🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec11.160636.1702@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>Drivers are required to stop and prove they are not guilty. The idea
>>behind "innocent until proven guilty", is that (baring evidence to
>>the contrary) the government must treat individuals as if they are
>>innocent...
>>No, simply that no one be arrested until the police have _some_
>>evidence of guilt. Sobriety check points stop everyone, without
>>any evidence of their guilt, and require them to prove their
>>innocence.

>Sobriety tests aren't not done at random.  In thumbing through the CU 
>police blotter, every single DUI I've seen was pulled over for traffic
>violations, the officer smells alcohol on their breath, and he makes 
>them walk a line. After this, if the officer thinks there may be a problem,
>he will conduct more tests.

Since I was refering to sobriety check points, where _all_ drivers are
stoped and tested, I'd have to conclude that either you misunderstood
me and are refering to routine traffic stops or these check points
are useless (since from your comment, they must not result in
and DUIs. In either case, my objections to such ckeck points still
stand.

>>>Freedom to not have to breathe into a balloon and walk on a line? Small
>>>price to pay considering how many drunks that little loss keeps off
>>>the road.

>>Do you feel the same way about mandatory drug test for everyone? Certainly
>>the principle is the same.

>I will argue the principle is *totally* different.

The principle seems to be, that a small inconvenience and invasion of
privacy is acceptable, if it is part of solving a social problem. By
the nature of our government, a "social problem" means something a
majority of the people disapprove of (for whatever reason.) Both
sobriety check points and mandatory drug testing seem to fit this 
description.

>>>I don't think prison is reserved for only people with malicious intent.

>>Malicious intent is, essentially, the definition of a felony. Are
>>you saying that misdemeanor offenses should carry long prison sentences?

>Geez, where did I say that?

A: Prisons is not reserved for people with malicious intent.
(A is your statement cited above.)
B: A felony is a crime involving malicious or criminal intent; crimes
   where this intent is lacking are misdemeanors.
(B is a fairly loose legal definition, e.g. an external fact, as opposed
to something you said.)

A & B ==> Prison is not reserved for felons

or, 	  Prison is also for non-felons (e.g. misdemeanor offenders.)

The only exception I'm aware of is acts of extreme negligence which 
result in harm to others. Since we are talking about drivers who have
had something to drink, but have not caused an accident, this exception
doesn't apply.

>>>If you would just give a call to Boulder Sheriff's department and ask
>>>how many drunks are taken off the road per year, you will see the benefit.

>>The benefit is the number of accidents prevented, not the number of
>>DUIs the police hand out. While there is some connection between the
>>two, they are not the same (and the discussion here seems to focus on
>>people who drive while technically drunk without causing accidents.)

>Doesn't matter. There is a reason why we have decided that *all* drunken
>driving is bad, not just the ones that cause accidents.

Be carefull of your first person plurals: Whether or not all such driving
is bad, seems to be the whole point of the discussion. I don't see
why they should be considered criminally bad drivers, if they are not 
driving recklessly. So apparently, we haven't decided anything like what
you suggest.

>>>If one hundred people are pulled over and made to walk a line who *aren't*
>>>drunk, and one life is saved by pulling someone who *is* drunk off the road,
>>>the loss of freedom you mention seems worth it to me.

>>Am I the only one bothered by this attitude of, "the loss of freedom
>>seems worth it to me" and (by implication), "I don't care about anyone
>>who's values on the subject disagree with mine or the majority's."

>Your last sentence describes a person who is not satisfied in the system
>they are living in. That is perfectly acceptable and I urge you to 
>try to change the system.

More properly, I am satisfied with the original system, which included
numberous protections of individuals rights (regardless of the wishes of
the majority). However, I am not satisfied with the gradual errosion
of these protections, by a majority that is willing to ignore freedoms
that don't personally care about, invent legal fantasies to justify
unconstitutional practices, all in the name of "solving" whatever
"problem" happens to catch the public's attention at a given moment.

>I disagree with you completely as the benefits of DUI testing are *so*
>important that being pulled over and touching my nose to indicate that I'm
>ok doesns't bother me at all. I don't consider it a breach of my  
>personal freedom since driving itself is a privilege, not a right.

Would you be willing to accept the idea that other people _do_
consider such random sobriety checks a "breach of... personal freedom"?
Shouldn't a "liberal" society be tolerant of minorities that hold
different values, and write laws to (as much as possible) satisfy
everyone (as opposed doing exactly what the majority thinks best, 
and ignoring everyone with different views)? That is, shouldn't
the laws be written to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms as little as
possible, regardless of how much or how little the majority cares
about that freedom? (Since some minority of the people hold a different
view on the subject, which shouldn't be ignored.)
 
>>It's worth noting that the only effect Amendment 2 will have on me,
>>personally, a very slight chance of future protection from lawsuits
>>(I'm not gay, and it's always possible a misunderstanding rather than
>>intentional discrimination might result in a lawsuit.) So, to me
>>personally, it might seem like the loss of freedom caused by it is
>>justified. I still voted against it, because I care about the freedoms
>>of others who have different values and care about different things
>>than I do.

>I think you're comparing apples and potato(e)s.

You probably are saying that, because you consider drunk driving to
be a public threat, while sexual preferance is not. Unfortunately,
it would seem a majority of the voters in Colorado disagree with
us on this last point. In the case of drunk driving, you seem to 
consider the opinion of the majority the critical factor in this
matter (e.g. the majority considers even safe driving by someone
who had had a drink to be a danger, and therefore it should be
legally considered one.) Under this logic, I don't see the difference
from my example of Amendment 2: A majority of the people see a 
"problem" and are willing to sacrifice someone else's rights
to "solve" it. Since what constitutes a "problem" is defined by
the majority's opinions, it doesn't matter (by this logic) if
it is a real of imagined problem.

>>>Agreed. A cop shouldn't pull over someone who he has no suspicion has
>>>been drinking.

>>I thought you said earlier you did not object to sobriety check points.

>Why is a sobriety check point implemented Frank?

Because a majority of the people see a "problem" (real or not) and
are willing to sacrifice other people's rights to "solve" it.

>No, I don't think I did say that all though it is true that I think
>they are fine if there is a large number of suspected drunken
>drivers passing on a road.

I don't see the difference: The problem is the police stopping an 
individual without any reason to believe he, personally, is driving in an
impared condition, and requiring him to prove he is innocent. This
is the case whenever they stop someone at a sobriety check point, 
regardless of how many drunks they catch (i.e. in all cases, they had
no prior reason to suspect the particular individual stopped.)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder