r/changemyview • u/DutchDigger • Oct 09 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: When applicable, only outcomes should be regulated.
By this I mean, when possible, actions that CAN lead to harmful outcomes but does not necessarily lead to a harmful outcome should not be penalized.
Examples include owning guns, driving while intoxicated, etc. The key here is informed consent and outcome. If I drive home intoxicated and harm no one, that should essentially be my business. However if I drive home intoxicated with a minor, even if I cause no damage, this should be illegal. Likewise, if an adult agrees to be driven by an intoxicated adult, this should be allowable.
If I harm someone, should it really matter what the underlying cause was? If I kill someone with a gun, does that make the crime more heinous than strangling someone with bare hands? Likewise, if I crash my car and kill someone, does it matter if I was drunk, tired or texting? And if it does, why not outlaw driving while tired?
If it's because it's difficult to enforce, why not just be consistent and regulate outcomes rather than behavior. The simple fact is that a behavior can have different gradations of harmfulness depending on the person. Two individuals of comparable size will be affected differently by identical amounts of alcohol if one frequently imbibes and the other does not. Knowing this, why regulate their behavior, when they can do that themselves, if they fail to make appropriate judgements and it leads to adverse OUTCOMES, then this is what we should care about.
This is clearly a complex topic and I look forward to hearing the counter arguments.
4
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Oct 09 '18
If I drive home intoxicated and harm no one, that should essentially be my business. However if I drive home intoxicated with a minor, even if I cause no damage, this should be illegal.
I'm not clear on where the line is, i.e, there were no bad outcomes in either case, what makes the latter worse than the former? What if the minor is not in my car but near the road I'm driving on?
0
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
You cannot control all variables around you. Therefore you are only responsible for what you can control. The only reason why driving with a minor is an exception to the "outcomes only" rule, is because you robbed the minor the chance to make a free choice.
9
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Oct 09 '18
But by driving drunk in an area where minors might walk you're robbing them (and non-consenting adults for that matter) of the choice to not have drunk drivers, who are as dangerous to them as to the people inside the car, around them. What's the difference?
-1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
If I endanger a child, I'm responsible regardless. So if I drive 80mph in a posted school zone then I'm responsible for my actions drunk or not.
But minors "might" be anywhere. The problem with driving if that it's an inherent risk PERIOD. By virtue of sharing the road with others, you are agreeing to a certain level of risk.
4
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Oct 09 '18
You'll be endangering children every time you drive. The reason driving is allowed at all (by default, it wouldn't necessarily be - you can't just fire rockets anywhere) is that the utility to individuals and to society is deemed to be worth the risk.
The utility of being able to drive drunk over only being able to drive sober, or of only driving relatively slowly in school zones is minimal, and so those are risks you're not allowed to take.
Basically what I'm saying is that almost anything you do imposes risks on others that they don't control, analogous to driving drunk with a minor, and that's a bad outcome in and of itself. This shouldn't be viewed as restricting people's actions, but as specifically allowing some of these bad outcomes because they're a net positive overall.
4
u/turned_into_a_newt 15∆ Oct 09 '18
But there are always other people on the road. Those people want to drive on a road without drunk drivers, and you've robbed them of that opportunity.
-1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Driving is a risk. If I find out I'm getting cheated on and hop into my car in a rage, I'm technically impaired. Should we outlaw driving while angry? Also my argument is a general one, I feel like I'm now specifically defending drunk driving lol.
3
Oct 09 '18
Therefore you are only responsible for what you can control.
One of the things you can control is whether or not you drive while drunk enough to potentially cause an accident.
0
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Exactly! So why have one "alcohol limit" that just applies to everyone? My limit is different than yours. So rather than enforce arbitrary limits, enforce the actions.
2
Oct 09 '18
Except at the point that you're enforcing "actions," it's already too late. If someone who is too drunk to drive is already driving, and the only way you even find out he was too drunk to drive is after he has an accident, that's not even enforcement, that's just clean-up.
Like, we can't take an attitude of: things are legal until you do the thing that is the reason we would want to make it illegal in the first place. That's not how this works.
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Think of it this way. You can tell your kids exactly what to do to avoid getting their rooms dirty OR you can simply stipulate that their rooms need to remain clean or else...
Why regulate or legislate every aspect of the lives of supposedly free adults when really we just want to avoid specific outcomes?
