the possibility of change

by Anonymous 12 years ago

After 11 times driving drunk, and getting caught? It endangers people, and I don't think the slim chance of change is worth endangering so many people on the hope that they won't do again what they've shamelessly done 11 times before.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know 11 times is a lot, but people do complete 180s especially with major life changes. also, awareness and assistance can go a long way and change slim chances to likely if you say 11 times, what about 5 times or 4 times? Wouldn't there need to be more studies/research to get a better number? maybe there could be some modification because you said under no circumstances. if the individual is clean for a x amount of time and it's clear that he/she has changed, then would that be sufficient in giving the license back? But how would that be determined? the whole thing is just really messy it's messy the way the law is right now too maybe there's a better solution?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's true, but they need to prove they've changed first- which I can't think of a way to do without giving them the chance to make the same mistake again. In any case, they certainly need to do something- at least revoke it temporarily while the person undergoes a mandatory rehab class, then go through getting a license again.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think they should have their license taken away and be forced to go to AA / rehab / something similar. After that's completed, they should be allowed to have it back but if they get another DUI, they shouldn't have a license. The sad thing is that's probably not going to keep them from driving.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It should be hard, but possible. Some people do make legitimate changes, and they shouldn't be punished more severely on the general assumption that its not very likely. Of they've completed AA, spend a decent amount of time sober, than yeah.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's a matter pf priorities, though. Most drink driving instances don't get caught. If they're allowed to drive again, then they could get away with it multiple times before they're caught again. It is much safer to revoke their license after three strikes (not just one), like the way mentioned above.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It would be even safer not to let anyone drive ever. At some point, human rights have to take precedence. Besides, a license isn't some magical key that you need to operate a motor vehicle. If they're going to break the law and drink and drive, how concerned would they be about having a license?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Once automated cars are invented, I'm all for them... until then though, we still need to get around somehow, and I live in a place with virtually no good public transportation, do driving is like the only good way. They could be making an irrational risk because they think they'll get away with it, not because they don't feel the stakes are high enough. Just because they drive drunk doesn't mean they don't value their license (though it usually does)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The only good way, yes. But it's still inarguably more dangerous than walking of biking If they feel like they're going to get away with it, they must also be somewhat confident that they won't get pulled over. The thing is, if they're gonna break the law, they're gonna break the law. License or not. If they have their license, they at least have the potential to drive legally, which could encourage them to. Why take away any chance they have of driving legally, when really, as you just said, it's the only practical mean of transportation for some people? What if it's some stupid college kid who does it repeatedly, loses his license, grows up and has a family. Ten, twenty years later, do you wanna tell him he can't drive his kids around because of some mistakes he made and paid for a long time ago?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That is a really good point, perhaps then (only in a place without reliable public transportation), licenses can be reattained after, say, 2 years. For each successive DUI after reattaining it the amount of years it takes to get it back increases

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That sounds about fair.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Which means, for 11 DUI's, that would be: 1 DUI= suspension (6 months, say) 2 DUI =suspension + rehab (another 6 months) 3 DUI= 2 year suspended license 4 DUI= 3 year suspended license 5 DUI= 4 year suspended license 6 DUI= 5 year suspended license 7 DUI= 6 year suspended license 8 DUI= 7 year suspended license 9 DUI= 8 year suspended license 10 DUI= 9 year suspended license 11 DUI= 10 year suspended license By that time, they'd have to be at least 63 years old to get 11 DUI's, and they wouldn't be able to drive again until they're 73, assuming they got the first DUI the second they got a license at 18, and immediately got caught after each time they got a license again. With that little driving in between, it would be extremely unwise for anybody to get 11 DUI's, and those who do, probably shouldn't be allowed to drive past 11 offenses anyways, because of age, and because that is thorough proof that they won't change. I think a better cutoff point would be that, if you get 10 DUI's, then you're done. If 36 years isn't enough time to change and you're 54 years old, then you have no credibility left

by Anonymous 12 years ago

First of all, I kind of skimmed your last comment and missed the part about it increasing. Secondly, it depends entirely on how much it increases. Besides, if it does take that long, why bother with a cutoff date at all?

by Anonymous 12 years ago