Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCIRTP.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!SCIRTP!todd
From: todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: DWI Crackdowns and Car Confiscation
Message-ID: <264@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 19:44:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.264
Posted: Wed Jul 31 19:44:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 00:42:26 EDT
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.flame:11429 net.auto:7499 net.legal:1958


I do not support the notion of confiscating vehicles
used in DWI crimes for the following reason:

The severity this punishment is related to something
that has no connection with conditions of the crime.

Suppose I have two cars (I do). I have an old junker (I do)
and a new Mercedes (I don't). If I am caught driving under
the influence of alcohol, my punishment will vary drastically
depending on which car I am driving. If I lose my junker,
I'll be dismayed, but not very much so. If I lose my Mercedes,
I will be outraged since I am still paying $700/month for the
next five years without a car to show for it. Some might point
out that differences will be minimized by the correlation of
car value and personal wealth, but this is fallacious reasoning.
I can see, under the car confiscation concept, that many people
will have "party cars" that are aging Pintos or Gremlins that
are used when the owner feels like raising hell.

   |||||||
   ||   ||
   [ O-O ]       Todd Jones
    \ ^ /        {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
    | ~ |
    |___|        SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.