If you could virtually eliminate drunk driving, would you do it?

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

This one is actually extremely easy. The liberty that is being surrendered is the presumption of innocence. When you drive today you are presumed to not be committing a crime and are able to drive until you exhibit probable cause that you have or are committing a crime.

That argument doesn't work. With this "solution" you have an even greater presumption of innocence, since... you know.... the car is moving. Sure, someone else could have blown into it for you, but if its a borderline drunk/not drunk case the fact that the car started is a point in your favor.

A better argument is simple cost. Money, thats it. Making everyone pay extra because of the misdeeds of a few is arguably not worth it. We shouldn't try to save human lives at all costs, at some point the cost isn't worth it.

[shirtsleeve]

Originally Posted by alnorth

That argument doesn't work. With this "solution" you have an even greater presumption of innocence, since... you know.... the car is moving. Sure, someone else could have blown into it for you, but if its a borderline drunk/not drunk case the fact that the car started is a point in your favor.

A better argument is simple cost. Money, thats it. Making everyone pay extra because of the misdeeds of a few is arguably not worth it. We shouldn't try to save human lives at all costs, at some point the cost isn't worth it.

No, his arguement is exacty correct and do not try to corrupt it. Its about our constitution and the whole point of it. Does everyone here even understand that the constitution was intended to wrap in chains and constrict our federal government against us? Does eveyone understand when we cede our sovereign rights as individuals in this republic, we weaken it?

sad. really sad.

please dc this thing...it is about to get very very ugly...

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by shirtsleeve

No, his arguement is exacty correct and do not try to corrupt it. Its about our constitution and the whole point of it. Does everyone here even understand that the constitution was intended to wrap in chains and constrict our federal government against us? Does eveyone understand when we cede our sovereign rights as individuals in this republic, we weaken it?

sad. really sad.

please dc this thing...it is about to get very very ugly...

You are being silly.

"What? Why do I have to blow into this to start the car? You are assuming I am guilty and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

I can take that phrase and play Mad Libs for comedic affect.

"What? Why do I have to pass a test to get my license? You are assuming I am incapable of driving and have to prove my skill, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show proof of insurance every single time I'm stopped? You are assuming I am guilty of driving uninsured and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to go through an X-ray to fly? You are assuming I am a terrorist and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to have a background check to be hired for this government job? You are assuming I lied about not being a felon and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show ID when I swipe this card? You are assuming I am a thief and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

In the real world we have to be screened for all kinds of things. This is *NOT* a search without cause because no one is searching you. We're hypothetically passing a law saying all cars must have these devices. Don't like it? Tough sh*t, don't drive.

Again, a better argument is cost. This solution is too expensive for too many people to justify whatever lives might hypothetically be saved.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by alnorth

You are being silly.

"What? Why do I have to blow into this to start the car? You are assuming I am guilty and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

I can take that phrase and play Mad Libs for comedic affect.

"What? Why do I have to pass a test to get my license? You are assuming I am incapable of driving and have to prove my skill, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show proof of insurance every single time I'm stopped? You are assuming I am guilty of driving uninsured and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to go through an X-ray to fly? You are assuming I am a terrorist and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to have a background check to be hired for this government job? You are assuming I lied about not being a felon and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

"What? Why do I have to show ID when I swipe this card? You are assuming I am a thief and have to prove my innocence, how dare you!"

In the real world we have to be screened for all kinds of things. This is *NOT* a search without cause because no one is searching you. We're hypothetically passing a law saying all cars must have these devices. Don't like it? Tough sh*t, don't drive.

Again, a better argument is cost. This solution is too expensive for too many people to justify whatever lives might hypothetically be saved.

So realistically I don't have the time to spend discussing this and likely won't come back to this thread anytime soon but I'll try to provide a bit more education before I go.

Really this isn't complicated you just need to break it down. Consider what happens when one were to use an interlock system. First step you would breath into the system to allow it to measure you.

This is the first constitutional issue. Breathalyzers are allowed as an exception to self incrimination because the benefit to society vastly outweighs the small loss of individual liberty. However that exception to self incrimination is narrowly defined and one of the conditions is that you must have probable cause to conduct a test. You can't just ask someone to take a breathalyser test just because. There must be reasonable suspicion of being under the influence and if a court determines at trial that there was no probable cause for the test it will get thrown out.

