Comments on: Who Cares About the Rights of Those Accused of DUI? http://www.duiblog.com/2009/12/05/who-cares-about-the-rights-of-those-accused-of-dui/ Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution Sat, 25 May 2013 23:27:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: David W http://www.duiblog.com/2009/12/05/who-cares-about-the-rights-of-those-accused-of-dui/comment-page-1/#comment-12584 David W Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:07:35 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=1919#comment-12584 “So, if we found a fair system of determining drunkenness, and applied it equally, it’d all be alright?” Drunkeness is very apparent. The majority arrested are far from it..Just my opinion. As a recipient of the accusation only to have "To Prove" I wasn't , I tend to disagree that these laws will not affect other area's of our live's as these precedents accumulate over time. As well as our pocket books. “So, if we found a fair system of determining drunkenness, and applied it equally, it’d all be alright?”

Drunkeness is very apparent. The majority arrested are far from it..Just my opinion. As a recipient of the accusation only to have “To Prove” I wasn’t , I tend to disagree that these laws will not affect other area’s of our live’s as these precedents accumulate over time. As well as our pocket books.

]]> By: Havvy http://www.duiblog.com/2009/12/05/who-cares-about-the-rights-of-those-accused-of-dui/comment-page-1/#comment-12581 Havvy Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:55:33 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=1919#comment-12581 The tyranny of the majority that democracy leads to is very apparent in the case of DUI laws in America, but I doubt that totalitarianism is going to come from the precedents from DUI laws. The moment that the precedents are applied to other cases, the moment the internet will pick up on it in mainstream. Once that occurs, the precedents will hopefully be overturned. No, the totalitarianism will come from economic controls that have been going for almost 100 years, starting with a certain constitutional amendment. Might I suggest attempting to not use the constitution in one of your arguments? If your arguments all boil down to "this piece of paper says you can't do that", you'll be laughed at. The constitution isn't a perfect document. It has become ignored or corrupted. Yes, you have the arguments against breathalyzers and the hypocrisy of policemen, but those arguments can be countered by saying "So, if we found a fair system of determining drunkenness, and applied it equally, it'd all be alright?" Still, keep publishing the arguments. Each one seems to be flawed, but the side you are arguing for is not. The tyranny of the majority that democracy leads to is very apparent in the case of DUI laws in America, but I doubt that totalitarianism is going to come from the precedents from DUI laws. The moment that the precedents are applied to other cases, the moment the internet will pick up on it in mainstream. Once that occurs, the precedents will hopefully be overturned. No, the totalitarianism will come from economic controls that have been going for almost 100 years, starting with a certain constitutional amendment.

Might I suggest attempting to not use the constitution in one of your arguments? If your arguments all boil down to “this piece of paper says you can’t do that”, you’ll be laughed at. The constitution isn’t a perfect document. It has become ignored or corrupted.

Yes, you have the arguments against breathalyzers and the hypocrisy of policemen, but those arguments can be countered by saying “So, if we found a fair system of determining drunkenness, and applied it equally, it’d all be alright?”

Still, keep publishing the arguments. Each one seems to be flawed, but the side you are arguing for is not.

]]> By: Justin http://www.duiblog.com/2009/12/05/who-cares-about-the-rights-of-those-accused-of-dui/comment-page-1/#comment-12570 Justin Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:42:11 +0000 http://www.duiblog.com/?p=1919#comment-12570 Amanda Knox is a good story when it comes to people who think "drunk" drivers shouldn't have rights, due process, or a real trial. True - her story isn't about drinking - it is more about constitutional rights and the right to present information that can exonerate you. However, when I look at DUI trials most real evidence is not allowed and it is literally judged by a judge not a jury and that judge 99% of the time sides with the police whether there is a breath/blood test performed or not. Even when that blood/breath test shows a .00079 it still leads to a guilty verdict because it is "close enough." To me the fact that court cases can even proceed when someone denies a blood test or a breath test and there is no "actual proof" only speculation is beyond me. And, DUI is the only case where I know (at least in Idaho) the defendant is allowed to be interrogated even when they ask for a lawyer -- and not be allowed one until they post bail or get to court the following Monday. You can appeal though and that is one of the only saving graces of the US court system.. but by the time your case does go through appeals after being found guilty -- you will have already "completed" your jail time/community service/been fined/suffered embarrassment and had to get SR-22 insurance (pretty penny cost unless you get the most basic liability package) and even if you win the appeal you won't get any of that time back. It is a very dirty system. Amanda Knox is a good story when it comes to people who think “drunk” drivers shouldn’t have rights, due process, or a real trial.

True – her story isn’t about drinking – it is more about constitutional rights and the right to present information that can exonerate you. However, when I look at DUI trials most real evidence is not allowed and it is literally judged by a judge not a jury and that judge 99% of the time sides with the police whether there is a breath/blood test performed or not. Even when that blood/breath test shows a .00079 it still leads to a guilty verdict because it is “close enough.” To me the fact that court cases can even proceed when someone denies a blood test or a breath test and there is no “actual proof” only speculation is beyond me. And, DUI is the only case where I know (at least in Idaho) the defendant is allowed to be interrogated even when they ask for a lawyer — and not be allowed one until they post bail or get to court the following Monday.

You can appeal though and that is one of the only saving graces of the US court system.. but by the time your case does go through appeals after being found guilty — you will have already “completed” your jail time/community service/been fined/suffered embarrassment and had to get SR-22 insurance (pretty penny cost unless you get the most basic liability package) and even if you win the appeal you won’t get any of that time back.

It is a very dirty system.

]]>