Do you think courts are to leniant for the simple fact that drunk drivers are endangering the lives of everyone around? I think they should be.
2006-10-27 04:14:07 · 23 answers · asked by Star 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes it should be. We had here in Houston a couple that was killed the other day by a driver of Our Wonderful Mayors Safeclear program (a tow truck driver) who had 5 previous convictions of drunk driving. WTF, how does he still have a license let alone a license to be a tow truck driver?
2006-10-27 04:17:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No- Some people can drink two beers and show over the limit ,a still be a better and more alert driver than alot of drivers on the road .Yet , having an accident while talking on the cell phone , putting on make-up,reaching down for something in the seat or floorboard while driving is that not a bad crime too and whats there excuse.
2006-10-27 04:28:14 · answer #2 · answered by cottoncandyn2000 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes i really do think that they should be stricter. My best friend was involved in an accident with a drunk driver. She was in hospital on life support for 3 months. All the drunk driver of the other car got was a six month ban from driving. He was 4 times over the limit. I never Drink and drive. I never have done. I just think that people who do are very stupid and idiotic.
2006-10-27 04:26:43 · answer #3 · answered by Laurie 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Definitely, there should be stricter enforcement. Frank Perdue (remember the president of the chicken farms?) actually had an incredible number of drunk driving offenses and accidents, and actually killed people driving drunk, and never had his license revoked or did any jail time. Some of our politicians have gotten off just as easily. It's disgusting. Meanwhile, my son gets pulled over because the stock exhaust on his car is 'too loud'.
Some of the Northern European countries I visited had extremely strict laws, like one drunk driving episode and you lose your license forever and they hold the person who gave you the alcohol, whether at a home or a business, responsible, too. That would make someone take the law seriously!
2006-10-27 04:20:02 · answer #4 · answered by wynterwood 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i do no longer think of it would desire to ever be 0. think of in case you have been over the cut back through white wine interior the sauce of a fish dish to illustrate, or the brandy on the crepe suzette! commencing coursework the nighttime earlier, classic. the two financial equipment and society could be badly harm by potential of this. The catering employer might go through extremely if even a 0.5 of lager could no longer be enjoyed after a meal out. i might desire to pass on and on. Edit: merely study the distinctive previous solutions. human beings rather are stupid, a 0 drink drink cut back might have a damaging effect on each and every little thing. Drink using injuries are brought about by potential of drivers OVER the cut back. If each person caught to the modern-day cut back, then there does no longer be drink using injuries. the cut back is totally large the place it quite is, it quite is the persons who drink stress now might do precisely the comparable if it replaced right into a 0 cut back. reducing it to 0 does no longer resolve it in any respect. If something it might make it worse.
2016-12-28 06:25:10 · answer #5 · answered by melvina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't even understand the concept of a repeat offender being arrested for drunk driving. In this area there is always a newspaper article about people being killed by someone who was driving without a license even after five convictions for drunk driving. Obviously taking their license away was worthless. Strict jail time requirements seem to be the only thing that make sense. If they are convicted the first time they should have their car confiscated as well as their license. I know that is harsh but life for their victims is even harsher.
2006-10-27 04:21:08 · answer #6 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No they are good enough. I live in PA and the sentencing for DUI is out of control. You could do much worse things and get less.
On the otherhand if you kill someone or injure them while driving drunk then your sentence should be harsh. I have had a DUI while I was underage the law in PA is zero tolerace for that. I had one drink and had to pay $1300 in fines have a breathalizer on my car for 6 months lost my licence for one month, ARD classes and comunnity service 40 hours and 1 year parol. I really think that is enough. Oh I blew a .008 that's like taking cough medicine.
2006-10-27 04:39:22 · answer #7 · answered by monkay78 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that people should have so many chances to drive drunk and get away with it. The very first time it happens they should lose their license for good, the person can use public transportation. If the public transportation system sucks oh well, they should have thought of that before they drank and drove.
2006-10-27 04:23:25 · answer #8 · answered by blu_drgn25 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think yes!! The minimum should be a felony conviction with one year in prison and NO chance of ever getting back your drivers license. However, That does not stop the buggers from driving. I know of alcoholics who drive with their license gone. So what do you do? Give them life in prison? Maybe that might smarten them up. But I doubt it! Any person who gets behind a wheel drunk is an idiot to begin with!!!!!!!
2006-10-27 04:26:44 · answer #9 · answered by tjinjapan 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe the law should take away their cars, license, and not have them drive for three years and if they violate the sentence put them in jail. Cause drunk drivers cause more pain to rthe innocent and are guilty of muder when some dies beacuse of thier problem.
2006-10-27 04:28:17 · answer #10 · answered by motb 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