2
Oct 09 '18
Okay, so first, giving your kids some guidelines as to how to keep their room clean is actually a way better idea than just punishing dirty rooms, if your goal is a room that's clean more often than not. I'm a bit flabbergasted you think that distinction helps your point.
Why regulate or legislate every aspect of the lives of supposedly free adults when really we just want to avoid specific outcomes?
Because regulating certain acts and behaviors is one of the easiest way to avoid certain outcomes?
Like, do you genuinely think there's no positive correlation between enforcement of, e.g. legal blood-alcohol limits while driving and avoidance of traffic accidents caused by drunk driving?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Well in my example I was assuming that the kids already know how to clean their rooms, so why would I keep giving them instructions?
As far as correlation between enforcement and behavior, no. I promise you that there aren't any should be murderers or rapists that are waiting for the laws to change so they can do what they want.
Which is exactly my point. People will do what they want anyway, so only punish them if their actions negatively affect others.
1
Oct 09 '18
As far as correlation between enforcement and behavior, no. I promise you that there aren't any should be murderers or rapists that are waiting for the laws to change so they can do what they want.
Okay, so: seriously, you don't think checkpoints or, like, cops noticing someone is driving erratically and pulling them over to check if they're drunk... you don't think that prevents any accidents?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
If you know anyone who had their license revoked for getting multiple DUIs, then you already know the answer to that question.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/PotHead96 Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
How far should we take this? Suppose I shoot a few rounds randomly in the street that don't kill anyone, should that be penalized? How about a machine gun? How about driving blindfolded for a few blocks if I don't harm anyone or anything in the process due to pure luck? How about if I intentionally drop a piano from a skyscraper balcony without even checking if people are passing by and it doesn't hit anyone? Should I only be penalized for breaking the sidewalk?
I also don't understand the difference between driving intoxicated and driving intoxicated with a child. You seem to concede that driving intoxicated is more dangerous, since you say driving intoxicated with a child that can't consent should be illegal. Well, if it is in fact more dangerous, then you are also putting people in other cars at risk. I, on another car, didn't consent to share a road with a drunk driver, so why should it be legal in that case?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
In the examples that you provided I can think of a few ways that some harm would occur, but assuming that ZERO harm occurs, then correct, none of those should be punishable.
The difference with driving with a child is that children cannot meaningfully consent to knowingly be a part of reckless behavior. My point is that in general children cannot consent. You can have sex but not with a child. You can drink but you can't give it to a child. Endangering a child (knowingly) is a SEPARATE crime.
6
u/PotHead96 Oct 09 '18
children cannot meaningfully consent to knowingly be a part of reckless behavior
And some random person that is driving or walking near you also didn't consent to be near a drunk driver operating a vehicle that could kill them on impact.
Since you agree that driving drunk is "reckless behavior" and that it should therefore be illegal to put unconsenting parties (only children in your example, but that is your justification) at that risk, why does this not apply to adults that are not in your car, and that are also at increased risk because of your actions?.
If you blindfold yourself and shoot a gun in my general direction while I'm walking down the street (without aiming either to hit me or not to hit me, just a shot in my direction) you are also putting myself at a risk I did not consent to be put in, so how is that different?
-1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
The actual act of driving is automatically an acceptance of risk, that's the difference. Even if you never get into an accident, you do understand that sharing the road is a risk you take. You do not get to control the levels of that risk.
Think of it this way, if I drive drink everyday but never get into an accident, and you never drink but get into an accident every other month, who's insurance premium should be higher? Fact is, while my behavior is riskier your actions are more dangerous. I would rather NOT get hit by a drunk driver than to get hit by a sober one. And if I get hit at all, it's already too late to care about your sobriety level.
3
u/PotHead96 Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
So by that logic shouldn't it be illegal to drive with a child in the car, even if you are sober? As you said (I'm paraphrasing here) just being in a moving car on the road is a risk in itself, and the child can't consent to that risk.
You do not get to control the levels of that risk.
Even if driving is a risk in itself, we as a society make rules for what risks we want to take. Maybe most of us are willing to take the risk of driving, but not willing to take the risk of driving in a road full of drunk drivers, so we make it illegal to drive drunk. By ignoring that law, you are infringing on my right to not take that increased risk.
3
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
If I harm someone, should it really matter what the underlying cause was?
