Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.7 $; site trsvax
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!trsvax!gordon
From: gordon@trsvax
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: DWI Crackdowns
Message-ID: <66200002@trsvax>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 00:08:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: trsvax.66200002
Posted: Mon Jul 29 00:08:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 04:23:01 EDT
References: <378@kontron.UUCP>
Lines: 56
Nf-ID: #R:kontron.UUCP:-37800:trsvax:66200002:000:2911
Nf-From: trsvax!gordon    Jul 28 23:08:00 1985


> /* Written  9:17 pm  Jul 22, 1985 by ttidcc.UU!hollombe in trsvax:net.legal */
> 
> ...
> _Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is  found  to
> be  in  violation  of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and
> sale at auction.  No exceptions.  Proceeds of the  auction  to  go  towards
> funding  the drunk driving enforcement program.  Excess proceeds to go into
> a special fund for the aid of victims of drunk drivers.
> 
> ...
> The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
> ...
> /* End of text from trsvax:net.legal */

There are several things that would result from this:

1.	Renting a car at an airport takes a LONG time.  While you are taking
a breathalizer test, giving them a blood sample, and taking a polygraph test
about your drinking habits, they are checking with the airline to see if you 
bought any liquor on the plane.

2.	Getting an auto loan becomes much harder.  Because the bank's collateral
may vanish at any time, and confiscation isn't covered by insurance, interest 
rates go up to about 50% (or you buy confiscation insurance, which is even more
expensive), and if you apply for one, you authorize the bank to investigate 
your background in a way that might make Orwell's Big Brother look like an 
amateur.  Having your fraternity/sorority house censured for violating campus 
drinking regulations once might mean no loan, even if that was 20 years ago
and you are active politically in a movement to bring back Prohibition.

I also think it's patently unfair to take away a STOLEN car and sell it,
regardless of how drunk the thief was.  If I'm going to have my car taken
away, I'd much rather realize the car has been stolen, wait until my remote
alarm indicates the car is being driven, and remote-activate the self-destruct 
device while the thief is driving it :-).  At least that gets the drunk 
permanently off the road.

I think that if a person can be proved to have been drunk and gotten drunk 
deliberately (proof of purchasing the booze voluntarily is generally 
sufficient and is proof of premeditation, and proof that the person is addicted 
to alcohol is absolutely sufficient), then that person should be legally 
responsible for everything he/she does as though it was done deliberately and 
with malice.  Thus, lots of drunk driving accidents turn into assault with 
intent to commit murder (the people in the car the drunk was driving or the 
other one(s), if they were hurt), assault with a deadly weapon (the car), 
murder one (if anyone was killed), attempted suicide (if the drunk survived), 
malicious damage to property (the other car), and property damage with intent 
to defraud an insurance company (drunk's car, if it was insured), along with 
the usual DWI, reckless driving, etc.


					Gordon Burditt
					...!microsoft!trsvax!sneaky!gordon
					...!convex!ctvax!trsvax!sneaky!gordon
					...!ihnp4!sys1!sneaky!gordon