So before you bring up the issue of blanket waving of my rights to probable cause, you're not actually allowed to do that. If you can blanket wave them then you have no rights. Even under implied consent rules you are still allowed to refuse a test if you choose and then you would go to court to defend that decision before you are convicted. In our society you are not punished until you are tried and convicted under due process.

This is the second constitutional issue, due process, when you were to breathe into the machine, it measures a number and immediately passes sentence. If you are measured below the limit your car starts, if you are measured above the limit you are punished and your car is denied to you until such time as you can generate a passing result.

This is a problem because the machine will periodically read high and will periodically read low, this is the nature of electronics. You will never get a 100% accurate device. You are denied due process because you are not allowed to question the accuracy of the reading, you are not allowed to confront your accuser, you are not allowed to present your case to a jury of your peers and you are not even allowed to present your case to a judge. Instead you are tried, convicted and sentenced within a fraction of a second.

Now you may not think that temporary denial of your vehicle is a big punishment but what if it causes you to miss a critical meeting for work that results in you getting fired. That generally small punishment could end up being huge.

When they place these things, they do so generally on multiple offenders and I believe as a condition of their parole for the duration of their parole. It's done because the repeat offender rate is so high that they have to do something to curb them. It's also not done as a condition of driving so much as it is done as a part of their punishment. They lose some of their rights because they are a repeat DUI offender, much like a violent felony offender loses his right to own firearms.

It's a part of our legal system that if you commit a serious enough offense, you can lose rights. But normal people don't lose those rights and even criminals can earn those rights back. That is also part of our system.

I'm sure there are other constitutional issues that just these two but these are the easy ones.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

So realistically I don't have the time to spend discussing this and likely won't come back to this thread anytime soon but I'll try to provide a bit more education before I go.

....(etc.)

You make some great points. My question is how does this differ from Alnorth's comparison of security at an airport. Can Airport security not be inaccurate? Can missing a flight not result in just as dire consequences as being kept from driving your car?

Doing zero fact checking, I am fairly sure that the number of drunk driving related deaths in the US greatly outweigh the number of airplane terrorist related deaths in the US. Is it the frequency with which we will be inconvenienced (and subsequently "sentenced") that is the issue?

I know it is for me. As I said, I wouldn't support the idea. I just don't know that it's anymore constitutionally invasive than measures that currently exist. Between inconvenience and cost, I don't think it would be worth it. There are plenty of safety measures that aren't implemented because they just aren't feasible, even if they are noble. That's how I feel about this one. Still, waving the constitution around over it seems a little dramatic.

[shirtsleeve]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

You make some great points. My question is how does this differ from Alnorth's comparison of security at an airport. Can Airport security not be inaccurate? Can missing a flight not result in just as dire consequences as being kept from driving your car?

Doing zero fact checking, I am fairly sure that the number of drunk driving related deaths in the US greatly outweigh the number of airplane terrorist related deaths in the US. Is it the frequency with which we will be inconvenienced (and subsequently "sentenced") that is the issue?

I know it is for me. As I said, I wouldn't support the idea. I just don't know that it's anymore constitutionally invasive than measures that currently exist. Between inconvenience and cost, I don't think it would be worth it. There are plenty of safety measures that aren't implemented because they just aren't feasible, even if they are noble. That's how I feel about this one. Still, waving the constitution around over it seems a little dramatic.

Airport security? Are you even a little OK with patdowns and full body scans of you gramma or your kids? Damn!

Its an outrage. And once again we give up our liberties to gain a little short term false security. Read Franklins quote again. ponder it for a while.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by shirtsleeve

Airport security? Are you even a little OK with patdowns and full body scans of you gramma or your kids? Damn!

Its an outrage. And once again we give up our liberties to gain a little short term false security. Read Franklins quote again. ponder it for a while.

OK. So you are against any airport security whatsoever? Metal detectors and x-rays for your luggage? Don't they assume just as much guilt as a breathalyzer attached to your car? Either way you have to prove you aren't breaking the law to get where you're going.