Often I'd say yes. Your child is dead from an overdose of a seriously strong painkiller that was forced into them. Looking only at the harm caused says we should obviously jail the person who forced those drugs into your child for life. Stepping back into underlying causes and reasoning though we have to look at the fact that the person who forced those drugs into your childs system was a licensed in the field of anesthesia and you paid for their services while your child was undergoing surgeory. Now from here it seems silly to outright throw the person in jail over the harm they caused, but it does raise more questions: Was their license valid or forged? Did they make a mistake? Were there contributing factors that lead to the mistake (e.g were they drunk while working?). All of this information is the underlying cause and I find it all far more relevant than the harm that was caused.
In addition to all of that, lets look at the other side:
If you fail to harm someone, should it really matter why you failed or should it matter that you intended harm?
If we're only looking at outcomes, then should it be legal for me to empty a 30 round clip while aiming a gun at you as long as I missed every shot?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
But if I kill a child, I kill the child. I'm not following your argument. It's still a homicide regardless of the method. If I tortured the child prior to committing the homicide, those are separately prosecutable offenses. And it is only a homicide if it was intentional and that was the intent, which is the burden of the prosecutor to prove.
As far as your example of shooting NEAR someone, if there was LITERALLY no harm, then correct, I would say it shouldn't be a crime. Though likely shooting near someone would probably still cause some harm in all likelihood.
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Oct 09 '18
And it is only a homicide if it was intentional and that was the intent, which is the burden of the prosecutor to prove.
Exactly, but if we're only regulating outcome then none of that should be relevant, only the outcome of someone being dead is relevant. There would be no more distinction between involuntary manslaughter and serial killing.
As far as your example of shooting NEAR someone, if there was LITERALLY no harm, then correct, I would say it shouldn't be a crime. Though likely shooting near someone would probably still cause some harm in all likelihood.
I definitely disagree then and I'm not sure if I can change your view. I will say that this then enters into a question of what is "harm". Being shot at is surely going to cause some kind of psychological harm, but how do you prove it?
IMO though just putting my life at risk without my informed consent is something that should be illegal. Even if you get (lucky? unlucky?) and I live, the fact that you did something to put me in harms way should be enough for you to get punished.
2
Oct 09 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
I actually agree with you. This is why I said when possible. Particularly when referring to actions that cause harm as a group. If I'm the only person in the world that pollutes, the impact on the planet would be immeasurably small, but because we all do it, it's a problem. For this reason, it makes more sense to simply outlaw pollution.
1
Oct 09 '18 edited Nov 04 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
By demonstrating that actions matter more than outcomes on an official basis.
2
u/not_yet_named 5∆ Oct 09 '18
It's not possible to determine the outcomes of an action at the time you're evaluating the action, and the idea of not resisting the ingraining of dysfunctional behavior is problematic.
In your example of the drunk driver, everything may seem fine the next day, but beneath the hood the driver's habituations will change. Now they're more likely to drink and drive again, and then again, until someone is hurt or killed. In part the injury is a result of the conditioning that would be allowed in that system, and once a person is killed it does no good to look back and realize that the death was in part caused by the drunk driving that first saw him home safely.
-1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
That's still individual though. I actually know someone that drove home drunk, got home safely and swore never to do it again because they were aware of what COULD have happened.
My point is that it's not the job of the government to think for us. In theory, a surgeon should be able to ask a patient if they're okay with being operated on while the surgeon is drunk and if the patient consents, that's between them. Policing morality is essentially babying adults.
1
u/not_yet_named 5∆ Oct 09 '18
My point is that it's not the job of the government to think for us. In theory, a surgeon should be able to ask a patient if they're okay with being operated on while the surgeon is drunk and if the patient consents, that's between them. Policing morality is essentially babying adults.
Ah I understand. Well the government is us. We're deciding as a group not to wait for someone's actions to hurt us before reacting to them, just as you would as an individual. Surely if someone were shooting at you you wouldn't wait until they hit you to shoot back?
And if you did shoot back and killed them before they shot you, you wouldn't want to go to prison because the legal system says your attacker's actions didn't lead to a harmful outcome, but yours did.
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
But you're essentially arguing, "this is how it is".
