opinions epigrams beliefs jokes writings and maybe lists about me no telling what. im new here. this is a test..to start
is this fair?
Published on December 12, 2004 By coolcroc In Politics


ARRESTING PEOPLE TO PREVENT CRIMES JUST DOESNT SOUND RIGHT.
let's get back to just arresting them when they commit a crime.

since two times as many sober people as people driving while drunk..
hurt others in accidents..maybe we should arrest the sober people
and let the drunks alone.

and like the present laws we should arrest them for being sober
instead of having an accident..thereaby preventing an accident.

im kidding but i think the MADD laws on dui's are punishing the
70% who drink and drive without harm..because of the 30% that
do the harm. its like that old rule that says 20% of the salemen
make 80% of the sales.

30% of those arrested for dwi are repeat offenders.
of those 1 in 9 were arrested for an accident while drunk.
so 3% of all dwi repeat offenders cause harm.
so we cant even just blame the repeat offenders.

MADD laws may work no better than prohibition did.. and
seems somewhat similiar.

even without the statistics it just doesnt sound right.
what really gets me is that people are being arrested that
havent committed a real crime (an actual accident). the
same thing occurs when drug users are arrested for having
drugs on them instead of doing harm while using it. and
prostitutes are arrested for being a prostitute though
they have not given anybody a disease or hurt anyone in
any way.

heck. since poor people commit a lot of the crimes because
they are poor let's arrest everybody below the poverty level.
let's test people and arrest those with bad scores. if 30%
of any group seems to be the ones commiting most crimes then
let's arrest the whole group. next thing you know we will have
a group called Mothers Against Black People. jeez. mothers
can do no harm so they are always right? no wonder its part
of a cussword.

you get the idea. some of you smart people take it from there
and run with it. i'm no activist. i'm a blooger. and i am a
bit fascetious.

Comments
on Dec 12, 2004
Great post!

Indications of a slippery slope?
on Dec 12, 2004
You both are joking, right?


Please tell me these people are joking
on Dec 12, 2004
You both are joking, right?
on Dec 14, 2004
You are forgetting that driving while drunk is a crime in-and-of itself...no accidents required.
on Dec 15, 2004
You are forgetting that driving while drunk is a crime in-and-of itself...no accidents required.


But it's only a crime-in-itself because they have made it so - and the whole point is that they are doing this in prevention of accidents. It's not that I approve of driving drunk but just that the argument for the law on some levels is absurd.
on Dec 15, 2004
When you think about it, reckless driving should not be against the law, as it doesn't necessarily lead to an accident. It merely increases the likelihood of one.
on Dec 16, 2004
When you think about it, reckless driving should not be against the law, as it doesn't necessarily lead to an accident. It merely increases the likelihood of one.


One could probably find hundreds of factors that increase the risk of having an accident (playing loud music - eating sugar - driving while in a bad mood...) and the reckless driving of say, a professional race car driver (even one slightly intoxicated) might be far less dangerous than the average 65 year old driver. Even "reckless driving" is completely subjective as what is reckless for the race car driver is probable completely different from what the elderly person constitutes as reckless.

The main point I believe is that the law can only see in black and white while the world is full of color.
on Dec 16, 2004
I'm honestly surprised that so many people have a problem with laws against drunk driving and reckless driving.
on Dec 17, 2004
"So many people" or two?

I don't have a problem with the law - My problem is that the world seems absurd and irrational most of the time. Why should people be arrested over statistics - just because statistically (in theory) they MAY be more of a danger - even though they MAY not be realistically - they can have their freedom and yes, their life stripped from them. I have driven drunk before as many have - so I am considered a 'criminal' - yet I've never been in an accident - but WHERE are the negative consequences of my crime? They are imaginary - in "what if's" and probabilities and staticial tables that reside in some actuaries desk.

BTW: I don't drink and drive any more because a) I dislike getting drunk and I got rid of my car for a bike.