Many DUI offenders think they can drive after excessive drinking. Not wanting to pay for a cab or inconvenience a sober friend, they choose to take the chance hoping they will not get caught. Many believe because drinking alcohol is a legal right after the age of 21, they can do so. Unfortunately, many misjudge their alcohol tolerance and driving capabilities.
The drinking limits are set in accordance to ones abilities to operate a car based on years of research. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, the following blood alcohol levels affect drivers accordingly.
- .02: A decline in visual function and ability to multitask
- .05: Coordination declines, steering gets more difficult and response to emergency driving situations is reduces
- .08: Short-term memory loss, lower capacity to process information and impaired perception
- .10: Ability to stay in one’s lane and brake at the right time is reduced
- .15: Substantially impaired to the point of not able to control the vehicle, pay attention to driving tasks, and process visual and auditory information properly
This week, the international peer-reviewed publication Journal of Medical Ethics published “Reducing the harmful effects of alcohol misuse: the ethics of sobriety testing in criminal justice.” The article discusses whether using a Continuous Alcohol Monitoring system on an offender violates that person’s human rights or privacy. The article gives good clarity on the subject, citing that “prisoners frequently have conditions” as part of their release and that the CAM technology, in this case, the SCRAM CAM System, is no different. As an accused or convicted offender, it is the job of the court to ensure your safety, as well as those around you.
At SCRAM Systems, we often see people voicing their opinion on various social outlets, telling us that they have a legal right to drink. They do not, however, have the right to drink and drive or commit any other number of crimes. The Journal of Medical Ethics article goes so far as to state not only is there nothing unethical in the requirement for sobriety and the use of SCRAM to enforce it, “given the prospective benefits to both offenders and the public, it would be extremely unethical not to implement the scheme.”
Do you believe required sobriety—and monitoring for it—violates a person’s human rights or privacy, even if they are convicted of a crime? How would you respond to those who voice their right to drink alcohol—a legally obtainable substance for those over the age of 21—regardless of criminal activity?
Oh what a wonderful topic! Sure, everyone over the age of 21 has a “right ” to drink. They do not, however, have the “RIGHT” to take the safety of others on the road into their hands by driving impaired. I am wearing the Scram bracelet and just had my battery changed. The provider who changed my battery was someone who I had just met for the first time. He asked me how I “liked” being on Scram….aside from the inconvenience of the cost of course. I was completely honest with him. I told him that I truly believe in Scram. I wholeheartedly believe that more first time offenders should be required to do time on the Scram Bracelet. A period of forced sobriety would serve them well. If there is truly a substance abuse issue to be identified, this is the time to get help. If it was a once and done mistake, perhaps it will speak volumes to their peers. To me, this time has provided me a forced awareness of how dangerous, senseless, and reckless the act of impaired driving is.
Absolutely! I believe that Americans have the RIGHT to consume alcohol. Drinking and driving or putting others in danger is NOT OKAY. But to force someone to abstain from alcohol and monitor it by a “system” such as this is disgusting and a blatant violation of our rights. Putting others in danger by one’s alcohol consumption is not okay, but that does not mean that this company nor any legal system has the right to force that person to abstain from alcohol.
The courts do not make or force an inmate to wear the SCRAMx bracelet. The inmate asks the court for bond. The judge says okay. As a condition of that bond you must wear the bracelet.
The inmate then has a choice. Do I want out of jail bad enough to wear the bracelet, or not. If not, he/she returns to a cell to await further action on their case. The inmate makes a choice which is not a violation of their rights.
It’s morons like you who should have your rights taken to see how it feels. Really it’s voluntary? Stay in jail or where a scram bracelet? For a crime you’ve not been convicted of? Only accused of.
The 2 leading causes of automobile accidents are distracted driving and speeding.
So let’s monitor peoples phones for texting while they await trial as a condition of bail and if they text before trial lock them back up. And don’t forget they have to pay to be monitored for a crime they have not been convicted of yet. Or as you say they have a choice to stay in jail for a crime they haven’t been convicted of yet. Sounds like a choice to me have all your rights taken or just a few. That’s like saying do you want me to hit you with a ten pound hammer or a five pound hammer then when I hit you with the five pound hammer saying it was your choice, get real.
Lets not forget our speeding friend either lets have everyone charged with speeding have a regulator put on their car to ensure they do not speed as a condition of bail and don’t forget they get to pay a fee for the voluntary choice to do it or else.
Thank god stupidity is not illegal or you should be monitored at your expense. Next time you have a stupid thought write it down and read it allowed and if it sounds stupid to you just imagine how we feel when we have to read it.
Sincerely,
Smarter than a third grader.