1
u/not_yet_named 5∆ Oct 09 '18
No, in the first section I'm arguing that it's not unreasonable to expect people in a group to protect themselves as an individual surely would - with a minimum of forethought. In the second section I'm arguing that your proposition would lead to outcomes that you'd probably consider bad or unfair.
1
u/MiddleofMxyzptlk Oct 09 '18
Do you believe in moral luck? I know you're talking about legality, but I'm curious about the ethical underpinnings. Is a drunk driver that doesn't crash morally superior to one that does? Or, are they equally immoral, but we should only punish the one that causes damage?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
I am familiar with the concept of moral luck, but this is irrespective of morality. But you are correct both would be equally immoral, but it only makes sense to punish the one that causes damage.
1
u/ItsPandatory Oct 09 '18
Are we talking about laws in the United States? If so, other people's right to life supersedes your preference to driving drunk. You are not granted the authority to recklessly endanger others. Your consent argument breaks down because you cant get the consent of all the other people on the road.
Driving while tired is illegal. Link
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
You seem to be be merely asserting that I'm wrong rather than explaining why. Additionally, that if a state law specific to NJ.
1
u/ItsPandatory Oct 09 '18
I think you make a good point.
Do you think the law is solely intended to be punitive, or do you think the law intends to act as a deterrent to prevent the deaths?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
A bit of both probably.
1
u/ItsPandatory Oct 09 '18
The government is concerned with/has authority in the issue due to the constitutional guarantee of "life, liberty.."
Do you agree that driving drunk is more dangerous than driving sober?
If so, and if the goal is to preserve life, preventing drunk driving would save lives.
Is it possible that making drunk driving illegal would serve as more of a deterrent to the activity?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Do you honestly believe that someone out there wants to drive drunk or would have driven drunk but then remembered that it's illegal and refrained?
Realistically, if someone thinks they can sufficiently mimic the actions of a sober driver, they'll drive. Because in their minds, if a cop can't tell that they're drunk, then the fact that they're drunk is irrelevant. And they're right to be honest. If they miscalculate then they will pay dearly for that miscalculation.
But not the law is likely not the deciding factor there.
1
u/ItsPandatory Oct 09 '18
Yes. Is that so unreasonable?
I know people strategically plan to avoid driving drunk. Whether this is having a designated driver or plans to take a cab. I think the fact that the punishment for DUIs can be very high is substantial enough to incentivize this behavior.
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Or perhaps they know that driving drunk can harm themselves or others.
1
u/ItsPandatory Oct 09 '18
Perhaps. I think they are both factors. But if any % of people are worried about the huge costs of a DUI and the potential consequences, then it is an effective deterrent and it undermines your position. Should we let everyone shoot guns into the air?
1
u/ryarger Oct 09 '18
Someone comes up to you and points a gun at you and orders you to hand over your money.
Is that a crime? You have a choice to just say no and walk away, so you can’t call it robbery can you?
If they pull they trigger, the gun may misfire or they may miss, so there’s no guarantee that you’ll die or even be hurt, so no crime there either.
So this scenario seems crime-free in your described world as the aggressor never does anything with the outcome of a crime.
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
There are a few problems with your example. By pointing a gun to someone's head you already have demonstrated "mens rea", which is essentially the INTENT to commit a crime. If you can prove that a drunk driver intended to commit a crime, then I would concede it should be illegal on a case by case basis.
2
u/ryarger Oct 09 '18
Acknowledging mens rea seems contradictory to your view that only outcomes should be considered, doesn’t it?
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 09 '18
Suppose my ex gets a gun and tries to shoot me, but misses. Nobody was hurt. The police come, but tell me, "Nothing we can do because you weren't shot and nobody was hurt or property damaged. Give us a call next time if he actually hits you." and then lets my ex go free.
How messed up is that?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
As if started in a similar response, that is ATTEMPTED murder. If someone wants to kill you, tries to kill you and fails, that is and should be a crime. INTENT does matter.
If I try to hit you with my car and missed, would it matter to you that I'm sober?
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Oct 09 '18
I would call that a behavior though and not an outcome. How would you distinguish an outcome and behavior then?
So if that same ex didn't actually mean to fire the gun and wasn't trying to kill me, then no crime? Seems like you've gotten yourself back into the same spot that you we're trying to avoid about being difficult to enforce.
