Originally Posted by
FBinNY
You could be convicted or **** and murder on comparable evidence, so I don't have a problem with credible witness testimony that someone was drinking prior to an accident. I'm not changing the rules, not am I charging anyone with destroying evidence. What I am saying is that BAC is not the sole determinant of whether someone was DUI, though it could prove either guilt or innocence. I'm just saying that a conviction for DUI should be attainable without a blood test if there's evidence to support it. In the scenario where someone who is not in fact drunk leaves the scene and therefore never has a timely blood test, the evidence he destroys could very well be that which proved his innocence.
Ah, and there is the difference. By changing the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt, you would essentially be guaranteeing the government would obtain a conviction (if the jury followed the law) in such cases. BAC has never been the sole determinant of someone driving under the influence, many convictions have been obtained upon witness testimony of slurred speech, weaving, etc... The problem is precisely the one I have been talking about in this thread; the increase in the penalty has resulted in juries that are unwilling to convict of the crime perhaps because they don't feel it is fundamentally that serious and warrants the mandated punishment. The standard for conviction has never changed; the juries requirements have. And that is solely a result of the population not really agreeing with the law.
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
There's a lynch mob mentality against drivers on this forum, with folks demanding long mandatory terms for accidents, leaving the scene, or DUI. I'm not a believer in that, and accept that accidents are usually just that - accidents, and don't rise to criminality. I was and am against constantly lowering the BAC limits for drivers. OTOH, I am in favor of tougher enforcement against chronic DUI offenders, those who leave the scene and have to be hunted down, and others whose actions would elevate a simple accident to criminality.
I have no real problem with tougher enforcements, though as I said they do create unintended consequences such as juries who prefer to not-convict. I objected to your proposed change of the presumption of innocence in the case of DUI.
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
Just as you don't need a murder weapon, or even a body to convict someone of murder, you should be able to convict of DUI without a blood test result, IF other evidence supports the charge adequately. Contrary to your belief and argumentative reading of my posts, I'm more on your side than against. I don't ask anyone to assume anything, and insist on evidence to support any charge, nor do I want mandatory sentences which remove discretion from judges and overly empower prosecutors.
This is fundamentally why I am disagreeing with you. The law does not
require a blood test to convict of DUI now. It is simply a matter of juries not being willing to convict without something more than proof with a 'reasonable doubt'. I object to your proposal to create any crime where there is a presumption of guilt.
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
As I said earlier, there should also be a presumption of guilt for DUI if there's evidence to support it. In other words, leaving the scene and not driving directly to a police station would strip someone who can be shown to have been drinking (in any amount) of the defense that a blood test might have provided.
Yes, folks tend to object to the fact that our system will release without conviction many who are in fact guilty. That is the price of a system that is designed to prevent government from using it criminal justice system to persecute citizens for its own whims. Folks need to realize that isn't some theoretical fear, we already have many modern examples of prosecutors 'cooking the books' illegally to get convictions.
In the case of DUI, the folks who get off, are the same folks who tend to get off of any crime they are charged with; the wealthy and the politically connected. Most normal folks will simply plea bargain. Perhaps we should assume that if one is wealthy or a politician, then one should be
presumed to be guilty? I will admit I would be sorely tempted to change the law to say a politician is presumed to be guilty...