Why do DUI drivers get more slack against the safety of children than sex offenders?

Because sex offenders are scarier.

Let’s see, how to answer this in a nice way. Screw it. Here’s the deal:

A DUIer is an effing moron douche bag piece of shit but a pedophile is intentionally trying to put his dick in your child. They are two wildly different types of offenders.

Because every sex offender against children has harmed a child, and meant to. Lots of DUI drivers harmed nobody, and those who did didn’t mean to. Which is not to let the DUIs off, but deliberate premeditated certain harm is surely worse than lazy unintentional chancy harm.

Sexual abuse is a premeditated intentional crime. Driving while under the influence is not. Your comparison and conclusion fails in several ways. In my state, the DUI law is extremely harsh.

I’m not so sure that any kind of rape is usually premeditated. It could be a spur-of-the-moment thing in a moment of weakness.

I don’t know anything one way or the other about that, @Fyrius, but anybody who has done it at least once before has to know his pattern and his triggers, right? Allowing the pattern to continue unchecked is close enough to premeditation for me.

@Jeruba “anybody who has done it at least once before has to know his pattern and triggers, right?”

it takes at least twice to make a pattern

drunk drivers aren’t targeting children to have sex with them?

When he’s ready to do it again, that’s twice. I’m suggesting that perhaps a person has a choice right then, when he sees “It’s happening again.” But I am not a student of this behavior; just speculating.

One is a premeditated act whereas the other is more of an unintended consequence.

I’m not saying that DUI is right, but given the number of repeat offenders in both categories, it would appear that the current sentences are not any real deterrent.

1) First off, if you’re expecting anywhere near 100% fairness or consistency in the laws of the United States, you have yet to be properly disillusioned.

2) We sometimes go too far with sex offenders…not every sex offender is a pedophile, and not every pedophile is a sex offender, and unfortunately, we have people who are painted as registered sex offenders for sending sexy pics of themselves to their significant others when they are underage, or even for relieving themselves outdoors.

3) We definitely do not go far enough with DUIs, there’s no excuse as far as I’m concerned, you know that driving drunk could cause someone’s death, in my opinion that’s akin to attempted murder, and in my opinion there is no real difference between attempted murder and actual murder from the standpoint of the offender (why is it a lesser crime to shoot a gun at someone if you happen to be a lousy shot?). So, you get busted for drunk driving, you should be treated like any other person who has the intent to kill.

Now however, consider what it would take to make the punishments more equitable. First off, you’re not going to get people by and large to sign off on relaxing the “sex offender” definitions, almost everyone but sex offenders themselves find sex offenders repugnant. People freak right the hell out when their childrens’ safety even appears in any way to be in jeopardy, doesn’t even have to be a real threat…you could pass just about any ballot initiative you wanted to if you could convince people it made their children more safe. But how are you going to convince people that having a couple of drinks is really all that bad? By virtue of the fact more adults are parents than are not, one would expect more drunk drivers have kids than not, it’s not localized to just people with no kids. They don’t see that THEY are a threat when they have a couple beers, and they don’t see that THEIR kids are in danger if hey drive with a couple beers under their belts.

Then of course there’s the fact that the vast majority of us don’t even know that we’re legally drunk when they are…I think most people think they’re fine until way above .08, and it’s not like free breathalizers are (yet) available everywhere one might drink.

So, let’s say that we put up for vote a law that every place that sells alcohol needs to have a free breathalizer available…well, bars aren’t going to want to pay for that, nor are taxpayers who don’t go out drinking, imagine the fight. Then if bars were required to buy them, everyone who rallied for the rights of “small business” would be up in arms about it. Couple that then with some severe penalties for driving drunk, take away the excuse legally and then punish the lawbreakers for attempted murder, well, the brewers and distillers are going to put TONS of money in the pockets of Congresspeople (many of whom get drunk and drive themselves from time to time).

Laws aren’t made to be fair, they’re made based on who squeals the loudest, who pays the most, who wields the most influence. I mean, think about it…we have legal booze and cigarettes, each of which kills thousands upon thousands each year, yet marijuana which has never been linked to a single death is illegal. Why? because booze and tobacco make TONS of money for the campaigns of the people who make the laws, yet hemp would compete with the paper industry, which also makes a lot of money for the campaigns of people who make the laws.

Does it matter? Even if those lushes are not targeting children purposely for sex, does that make plowing into them less damaging? If they lose their life, end up parentless. Or end up disfigured or in a chair the rest of their life peeing in a bag, or maybe just dead, that is better? Because what, they were not plowed into intentionally by the drunk who it was not his 1st time driving drunk? Explain it to me, I don’t see it. Those douches that fall off the wagon (if one does their research) pound for pound fall off the wagon more than those committing sex crimes. The fact remains, those who have are given time after time to get back behind the wheel, where they are not only a danger to children but ALL OF US, you and me. Again, intent do not make a hell of beans when you have to tell a kid your parents are dead or you have to slide one into a body bag. Oops, I should have took a cab is a bit late.

