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.