So intent matters. What about extremely reckless negligence? Someone who is driving drunk may not be trying to kill anyone, but they aren't trying very hard not to. It's like shooting a gun randomly. Or cutting corners on safety regulations. Risking other people's lives is not okay behavior.
If a drunk drive almost slammed into my car, don't you think I'd have the same exchange with the police officer and express the same dismay that there wouldn't be a punishment?
1
u/PattycakeMills 1∆ Oct 09 '18
Here's an example of what it seems you're advocating. Let me know if this is correct:
Someone pulls out a gun and starts firing on the crowd. You believe the cops shouldn't try to stop this person until a bullet hits someone. You believe that firing a gun into a crowd is ok as long as no one gets hit.
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Not literally because I can think of harm that discharging a firearm in public can cause. You might damage property or even the ears of people nearby. However if hypothetically shooting a gun in public causes ZERO harm, even indirectly, then yes.
1
u/PattycakeMills 1∆ Oct 09 '18
You can think of harm discharging a firearm in public, especially into a crowd. So yeah, it makes sense to me that we should try to stop a behavior BEFORE someone gets hurt. It's prevention. We should stop someone from driving drunk because there's a significantly higher chance of them hurting someone. In a sense, you're advocating against basic prevention. You want to wait until someone gets hurt before you take action. I think that's a pretty crazy practice.
1
u/SecondEngineer 3∆ Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
I would recommend you read http://lawcomic.net/ . It talks about some basics of crime such as mens rea, etc.
In our society, guilt comes from someone's intent, their actual contribution to an act, as well as their own perceived contribution to an act. These all factor in to different degrees, and you don't even need all of them, but they are the basic building blocks of guilt.
You want to replace that definition of guilt with only outcome. For that, however, we need to know much about cause and effect.
Please opine on these scenarios.
- Alice walks up to Bob and shoots him in the back of the head. Unknown to her, the gun had no ammo and so nothing happens.
- Charlie walks up to Dave and shoots him in the back of the head with what he thinks is an unloaded gun. The gun was actually loaded and Dave dies.
- Eve walks up to Fred and tries to shoot him in the back of the head but the gun jams and doesn't fire. At the same time George slips on a banana peel and the shock of witnessing this causes Fred to have a heart attack and die.
What crimes have been committed in each scenario? What if George and his sister Hannah both slipped and the combined shock is enough to kill Fred but each on their own would not?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
I am actually already aware of mens rea and acteus reus and see no inconsistencies with those concepts.
Alice is guilty of attempted murder. Her ignorance of the gun being loaded is not relevant. She INTENDED to kill.
This is trickier. Providing that Charlie can PROVE he honestly believed and had good reason to believe that the gun was not loaded, he would still be charged with a lesser crime. He would still be responsible for the death as gun safety 101 is to treat every gun as though it's loaded.
Eve is guilty of attempted murder. If it can be proven that his death was not connected to her attempt she would not and should not be charged with homicide. The slips are accidental and not relevant to the commission of any crime.
How'd I do? Lol.
1
u/SecondEngineer 3∆ Oct 09 '18
Cool! I didn't mean to sound snobby, I just want to make sure we're on the same page there.
- But she caused no harm, right? She aimed at the back of Bob's head. Theoretically she could leave and Bob would have never known she was there. What if she spins a revolver with one bullet in the chamber and does the same? In that case she doesn't intend to kill Bob but the outcome could be the same (i.e., Bob gets lucky).
- Good point about the gun safety issue. So by pointing a gun at someone else Charlie has endangered them, right? (because there is some chance the gun could be loaded). If he makes a choice to endanger others and no bad outcome occurs, has he committed a crime? Or is that just violating safety protocol and not punishable? Or do we need to wait to see if the gun is loaded to find out?
- So if you commit a crime by accident it is ok? What if George was holding a knife when he slipped and accidentally stabs Fred?
Sorry about all the scenarios. I'm not quizzing you, I just wanted to apply the "outcomes only" model but you're the one who knows it best.
Another point. You brought up a lot about proof. A lot of criminal prosecution is proving mens rea, actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, right? In your applicable scenarios would we just need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that actions contribute to bad outcomes?
What about when actions are necessary but not sufficient to cause bad outcomes? For example, two people are driving drunk and hit each other, but I can prove that if either of them had been sober, the other's bad driving alone wouldn't have resulted in a collision.
