[hbnyc]

How can you justify this from a legal standpoint? Personal ethics be damned, we've established that 0.08 is the line. 0.07 is not above or equal to that. You can't say someone is in the wrong because they are close, but not on the other side, of something binary.

[bsder]

> Personal ethics be damned, we've established that 0.08 is the line. 0.07 is not above or equal to that.

Quite a few of the laws aren't written that way.

A 0.08 is dead to rights guilty--generally a DWI--driving while intoxicated.

However you very much can be convicted of DUI--driving under the influence--even if you blow significantly less than 0.08. This is especially true if the police also have you on video doing something stupid or speeding excessively.

[lifeisstillgood]

Can I ask you (and anyone still reading) where they live and how important a car is to getting to, say, the nearest bar?

I am trying to understand if this is an economic / urban / rural question or is really about a bright line between legal and illegal

[uhhhhhhh]

From a legal standpoint, its 0.08 within the ability to accurately measure BAC. I promise every machine has a margin of error and that is accepted.

if you're within the margin of error for measuring equipment that's just part of life. Applies to radar guns, applies to breathalyzers, and every other technical solution to a legal issue.

[jessaustin]

If the margin of error for a particular device were 0.07, that would seem less acceptable as just part of life?

[unethical_ban]

If the law says someone must be at 0.08 or above, and the machine margin of error is 0.01, then the machine should have to read 0.09 before someone is penalized.

[cascom]

Then shouldn’t the margin of error tolerance of the machine be part of the law as well?

[thaumaturgy]

What's happening in this thread right now is simply a difference of moral frameworks.

On one side, you have people for whom right and wrong is defined by the law: if it's legal, then it's right, and if it's illegal, it's wrong. Therefore as long as people are making decisions that are consistent with law, they are fine.

On the other side, you have people for whom right and wrong is a fuzzier judgement of consequences somewhat independent of the law. If it's dangerous but legal, it's still dangerous. If it's illegal and not dangerous, then maybe it shouldn't be enforced by law.

It's sadly unlikely that either side is going to find any agreement with the other.

I'm firmly in the second camp on this particular issue: I don't care that the law says that anything up to .08 is okay; if you're close enough to .08 that a marginal error in a device could make it illegal, then I wish you weren't driving. Hell, if I'm out, I'll give just about anyone a free ride home, and take them back to their car in the morning, if that's what it takes to keep them from driving "a little bit" drunk.

[dpark]

> What's happening in this thread right now is simply a difference of moral frameworks.

That’s not what’s happening at all. No one here is asserting that .08 is some moral boundary. What’s happening is that some people here think that people convicted of criminal acts should be guilty of those acts as defined in the law. Other people think that pretty close is enough to declare someone guilty of a crime.

.08 is the legal boundary. If you’re driving at .07, you have not broken the law.

> I'm firmly in the second camp on this particular issue: I don't care that the law says that anything up to .08 is okay; if you're close enough to .08 that a marginal error in a device could make it illegal, then I wish you weren't driving.

That’s lovely but “I wish you weren’t driving” is not the law.

[DennisP]

I would not argue that right and wrong are defined by the law. What I am saying is that the law is defined by the law. We don't punish people for immoral behavior, only for breaking the law.

This is the only fair and democratic way to handle things. The law is defined by a legislature which (in theory at least) is responsive to public opinion on what should be considered acceptable behavior.

This does not mean the law is always correct about what's moral. There are many legal behaviors that I think are immoral, and many illegal behaviors that I think are morally fine. But if we put people in jail for doing things that somebody thinks is immoral, without going through the democratic process to make that actually illegal, then the rights that people have in a democracy are being infringed.

[notheguyouthink]

> I'm firmly in the second camp on this particular issue: I don't care that the law says that anything up to .08 is okay; if you're close enough to .08 that a marginal error in a device could make it illegal, then I wish you weren't driving.

Then you should be advocating for a lowering of the limit. If by your judgement anyone who blows a .07 is above the limit, than the limit becomes .07.

Here is why I think your logic is broken; If we lower it to .07, I assume you call anyone at .06 guilty, no? It is "close enough". So if we lower it to .06, you'd call .05 guilty, rinse and repeat.

I am totally for lowering the limit to whatever we find most safe. Yet, the law needs to be set and followed. Fuzzy laws ruin lives.

[voidlogic]

>What's happening in this thread right now is simply a difference of moral frameworks.

You can also hold the stricter standard as what you believe is your personal moral obligation and simultaneously believe that the looser legal standard is what you can morally apply to others.

This is true for many issues, such as free speech. I might think what you are saying is immoral (due to my personal ethics) while also thinking my censorship of you are saying would be immoral (and illegal, due to the legal framework I live in).

[civilian]

We, as a society, decided that 0.08 is the limit. And we have no idea how much marginal error are on these machines. If you want a different standard, try to get the legal limit changes to 0.06 or whatever!

What you're doing right now is giving the police even more ambiguous grey area to selectively enforce. And you're encouraging our laws to be inconsistent with their application.

[lifeisstillgood]

I agree with your framework issue, but the fuzzy line between legal and illegal is a common thread in many areas of life (if not most) and so I am surprised how devisive this is.

I suspect this is a rural v urban issue but i am not sure - can i ask where you live and how easy is it to get to a bar without a car?

[dragonwriter]

> I don't care that the law says that anything up to .08 is okay;

The DUI laws mostly don't say that, anyway.