GA @jerv, You saved me the trouble. Lurve and welcome.

I’m not sure what people expect people with DUIs to do. The punishment is extremely harsh already. People who do not follow through with their punishment, and continue to drive are usually the ones who end up causing the accidents. Not everyone with a DUI completely ignore their punishment.

@casheroo – true, but I know/know of very few people with two or three. It’s generally, zero, one, or four-plus.

@casheroo – five words. Death penalty for repeat offenders.

@dalepetrie Ah, so how many repeat offenses? What type of DUIs? Just alcohol, or marijuana as well? How high over the limit?

Well, that would depend, like I said, I really think you would HAVE to make free breathalizers available anywhere on sale alcohol was sold. That would take away any “I don’t know” excuses. If that were the case….I say anyone can make a mistake, particularly if they are young, but if they are punished harshly the first time, I mean having them do community service wiping the asses of people who’ve been crippled by drunk drivers, taking away their drivers’ licenses, impounding their vehicles, making them spend a few days in jail…basically make it CRYSTAL clear that this screw up was more than just a simple “whoops”, it is a serious offense that could have had serious life or death consequences, consequences we make these people SEE first hand, then there would be ZERO excuse for ANYONE who has gone through this to EVER offend again, period.

So, to answer your questions:

What type of DUI…you drive something with the capability of killing someone it hits, that’s what kind. I’m not talking about someone who was sitting behind the wheel of his car in a parking lot to warm up with the key in the ignition if he was not driving and had no intention of doing so, I’m not talking about some redneck who got on his riding lawnmower that does all of 6 mph, I’m not talking about someone getting on his bicycle….I mean someone who could reasonably cause another person’s death because he was operating a machine which if it hit someone could kill that person. That’s the type of DUI I mean.

Just alcohol or marijuana as well…I honestly don’t know if marijuana impairs your driving the way alcohol does, if the scientific evidence says that at a certain concentration in the bloodstream, you meet the definition of being legally impaired in that your ability to operate a motorized vehicle is compromised, then yes. That goes for any substance which can cause one to be legally impaired. However to be 100% just, I would want to see marijuana legalized, a specific “legal limit” established, and a method for individuals to determine if they were impaired with no cost. With current prohibition, I would be more forgiving of the “I didn’t know I was impaired” defense for marijuana.

As for how high over the limit….at the legal limit. If we’ve determined that .08 impairs your ability to operate a motorized vehicle, then as far as I’m concerned, if you have made your mistake, been shown why what you did was incredibly wrong, given a ton of reasons to never do it again, and yet your ignorant, selfish ass still does it, bam, death penalty, because you are no better than an attempted murderer.

The catch with putting a BAC limit on DUI is that tolerance varies widely. I know people who can barely stand (are severely impaired) after a single drink that would leave their BAC at half the legal limit or less in most jurisdictions while I also know hardcore drinkers that will pass any sobriety test except a breathalyzer and blow 0.10 after a full nights sleep.

There are also other things to be under the influence of, and some of them may be prescribed.

@dalepetrie There actually is a legal limit on how much marijuana is in your system, it’s a urine test. My husbands second DUI was due to marijuana. He did not go over the legal limit, but it was in a gray area, so they left it up to the arresting officers (who wouldn’t want to slap a kid who’s father is the public defender, with a second dui? and when they didn’t have enough proof and were left up to their own discretion…saving face, cops will almost always find something.)
Also, what if the person has a DUI and gets probation, but breaks probation (and not by getting a DUI again..there are other ways) how severe should that punishment be, compared to what it already is (it includes more fines, and jailtime)

I don’t know. I’ve experienced the punishment of DUIs first hand, and I’ve never even had one. When a person actually follows the punishment, it affects their entire life for many years…I think it’s unfair to judge everyone with a DUI under their belt, especially without knowing the circumstances.
The hatred is misdirected. It’s the people who don’t follow through with the punishment. They have no regard for the law, or others and are usually the ones who end up killing people. I’ve read cases of people with more than 10 duis who finally kill someone and then they get taken off the street for that. I do think mandatory jail time should be enforced after the third DUI, but you can only keep someone in jail for so long…and the way you’d have it, a person with a DUI would do more jailtime than a rapist would (in our legal system)

@casheroo – no actually, I think you misunderstand slightly. First off, your husband’s case, being a 2nd DUI, well if it was not over the legal limit, like I said, we’d have an established legal limit, and a way to determine if one was impaired easily…your husband would not have been too harshly punished as far as I’m concerned…if he wasn’t over the legal definition of impairment, then since I would personally advocate for the legalization of marijuana, he would under my system have never gotten a 2nd DUI and would be free to go. As for the assertion that under my system a person with a DUI (meaning a single DUI) would do more time than a rapist, no, that’s not true. I might have a person spend a night or two in lockup for the first DUI, more as a scare tactic to deter and impart the seriousness of the crime. And certainly I think we might need some sort of grandfather clause if we were to implement something like what I’m saying…right now “I didn’t know I was too drunk” is a legitimate excuse, so it’s going to be hard to say that someone with one or two DUIs under their belt at this time, if the DUIs were right on the border and it were plausible that they may really NOT have known they were too drunk, should now suddenly be held to a one strike and you’re dead standard. But overall, I think it would be a good standard going forward. And I will say too that anyone (even your husband) who is CAUGHT driving drunk has probably driven drunk more than just that one time (and ergo taken the lives of untold strangers into their own hands on untold occassions). That’s wrong, I don’t care WHO you are.

