Daily Kos

View Story | 21 comments

  •  Absolutely 100% the drinker's fault (none / 0)

    There is no room for debate here.  Attempting to blame the party host is from the same school of thought that wants to ban pronography, marijana, and cursing on TV.

    In a free society, consenting adults should be able to do as they wish, including serving drinks and/or getting drunk, except when it hurts a non-consenting individual, in which case they should be held accountable to the law.

    Personal freedom - it's the only way.

    It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the good half of the country virulently against him.

    by fizziks on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:09:36 AM PDT

    •  I disagree (none / 0)

      with your conception of the people in favor of host liability as being from "the same school of thought" as the anti-porn, etc. camp.

      It's closer the the concept, much more prevalent in Europe, that in some cases there should be liability for inaction. For example, refusing to save a drowning child even if you have the means to easily do so.

      Anyway, there is absolutely room for debate here.

      Democrats will fight for a Renewed Deal with the American people.

      by Hoyapaul on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:25:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nah (none / 0)

      If the host could have reasonably prevented the drunk driving from happening with some reasonable measures, I want the court to agree hosts have that obligation.

      If we went your way, and said the driver is 100% responsible, I could invite over a friend known to drunk drive, feed him full of booze all night, and watch him drive off knowing he was loaded.  I call that criminal negligence.  

      Nothing says the host is 100% responsible or even 50%, but what about 20%?  The host, after all, creates the conditions for the drunk driving to occur.  The host, also very likely could have easily prevented this tragedy.  Maybe we need societal norms (to the point of polite manners) that say:  People always leave their keys with the host upon arriving at a party.  Parties should no longer leave all the booze out on a table for people to pour their own drinks.  Inviting 50 people over is fun, but if you don't want to pay for a bouncer or two to monitor for drunk drivers, too bad, you better cut your party size down.  Etc.

      Alcohol is restricted to adults for many reasons, and the responsibility inherent in knowing its effects is one of them.  Giving the host a blank cheque to hold enormous wild parties with no consequences doesn't strike me right either.

      My freedom ends where the next guy's freedom starts.  The injured woman in this case certainly has a right to not be hit by drunk drivers.  The drunk driving laws are already pretty severe, and didn't stop him.  Maybe it's time to start placing an obligation on the people serving him the booze to cut him off or get his keys.

      John McCain opposed SCHIP

      by Scientician on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:18:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see what you are saying (none / 0)

        I am all for 'societal norms' if they serve to make us all get along better.  Sure, the guy who provides alcohol to somebody who he knows will very likely drunk drive should maybe be ostracized, made to feel guilty, and generally tut-tutted to your heart's content.

        BUT...

        When you get the law involved - the power of the state involved - in saying what you do that does not necessarily directly hurt someone else can be legally sanctioned, that is a slippery slope straight to prohibition, censorship, and a host of other right-wing badness.

        It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the good half of the country virulently against him.

        by fizziks on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:42:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can you walk me down that slope? (none / 0)

          Cause I don't see it exactly.

          I guess maybe I do, but the dividing line between this, and say a guy who rapes a woman after watching porn is the level to which the alcohol directly contributes.

          It is a necessary precondition to drunk driving to be drunk.  Raping a woman wouldn't require watching porn.  

          Also the behaviour is predictable.  Meaning, if I let you drive home drunk, the idea you will hurt someone is predictable (not certain of course).  If you watch porn, I have no reason to believe you will commit rape (absent evidence you are a rapist).  

          Also, what reasonable steps could a producer of pornography take to prevent such behaviour, should convincing evidence of causality be found?  At least we know hosts can ask for keys and take steps to control distribution of alcohol at their parties.  We already require pornographers to not portray acts of violence (lack of consent) or use actors appearing to be under 18 (even when they're older).  

          That's the line for me, without writing a paper about it (getting too close as is):  Could the host reasonably and easily have tried to prevent the tragedy?  So, with that in mind, I'm comfortable with some measure of legal sanctions for throwing parties and being negligent to your guests behaviour.  If it crosses that line into, "I'm responsible for anything someone does even if I try and stop them" then I'll vehemently oppose.

          I'm comfortable with Canada's Supreme court not falling all the way down that slope, to make every producer of a product responsible for every indirect consequence of their actions.  The US Supreme Court on the other hand...;)

          John McCain opposed SCHIP

          by Scientician on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:57:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

View Story | 21 comments