glad you brought this up. I know it's almost taboo to say so, but the DWI/DUI laws have gotten ridiculous. And I say this as somebody very anti-drunk driving and as somebody who has seen lives destroyed by it. But the DUI industry in America has become a racket. It truly has. Again, I make no defense of driving while drunk, but the game has been rigged.
States have lowered the legal limit (sometimes due to pressure from the federal government withholding money to states until lowered), to where .08 is now considered intoxicated. A universal standard is applied to something that doesn't effect people universally. Hmmm, makes sense. VERY questionable methods are used in pulling over, questioning, and then field testing a suspect. Then the universal standard is placed on a test where the device used isn't extremely reliable. Refusal to take this test now results in automatic guilt in most states. I guess I find it strange that people our judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence, until guilt is proven. Yet in the DUI industry, the opposite is what happens-- guilty unless proven innocent. I wonder why the aclu and other advocacy groups don't bring this up?
I think the biggest reason people don't fight it is MADD. I appreciate MADD and have worked with them some over the years. But no politician or advocacy group is going to stand up to or in opposition against a mother who has lost a child to a drunk driver. But as Lax said, they are the ones steering the ship when it comes to DUI laws in our country. And statistics are manipulated or outright falsified against drivers who have been drinking.
I think the monetary issue is another reason for the current state of DUI laws. For some lawyers, this is the bread and butter of their practice. I am grateful that many states have closed closed some loopholes and have given mandatory sentencing for violators, but even still, I hear stories all the time about people spending $6k, $10k, $12k for a lawyer...for a traffic stop with mandatory guidelines. What the hell is the lawyer doing to "earn" that money?? Even lawyers not charging that much still earn considerable income from the DUI/DWI industry. I've have 2 friends in 2 different states who have recently told me that self-representation is the best way to go.
And then the fees and fines have become a cottage industry for many municipalities. The fees and fines paid for DUI's and DWI's adds quite a bit to the coffers.
So, bottom line, regardless of how I may feel about the offense itself, I still have a problem with laws that seriously hardship a person's professional, financial, and personal life based on vague circumstances, a not-totally reliable test based on a low universal standard for something that doesn't effect people universally, that lines the pockets of lawyers and local government offices, all crafted by a group of people we feel sympathetic toward.
I definitely think there is room in our country to be anti drunk driving, yet anti current-system-in-place.
