wow.

[ducpainter]

No one is arguing it makes it easier, they are saying it helps alleviate any ADDITIONAL hardship that was caused.  As to whether or not insurance companies pay out quickly, that's a matter for a discussion on insurance reform, not whether or not the act of driving uninsured should go unpunished.  

Further, while anyone could make a inebriated decision that they wouldn't otherwise make sober, choosing to drive without insurance does suggest some premeditated disregard for the law.  As such, it should warrant further punishment.  

FTR...

insurance is not mandatory in every state.

So if a non inebriated driver has an 'accident' and someone dies should the sentence be doubled?

My questions have absolutely nothing to do with the crime of DUI, but simply why you think the money makes a difference.

[CowboyBeebop]

FTR...

insurance is not mandatory in every state.

So if a non inebriated driver has an 'accident' and someone dies should the sentence be doubled?

My questions have absolutely nothing to do with the crime of DUI, but simply why you think the money makes a difference.

Only two States don't require insurance to drive a car; Wisconsin and New Hampshire (and New Hampshire is looking at requiring it).  If insurance is not required, then you can't be punished for a law you didn't break. 

As to why insurance should be required, and why driving without any is negligent, I and others answered that question, and our conclusion seems to be shared by the vast majority of the Union as well.

[ducpainter]

Only two States don't require insurance to drive a car; Wisconsin and New Hampshire (and New Hampshire is looking at requiring it).  If insurance is not required, then you can't be punished for a law you didn't break. 

As to why insurance should be required, and why driving without any is negligent, I and others answered that question, and our conclusion seems to be shared by the vast majority of the Union as well.

Because the frame of reference that you and others come from is that money matters in this circumstance.

I, obviously can't, and feel no need to convince you of the error of your (collective) thinking.

I'm done.

[CowboyBeebop]

Because the frame of reference that you and others come from is that money matters in this circumstance.

I, obviously can't, and feel no need to convince you of the error of your (collective) thinking.

I'm done.

Error how?  No one is claiming that money is ALL that matters, which is how you seem to be interpreting things.  Why would you want to allow a situation where the deceased's family isn't taken care of in their absence?  And what about instances where someone isn't killed, only permanently injured?  Why should they be held responsible for their own costly and often life-long care?  Its nonsensical. 

As an addendum, both New Hampshire and Wisconsin, while not requiring insurance, do require that you have some form of personal liability protection, the difference being that they allow citizens to chose how they do that. 

[Statler]

you guys aren't saying different things so no point in arguing.

One point is just more romantic....if a true loved one is lost than no amount of money can ever change that.

One is more along the lines with our system that tries to make one 'whole again' in the only way it is able.

[CowboyBeebop]

you guys aren't saying different things so no point in arguing.

One point is just more romantic....if a true loved one is lost than no amount of money can ever change that.

One is more along the lines with our system that tries to make one 'whole again' in the only way it is able.

Actually, I never discounted the "romantic" point of view, but despite stating that (twice), he still wanted to tell me about the error of my (collective) thinking and accuse me of having an overly-materialistic world-view (a veiled personal insult).  But whatever - I'll punch out as well.

[Statler]

I'll make one small comment about poking the owner of a bar with a stick, and then suggest we're done in this one for everyone's benefit.

It'll be spring soon and we could use a ride and a drink together (not simultaneously).