@dalepetrie I hope it doesn’t come across that I’m okay with driving and drinking. I do think they need to change the punishment up.
Like, for instance, usually you don’t need the Interlock (what you blow into to start your car/while driving) unless you break probation or get a severe punishment. I think it should be mandatory for a year after one DUI, no way around it. That’s just one thing that should change (in my opinion)

@casheroo – Nope, wasn’t thinking you were OK w/ drinking and driving, and FWIW, I would advocate the same thing even if it meant the death penalty for a close family member or friend…right is right, wrong is wrong and I think if you take away any ability to question that what you are doing is wrong, and you still choose to do it, then the public interest dictates that you be kept from intentionally doing things that can cause grievous harm to others…if you can’t stop yourself, it’s up to the government to stop you by any means necessary. May sound harsh, but I’m a big believer that intent is the most important factor.

One of the differences is that in the US today (in all but the biggest metropolitan areas) having a vehicle available to get to and from work is all but a necessity. And most adults also drink—even though a much smaller number, but probably still a majority—have at some time had a drink or two and then driven, with no ill effects.

For example, when I go out to dinner, I normally have two drinks plus dinner. I can feel the effects of the alcohol soon after I have the drinks, but by the time I’ve finished a dinner I can’t feel any effects any more. I don’t think that I’ve ever ‘driven drunk’, but I don’t have a breathalyzer, either, so I don’t know for certain. I think that most people on juries for DUI cases realize that they could have been in such a gray area, too. And judges, too. (Here in Connecticut we had a State Supreme Court justice arrested for DUI on a state highway last fall; the whole stop and her ‘performance’ at the State Police barracks afterward was on video—and made public. I don’t know what the ultimate result of that case will be yet.)

So we’re reluctant to make hard laws and enforce harsh penalties against people when it might cost them—and their families—a livelihood.

On the other hand, most of us also have children, and we do everything we can to protect them—and can’t even imagine sexually abusing them. So it’s much easier for us to throw the book at people who are perceived to be “that kind of person”. (I agree that the “sex offender” label is too often abused for non-sex crimes, but I think that will be evened out eventually.)

So for DUIs, the main stress is to get them to recognize and change their behaviors while still maintaining a productive life. (At least for first-time offenders.) And for pedophiles, we want them locked up, punished, and hurt.

@CyanoticWasp Than you for pointing out some glaring hypocrisies in there with On the other hand, most of us also have children, and we do everything we can to protect them and can’t even imagine sexually abusing them. So it’s much easier for us to throw the book at people who are perceived to be “that kind of person”. When it come to “that kind of person” you are right, many can’t see them associated with them. However, as you said, they can see themselves associated with a drunk driver, I think that most people on juries for DUI cases realize that they could have been in such a gray area, too. it is no gray area actually, however one feels there is a limit and you go over you are out side the law. I believe a lot of people who get caught with a DUI did not know how impaired they were, that is what makes it so dangerous. If people really did EVERYTHING they could to protect children it would come before someone getting inconvenienced getting to work or the hair salon. Because no one got their clocked cleaned is it any better than the coach who copped a feel on the cheerleader’s butt? She wasn’t harmed physically yet it would be a serious deal, getting your family car wiped out with you in it is a big deal no matter how you look at it. But you are so right, because people can see themselves breaking the same law they will give others a slap on the wrist because in the future they may need one back from that person.

Here’s the problem as I see it, this kind of thing should NEVER be allowed to happen, whatever we have to do to make sure it doesn’t, that’s what we should do.

The law actually is much harsher on duis that involve children. In these instances the dui goes from being a misdemeanor to a felony offense. And if someone is killed it is a charge of manslaughter, which will stick with you forever and you will not be able at that point to work in a number of jobs that involve children. You need to remember that child abuse is not something that just goes away. It is an atrocious crime that can in many cases cripple the victim emotionally for many years-if not the rest of his/her life-and sometimes lead to suicide.

In many, many instances, DUI’s do not result in anyone being harmed, but the same can’t be said for sex offenders.

@dalepetrie I guess they will figure it out on the 21st DUI they catch him for, after he plows some girls down in the crosswalk coming home from a school play. Nothing gets politicians going then a couple of dead kids.