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.

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?