 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
A Closer Look at DUI Fatality Statistics
|
For years now the “DUI crackdown”, along with the accompanying loss of constitutional rights, has been justified by the numbers of deaths on the highways caused by drunk drivers. As the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz said, for example, DUI “sobriety checkpoints” appear to violate our Fourth Amendment right to be free of suspicionless stops by the police — but this illegal intrusion on our privacy is “outweighed” by the “carnage” on our highways of 25,000 deaths caused each year by alcohol.
From where did these statistics come?
Years ago, the statistics kept on traffic fatalities included a category for “alcohol-caused” deaths. To justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DUI license suspensions, however, these statistics were subtly changed to “alcohol-related”. Not “caused”, but related. This meant that a perfectly sober driver who hit and killed an intoxicated pedestrian, for example, would be involved in an “alcohol-related” incident. Similarly, a sober driver who is struck by another sober driver carrying an intoxicated passenger chalked up another “alcohol-related” death. Further, if the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated but chemical tests show he is not, the death is nevertheless reported as “alcohol-related”. In fact, if the tests indicate the presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the fatality will be chalked up as “alcohol-related”.
In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed these figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and issued a report stating that they “raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question ”. The statistics, the GAO report said, “fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities.” In other words, the statistics weren’t even valid when applied to alcohol-related fatalities, much less alcohol-caused deaths.
So what are the real numbers? The Los Angeles Times also decided to investigate the validity of these statistics. In 2002, NHTSA’s figures claimed 18,000 deaths on the nation’s highways attributable to drunk driving. The Times found that only about 5,000 of these involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian. (Research by other groups, such as “Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.”, indicate the figure is actually under 3,000.)
5,000. A fraction of the number being used by the government and political pressure groups like MADD. Despite this irritating little truth, MADD, law enforcement and federal and state governments continue to use the same false statistics to justify the passage of unfair and unconstitutional DUI laws.
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on...DUI BLOG: Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence, and a Fading Constitution
http://www.duiblog.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR6w0cnYdIE
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
The most interesting element of research was the fact that these percentages have remained relatively constant since the beginning of their presented data back in 1994. That's right...the progressively aggressive enforcement of DUI legislation over the years have not made any significant impact on highway fatalities whatsoever! Meanwhile, millions of DUI arrests are made every year; criminalizing non-violent offenders whom as the majority never committed a crime against person or property.
How long will it take for us to realize the detrimental social and economic ramifications of these unconstitutional governmental actions against it's own people. How many good people will have to become criminals under unjust laws...and be thrown into a vicious cycle of poverty before our middle class, the strength of our nation, gets completely destroyed. We need to get government out of our face and off our backs. Enough is Enough!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."-Abraham Lincoln "
"A citizen arrested for DUI usually has the right to choose between taking a breath test or a blood test. There is, of course, a third choice: refuse to take either. The individual can do this, but there are consequences: he will face an increased jail sentence or a longer driver’s license suspension — or, in most states, both.
The problem is that some police just won’t take “no” for an answer. An increasing practice among law enforcement agencies is to simply ignore this third choice and forcefully take blood from the arrestee (although some states have banned this practice). By doing this, they can “have their cake and eat it, too”: blood is obtained for testing– and the suspect still suffers the heavier sentencing for having refused.
So, just how much “force” will the courts permit? Or looking at this from the legal view, drawing blood is considered a Search of the person and, therefore, must be “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which still leaves the question: What is “reasonable” force?
The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Rochin v. California (342 U.S. 165), where a drug suspect was unconscious and the police forced open his mouth and pumped his stomach to get drugs. Such conduct is not permissible, the Court said, if it “shocks the conscience”. This vague “shocks the conscience” standard — if it is a standard — was later applied by the Supreme Court in a drunk driving case: The blood, the Court said, must be taken under “humane and medically acceptable” circumstances. Schmerber v. California (384 U.S. 757). [As anyone who has watched certain videotapes knows, California seems to have recurring problems with heavy-handed police.]
One wonders what it would take to go over that “brink”…..
I find it amazing that someone would take the side of the drunk drivers who kill our families at unprecedented rates.
Its hard enough driving down the road with cell phone users veering into our lanes, you guys want to give drunks and druggies a free reign? Sheesh!
The point of the article is not to give drunks or druggies free reign, but to reign in unjust and unconstitutional DUI legislation that has been built around false information. Those irresponsibly intoxicated individuals who are responsible for the <3000 highway fatalities a year should pay a price for they have committed a crime against person and property. But I'm speaking for the millions of citizens who are having their lives destroyed by a pre-crime DUI arrest. Those who haven't committed a crime against person or property but suffer being imprisoned, losing their license, their vehicle and their livelihood...To quote a PA Supreme Court Judge; "We do not want a police state, and it seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
I agree with Rational Thinker. This isn't even a serious conversation. Common sense has left the building.
Are you serious? You are really saying that lives have been destroyed by pre-crime DUI arrests?! What is a pre-crime DUI arrest? I am confused, I have been under the impression that drinking and driving while over the legal limit IS a crime whether or not you are caught. If you are arrested, it's because you failed the field sobriety tests and or a Breathalyzer or blood test. Even if one were arrested unjustly for a DUI I can't see how that would destroy a life. It might cause financial hardship, but there would be no loss of life. Drivers who get behind the wheel drunk are destroying lives every single day, and you might appreciate the strict DUI laws if you have ever lost a child or a loved one because of a drunk driver. Fact of the matter is a lot of people dismiss the dangers of driving intoxicated until they personally suffer a loss because of it. I know I never realized the severity of drunk driving until my best friend was killed, now I even enjoy seeing DUI checkpoints. I hope you never suffer the loss of a loved one because of an "alcohol related" accident, but I am fairly certain if you do you will regret ever writing this letter.
I found the article and links pretty interesting myself. Powerful lobbying groups using false information to pass laws for revenue and control; that's not cool! Especially since it takes a such a huge chunk of tax dollars for the increased enforcement that statistically appears unnecessary.
Greenfloyd is absolutely correct, having one's life destroyed by a pre-crime DUI arrest is cruel and unusual punishment. Those objecting have never been through pre-crime DUI arrest.
Janie7, that takes in the assumption that anything written there is true. PeaGravel, what!?!? are you taking about. Don't get drunk and drive and you won't get arrested. It's not "pre-crime" it a real crime.
Cruel and unusual punishment is having to live the rest of your life without a loved one because of a drunk driver.
I spent some time today checking the presented facts against www.NHTSA.gov (among other sites) and GF's information is correct! Quite frankly, I was surprised learn that drivers with a BAC below (.16) only attribute to a very small percentage of highway fatalities. In fact, one would have a FAR greater chance of being killed by a sober and tired driver. Well I suppose it won't be long before they pass laws against "Driving While Tired"...with the arresting officer becoming judge and jury.
I would much rather have my constitutionals rights violated for a couple of minutes at a sobriety checkpoint than forever by a drunk driver.
Reading the posts above it appears to me that some have been detained for DUI and the others are from sharks, I mean lawyers.
The DUI arrest is to prevent the accident, the crime is the accident. We really should look at these events separately. Ignoring that the punishment for the DUI arrest is brutal and much worse than the punishment for other more serious crimes is a mistake. Combining these is like taking away your car because we know that some day you will get a ticket. (Yes, I know that you soccer moms will never get a ticket, or admit to it anyway.)
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
late 2nd, Section 256
The most powerful vote in unconstitutional legislation is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck stops" with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting "Not Guilty!" Any JUROR can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.