Champion cyclist Ethan Boyes hit and killed by driver in SF

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Due process in Japan allows some practices that would violate constitutional rights in the U.S. If you wanted to implement those practices in the U.S., you would have to amend the constitution. I doubt people in the U.S. would be willing to amend the constitution and give up those rights to reduce the crime rate. You can argue otherwise, but I think it's pretty clear Americans will fight tooth and nail to retain the rights they have.

The 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was interpreted by SCOTUS to mean charged within 48 hrs but this can vary. Having property seized by Civil Forfeiture is such a loop hole. With the current mood in the US, I can see this changing with a SCOTUS ruling. This only goes back to "County of Riverside v. McLaughlin" (1991). With the backlash against the no-bail revolving door criminals, it will probably change. SCOTUS has shown the constitution is not absolute but open to interpretation.

How do you want to balance individual freedoms against responsibilities as a member of society. A lot of people right now in the US are doing the equivalent of yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre.

But maybe more importantly, the police are still largely respected in Japan. In general, people probably have more respect for one another. Ih the US, if you don't respect your fellow citizens, well I guess everything breaks down. But I digress.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Alistair

None of which need happen to crack down on DUI through making it a more serious crime (felony, harsher penalties, whatever).

No, it doesn't. But, you can't simply point to Japan and declare that their implementation of harsh drunk driving penalties would work in the U.S., because their legal system differs from the U.S. legal system in important ways, and the two cultures differ in important ways.

[capt_velo]

There's just not enough traffic police to catch all the drunk drivers on our roads. The current penalties are punitive enough if you get caught, it's just that you probably won't be caught.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by capt_velo

There's just not enough traffic police to catch all the drunk drivers on our roads. The current penalties are punitive enough if you get caught, it's just that you probably won't be caught.

Where "punitive enough" is a light jail sentence. For killing somebody.

And for a plain-old DUI, it's a few months of restricted driving (not suspended - you can usually still drive to work), no jail, and maybe a few AA meetings.

[capt_velo]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Where "punitive enough" is a light jail sentence. For killing somebody.

And for a plain-old DUI, it's a few months of restricted driving (not suspended - you can usually still drive to work), no jail, and maybe a few AA meetings.

In Texas, there's a minimum of three days of jail on a first conviction.

The problem with adding more punitive punishments is that they don't work well as a deterrent. Drunk people aren't that great about thinking about their future.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by capt_velo

In Texas, there's a minimum of three days of jail on a first conviction.

The problem with adding more punitive punishments is that they don't work well as a deterrent. Drunk people aren't that great about thinking about their future.

Sure, but we also fail to mandate treatment beyond a few months of AA, nor do we require longer term check-ins/verification that the problem is fixed.

[benb]

There's no right to operate motor vehicles so how does that really make increased punishments for any kind of motor vehicle related crime unconsititutional?

Cutting up your license for the rest of your life does not deprive you of the right to travel.

Lack of deterrence seems relevant, but so much of the public breaks the rules so often driving a motor vehicle (including elected officials) I think it would just be a revolt if even basic things like speeding started getting enforced en mass. It would be even harder to put harsher punishments in place.

Even if we got rid of the BS where almost all tickets are reduced or dropped if you just contest them in court that'd go a long way.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by benb

There's no right to operate motor vehicles so how does that really make increased punishments for any kind of motor vehicle related crime unconsititutional.

No one made the claim that increased punishments were unconstitutional.

[benb]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

No one made the claim that increased punishments were unconstitutional.

You implied it since you never explained this at all:

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

There are aspects of the Japanese system that would be considered a violation of basic constitutional rights in the U.S. I doubt many people in the U.S. would be willing to trade those rights in order to lower U.S. crime rates to levels seen in Japan.

Was it relevant at all to reducing the # of cyclists killed by drivers who then get light penalties?

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by benb

You implied it since you never explained this at all:

No, I didn't imply it. Yes, I did explain it:

"You can't simply point to Japan and declare that their implementation of harsh drunk driving penalties would work in the U.S., because their legal system differs from the U.S. legal system in important ways, and the two cultures differ in important ways."

[capt_velo]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Sure, but we also fail to mandate treatment beyond a few months of AA, nor do we require longer term check-ins/verification that the problem is fixed.

No, but we do mandate installing a breath-activated ignition locking device in your car in many cases.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by capt_velo

No, but we do mandate installing a breath-activated ignition locking device in your car in many cases.

Typically only short-term, same as the restricted license. If a person is an alcoholic and prone to DUI, this isn't terribly useful - they have an illness that needs treatment.

[redir]

Does the penalty of a crime go down as one ages? The question is should a 25 year old get 10 years and an 80 year old 1 year for the same crime? Do 100 year old's get immunity? On some level I get it but the guy killed someone who had their whole life ahead of him, a life this guy already lived. Not very fair.

[rallizes]

A relatively local to me story about how things work in the US

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/dri...l-hit-and-run/

“A driver with multiple convictions for driving under the influence struck and killed a pedestrian before leading Orange County authorities in a chase on Tuesday, according to police.”

[homagesilkhope]

https://abc7news.com/sf-presidio-cyc...rges/14547750/