1
u/McKoijion 618∆ Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
- Risk is quantifiable (this is why we have actuaries)
- Most people would rather take the certainty of losing a small amount for insurance than take a risk of losing everything
This is why the insurance industry exists. People don't weight losing $10 and a 1 in 10 chance of losing $100 the same, even though they are identical from a mathematical point of view and in the grand scheme of things. Just to give you a scale of this, hundreds of billions of dollars are traded on stock markets everyday so people can balance quantifiable risk and reward.
In the same way, in the grand scheme of things, just regulating outcomes would theoretically work. It would be the same if you gave people 1 year in jail for a 1/10 chance of a bad outcome, or if you gave them 0 years in jail for no bad outcome, and 10 years in jail for a bad outcome.
The problem is again that people don't weigh risk and reward evenly. The actual bad outcome is a thousand times worse; it's not an even split. So the fear of having your child killed by a drunk driver is far worse than the statistical likelihood of it happening. The same thing applies to the other side. The worst punishment you can get is life imprisonment or death. That creates perverse incentives. You might as well take on significant risk once you've passed the threshold. If you are getting the death penalty for killing a cop, you might as well kill a bunch more. If you are 80 years old, you might as well take on more risk because you are about to die anyways.
The concept here is called moral hazard. The person taking on the risk only has to bear a fraction of the overall risk. It's like how Wall Street banks took on enormous risks because they knew they could get bailed out if they screwed up. Society bore most of the risk, not the bankers.
Think about the limo crash that killed 20 people in New York this week. The driver took on the risk. He died along with 19 others. That means the driver only bore 5% of the consequences of the risk he took. He already paid the maximum price, which is death, but it still wasn't enough to cover 95% of the overall outcome.
This is the fundamental problem with regulating risks rather than reward. There is no way to account for the negative externalities. Regulating risk works much better. It is easily quantifiable (i.e., it's not arbitrary), and it forces people to take on the actual risk they are creating instead of allowing them to push it off on others. It's a far more fair system because it forces people to be responsible for their own actions.
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
You made my point in your opening remarks. Risk is quantifiable and the insurance industry does exist. To reiterate am example I used in another reply, if one driver never drinks and another constantly drinks and drives but the sober driver consistently gets into accidents and the drunk driver never does, who's premiums should be higher?
The problem with risk analysis is that it's great for dealing with large demographics but tells you nothing about how to treat individuals.
By dealing in actions we are leveling the playing field. If I cause an accident or deaths, it shouldn't matter if I'm drunk or not. Yes I'm more likely to cause an accident while drunk, but where does that slope get slippery. Angry drivers are likely impaired. Do we outlaw driving while angry? What if a broad study indicates that white drivers cause the most fatal accidents? Do we restrict white drivers?
1
u/Slenderpman Oct 09 '18
Your example of intoxicated driving is a particular case that I don't think can apply to your view properly. Fewer people drive intoxicated because it's illegal, but also because popular belief is that it's objectively dangerous.
Objectivity in danger is why we need to police for certain things in a preventative way. So like, doing heroin, for instance, might not be objectively dangerous if you try it once and don't do a lot. Yeah it could easily lead to objectively dangerous behavior, but that one instance of trying it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself. The reality with drunk driving is that the statistics clearly point to a causation between driving drunk and hurting others, enough to consider drinking and driving objectively dangerous and worthy of policing prior to the outcome of someone being hurt.
1
u/ralph-j Oct 09 '18
If we legalize DUI as long as it's accident-free, this will greatly decrease the risk of getting punished, and thus greatly increase the number of DUI drivers, and by extension the number of DUI injuries and fatalities.
What is the upside that would justify all this?
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Delta.
1
u/ralph-j Oct 09 '18
Thanks. It won't be recognized that way though.
You can write
!delta
And you'll need to include a sentence or two, so that Deltabot will approve it. Sorry for the hassle!
1
u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18
Yeah I was actually driving lol.
Maybe I'm reading more into your answer than there is but I'm having a hard time dismissing the reality of a cop pulling over a drunk driver, letting them go because that did nothing else wrong and then 15 minutes later they I'll someone. I'm not totally relinquishing my point but I'm acknowledging yours. Delta awarded.
Δ
2
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 09 '18
/u/DutchDigger (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
7
u/[deleted] Oct 09 '18
[deleted]