Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: DWI Crackdowns and Car Confiscation
Message-ID: <590@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 18:24:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.590
Posted: Mon Aug 12 18:24:16 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 20:35:31 EDT
References: <264@SCIRTP.UUCP> <624@ttidcc.UUCP> <123@unc.unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 21
Xref: linus net.flame:10626 net.auto:6584 net.legal:1678
Summary: Fines are an unfair punishment


In article <123@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes:
>Confiscating cars used by drunk drivers only complicates matters.
>Just fine the driver $5,000.  If he can't pay, then sell the dept
>to a collection agency, or require him to work it off in community
>service (ideally including all Friday and Saturday evenings).

Fines are not at all a fair punishment.  Some people won't notice
the loss of $5,000; others will go broke without the income from
their second job (in the evenings).  Just requiring community
service would be better.

Really, this whole discussion is rather silly.  The current laws are
quite adequate, and provide appropriate penalties.  They can be
enforced as people become aware that drunk driving really is a serious
offense.  This seems to be happening.

>By the way, drunk driving, with all its dangers, has been around for decades.
>Why did everybody wait till the last couple of years to jump on the
>anti-drunk-driving bandwagon?  Is this the new fad of the year?

Yes.