New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers

[Lacrosse Boy]

It is just another form of future payments for a past transgression. It happens all the time in our society, so why shouldn't it happen to drunk drivers?

Because bedrock, fundamental law prohibits it, and it leads us down a path that we shouldn't be lead down. It is a violation to our fundamental right to due process. Would you propose we just get rid of due process? I'd hope not.

And to top it off, placing those in someone's car is like airing out their dirty laundry for all to see.

This is plain WRONG on so many different levels.

[Tiggerlives]

and it leads us down a path that we shouldn't be lead down.

according to?

It is a violation to our fundamental right to due process.

Uh, no it's not. Since you've already been found GUILTY of a crime. It's part of the punishment for a PAST crime. What is so hard to understand about that? These devices aren't in EVERYONE'S car...if they were, you'd be right...it'd be a violation of due process.

placing those in someone's car is like airing out their dirty laundry for all to see.

So? Don't do something utterly stupid and there's no dirty laundry to be seen. Seems relatively simple to me.

[Lacrosse Boy]

according to?

According to due process law.

So? Don't do something utterly stupid and there's no dirty laundry to be seen. Seems relatively simple to me.

So does following due process. I'd rather see that everyone's rights are protected by following the tried-and-true due process system instead of one of logical fallacies.

Uh, no it's not. Since you've already been found GUILTY of a crime. It's part of the punishment for a PAST crime. What is so hard to understand about that? These devices aren't in EVERYONE'S car...if they were, you'd be right...it'd be a violation of due process.

This is a double standard. One time you say "It is just another form of future payments for a past transgression. It happens all the time in our society, so why shouldn't it happen to drunk drivers?" and then another time you say "Why give someone who has proven to be at least willing to have such a lapse in judgement the chance to do it again when you can put in a safeguard?" Which is it? Either the person was found guilty of a past crime and they are punished with penalties for the past transgression, or it's assuming someone will do it again and this is to prevent future incidents based off of the past one.

You can't have the argument both ways.

[Tiggerlives]

I'd rather see that everyone's rights are protected by following the tried-and-true due process system instead of one of logical fallacies.

Hold on....

K, back. Just checked. My car doesn't have one of these devices in it. I think I'm being protected.

Logical fallacies? There are plenty of studies that show an increased likelihood of a second offense if you have the first. There was a recent study showing over 2 million REPEAT offenders....

Again, you are paying for a crime you have already been proven guilty of.

[Lacrosse Boy]

Hold on....

K, back. Just checked. My car doesn't have one of these devices in it. I think I'm being protected.

So am I. But we're not talking about people who have never driven drunk. We are talking about people who are first-time offenders.

Logical fallacies? There are plenty of studies that show an increased likelihood of a second offense if you have the first. There was a recent study showing over 2 million REPEAT offenders....

Again, that's assuming that someone will be guilty in the future. All of the studies will show that the VAST MAJORITY of people won't do it again. Aristotle taught of logical fallacies, and centures have proven that they are timeless and yet to be proven incorrect Therefore, I'll take the argument that this is fallacious -- which it is -- over one that doesn't look at the percentages of people who actually commit the offense again.

Again, you are paying for a crime you have already been proven guilty of.

By assuming you will do it again... Sorry, but it's unethical to pay for a crime by having judgment placed that you will do a crime again because you did it once. "First time is chance. Second time is coincidence. Third time is pattern."

[Tiggerlives]

Odd, considering I just found a 1993 statistic that showed in MINN that 46 percent of FIRST time offenders became second time offenders at some point.

[Lacrosse Boy]

Odd, considering I just found a 1993 statistic that showed in MINN that 46 percent of FIRST time offenders became second time offenders at some point.

According to whom? That's a misleading statistic without a cited source from 16 years ago. You're doing yourself a dis-service.

According to http://www.mn-dwi.com/dwi.html

about 85% of first time offenders are never arrested for DWI again

[Tiggerlives]

According to MADD over 1/3 of DUI offenders are repeat offenders and over 40 percent more likely to end up in a fatal crash than someone with no DUIs.

And where did you find that stat? From your own link I found this:

38% of those arrested for DWI in 2006 had at lease one prior offense on their record

[Lacrosse Boy]

According to MADD over 1/3 of DUI offenders are repeat offenders and over 40 percent more likely to end up in a fatal crash than someone with no DUIs.

And where did you find that stat? From your own link I found this:

This argument had been about first-time offenses. The statistic you posted is lumping together everything after the first offense, and therefore, of course you are going to see more inflated numbers. And I'll admit, once someone has established a pattern of behavior it makes the argument for these devices more compelling. I am still against them, but the argument definitely has more merit than slapping first-time offenders with the devices.

However, the facts stand: the vast majority of first-time offenders convicted of a DUI don't get convicted again. 85% are never arrested again. And the recidivism continues to go down from there (I suspect having your car taken away from you will do that...)

As far as MADD is concerned, well, they aren't exactly impartial. Using them as an authoritative source for non-biased information is akin to using those loaded "telephone studies" conducted by political campaigns to find out how many people are in favor of a a candidate.

[Tiggerlives]

owever, the facts stand: the vast majority of first-time offenders convicted of a DUI don't get convicted again

In Minn.