For or Against? Laws in all 50 states making the second DUI a felony. And why?
Lets even say we'll raise the definition of legally drunk to .10 and lower the drinking age to 18. I'm asking because where I live it's not a felony until about the 3rd or 4th time. And I think that's bull. If they don't learn their lesson the first time, we should come down with the law of Hammu...
Lets even say we'll raise the definition of legally drunk to .10 and lower the drinking age to 18.
I'm asking because where I live it's not a felony until about the 3rd or 4th time. And I think that's bull. If they don't learn their lesson the first time, we should come down with the law of Hammurabi IMO.
four*
While I wouldn’t oppose a law forcing liberals to suffer the consequences of their chemical dependency to a greater extent, the states should be sovereign in this, as in all else, as stated in the Constitution.
First off…the ‘crime’ is for the potential to damage property or hurt/kill people.
I have a problem with crimes that are based on potential:
Example: If a woman has sex organs then she has the potential to engage in prostitution (a crime in most states). Should she be arrested for having the potential to commit a crime or arrested when she actually commits a crime?
In summation, should a drunk driver be arrested because he has the potential to commit a crime or arrested after he damages property or hurts/kills someone?