betasteve wrote:TheOcho wrote:No, my conclusion is that it is not a just law. I'm not using that to forward my argument. That is the conclusion.
And why is it not a just law?
Also - is your lack or response to the rest of my post implicit acceptance of it and admittance that you are wrong?
No, it's not an implicit acceptance.
There are "X" number of variables that inhibit our ability to drive a car. The law is dealing in probabilities. You may or may not commit a crime (other than the current crime of DUI). The majority of drivers with BAC's over .08 may never commit a traffic violation other than the crime of DUI, but have their lives ruined because of this simple violation (OP?). The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis, as I see it.
Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.
If it's shown that sore-muscles, anger, or some other variable diminish our ability to operate a car should we grant the government authority to administer tests to criminalize driving under these conditions as well? Why is it not sufficient to charge the individual with the traffic violation they have already committed?