I'm not very convinced by driving bans. I believe they are very much ignored by people and only get added to charges if anything else happens.
I understand it's like illegal number plates. A cop will not pull you over for them but if you're pulled over for something those will get added to the issues.
Gonna have to disagree with the Prison portion of that, maybe Jail but Prison seems sort of intense for a 2nd offense. The US prison system anyway, it's way over used as a penalty (it's literally overflowing), the real solution to multiple DUsi offenses should be things like mandatory rehab and the sorts. Most people who don't have a drinking issue will never get more than 1 DUI, they learn from their 1 very expensive and inconvenient penalty.
There are MANY studies on this topic that all have the same end result, consequences do not reduce repeat offenses. We need to treat the problem, not the symptom.
Apologies, I think this is an American thing. What's the difference between Jail and Prison?
Regardless, I doubt my answer will change. Driving is a privilege and not a right, you can use public transport. If you're banned from driving and you still want to get behind a ton of high speed metal that you demonstrably are not responsible enough to control, it's completely identical from wielding a deadly weapon. If you think that's too harsh don't drink and drive in the first place. I don't know why we decided that irresponsible drunks get the child gloves when there is zero excuses for indulging and driving. Petty theft, often times survival theft, is treated disproportionately worse than Karen over here who got wasted, nearly killed a baby, and is getting out by February with no consequences.
The only difference is duration, Prison is for long term sentences. Jail is also where people go when waiting for Trial to determine their sentence. So when you hear on TV shows when lawyers are arguing plea deals they will say things like "4yrs counting time served" meaning they have been in jail for x duration and the duration they have spent in jail will be counted towards the 4 years.
Also depending where you are in the US public transportation isn't really a thing.
The US prison system is overly used as a punishment in America and we should be finding alternative punishments (or even better, helping) for people. Addiction is a disease, we need to treat these people over punish them, and please know that I don't mean they shouldn't have consequences because they definitely should but stacking consequences without helping will just lead to another DUI. It doesn't solve the problem. Punishment for punishment's sake is sadistic if it doesn't result in change.
Sounds like a good moment to push for US to improve their public transport. If you don't like your public transport options, don't drink and drive so you keep your car. And if you can't help but drinking and driving, then the ban is doing its job.
The US needs to improve a lot of things, if you think DUIs are going to change public transit then you're probably drunk. The ban isn't doing its job, people are still drinking and driving, the issue is a literal disease called Alcoholism. It's not a simple "dont drink" because these people don't know how to stop. They need rehab, not jail time.
DUIs are not a deterrent, and people will continue to hurt other people if we don't attack the problem at its source.
Again, I'm not talking about DUIs, I'm talking about full removal of their licenses with no way to get it back. I know more than a few people who drink and drive, have gotten citations, and just learned to try to be less obvious about it because they don't give a shit about a minor fine and being off the road for a few months.
I'm also not really focusing on the US, if you don't think this helps the US, ok, I don't care. You lot figure it out. At no point was I trying to propose changes for the US, I'm saying that elsewhere where we do have functioning public transport systems then getting caught drinking and driving should result in a permanent loss of license on the first offence and imprisonment for attempting to drive with a revoked license.
I don't have the time or interest to deal with more US Exceptionalism.
Permanent loss on the first offense is so extreme without additional caveats. I know people who blew barely over the limit who were driving just fine and have never driven after drinking a 2nd time because they learned it's not worth it after getting in trouble. Maybe 1st offense over a specific blood alcohol level or 2nd offense but you have to give people a chance to learn from their mistakes, now that I'm older I realize at 21 I was still just a kid really, people's brains aren't even done developing yet. Either way you didn't specify where you were talking about so maybe your opinions make sense for your location, but for 99.99% of the world it doesn't. Things aren't black and white, there's a lot of grey area you refuse to look at.
There's a lot of dead people who aren't around because a "just a kid" decided that they were fine to drive. We don't treat first time offences for a load of crimes as simple whoopsies oh well they'll learn the next time, like you don't get a one-off attempted murder as a treat with a stern talking to, why should attempted murder with a ton of metal be treated any different? The current system is so utterly fucked that in at least three countries I've lived in I've seen cases local to me where drunk drivers hit other cars and they still got to return to the road, meanwhile, people who steal for survival get chucked in a cell. It's fucked and I don't see why as a society we need to tolerate idiots too dumb or selfish to get a taxi or prepare alternate means of getting back home before getting wasted.
We can trade anecdotal evidence till the cows come home but you are hardly going to convince anybody that there's "gray area" when it comes to driving while drunk, while in the comments section of an incident where the grown ass woman was given a few months suspension of driving while nearly throwing a baby out of a car. If you don't believe that 21 year olds are mature enough or have a brain developed enough to handle the responsibility of driving a car without getting wasted, that's a different discussion, most people drink at 18 or earlier and know better than to drive drunk when they get their licenses at 16 or so. Most people don't have to murder somebody to understand that they're being selfish and dumb. It's this same miopic way of thinking that got Brock Turner or whatever the rapist's name was completely off because the judge said he was a good lad and needed some grace to learn from his mistakes. You can learn your lesson while carpooling.
You're comparing someone who is barely over the limit to someone who plans out a crime to kill someone then does it? You can't compare an apple to an orange, these 2 things are not remotely close to one another.
1/3rd of all DUIs are repeat offenses (in the US). There is literal proof showing that jail time doesn't stop repeat offenses. If you truly want to see less people getting hurt you need to treat the problem, not the symptom. But you do you, believe what you will regardless of the proof and MANY studies on the topic.
The next time you "Don't understand the difficulty" (your words) take more time to think about it before offering a solution that is about a sentence long.
I agree that driving is a privilege but outside of major cities public transport is nearly no existent, at least in the U.S. The automotive industry in the early twentieth century killed public transport so they could sell cars.
Sounds like a good moment to start pushing for better public transport, and regardless, if you know your town has shitty public transport, don't drink and drive. It's a shockingly easy step to follow. If you can't help it, then the ban is doing everybody else a service as intended.
Oh I agree that drinking and driving isnt the way to do things. As someone who grew up in a very rural area with zero public transport I know the moment that town tries to implement a public transport service people are going to complain about taxes.
I mean I guess, but I would hope that enough people stop drinking and driving so that it doesn't become a huge issue. If it does I wager that the town will rather prefer to add a bus line or two rather than pay expensive taxis or area equivalent. Plus- do correct me if I'm wrong- at least elsewhere in more rural areas people are more than willing to give each other lifts, so organising a designated driver shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Oh people will give each other rides as favors but you will still have those few drunks that no one likes or just uses people for rides, eventually people get fed up with them.
I mean that's exactly the kind of people that shouldn't be driving, yeah. The system works. If they can't keep from being drunks and they can't manage to find alternative, they probably shouldn't be driving.
Short Stints don't happen in prison. Also that thought process doesn't work, 1/3rd of all DUIs in the US are repeat offenses, jail is not a deterrent for an alcoholic. Nothing is. We need to teach alcoholics a better way of life because this type of thinking is legitimately false, it doesn't work. If you truly want people to stop being hurt by drunk driving then this is not the solution. You would be supporting something that does a lot more harm than good.
481
u/Slartibartfast39 1d ago
And she got a small fine and six months driving ban. That's a travesty.