The Impaired Dual System Framework of United States Drunk-Driving Law: How International Perspectives Yield More Sober Results
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. INTRODUCTION II. UNITED STATES' DUAL METHODS OF PROOF IN DRINKING AND DRIVING PROSECUTIONS A. The Highly Subjective, Misplaced Field Sobriety Testing System 1. General Problems with Field Sobriety Testing System 2. Specific Problems with Standardized Field Sobriety Tests 3. Specific Problems with Nonstandardized Field Sobriety Tests B. The Fledgling, Yet Promising .08 Per Se Statutory System 1. Tolerable Problems with Breathalyzer Machines 2. Lenient Punishment for Refusing a Breath Test. III. INTERNATIONAL, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DRUNK-DRIVING LAWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES A. The Limited Involvement of International Organizations B. Why United States' System is Impaired: Field Sobriety Tests and Ineffective Enforcement of Per Se Laws C. Scandinavia: The Very Strict Founding Father D. Great Britain: The Current Leader in Strict Enforcement E. Australia: Enforcement and Federalism Can Coexist F. Canada: Putting Field Sobriety Tests Where They Belong IV. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION Throughout world, alcohol is regarded as both bringer of elation and discontent, as [n]o other substance has been so lauded in verse and song or criticized so frequently as has alcohol. (1) Countries have developed a kind of ambivalence towards alcohol because of dualistic nature of its exaltation and regulation. (2) While alcohol historically posed no great threat to communities, (3) its devastating effects have become increasingly apparent as an international catastrophe. (4) Impaired driving is a grave and serious international dilemma that results in countless casualties all over (5) Despite these tragic consequences, [t]he incidence of driving while under influence of alcohol is one of most frequently committed crimes throughout world. (6) In Great Britain, sixteen percent of total road deaths are caused by drunk drivers, (7) while in Ontario, Canada, over 12,000 drunk-driving accidents occur in a single year. (8) The European Commission contends that in its member countries, up to twenty percent of road accident deaths and serious injuries are attributable to alcohol and amount to an estimated loss of life of ten billion euros per year. (9) In United States, of 42,815 total traffic fatalities that occurred in 2002, forty-one percent were alcohol related. (10) In 2002, 258,000 people were injured in alcohol-related crashes. (11) Motor vehicle accidents where driver is impaired by alcohol cost employers over nine billion dollars a year. (12) Statistics like these, along with lobbying of public interest groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) (13) and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD), have resulted in the almost schizophrenic development of drinking-and-driving in United States that is aimed at achieving fast and arguably haphazard prosecutions and convictions of those charged with drunk-driving offenses. (14) According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), resolving this problem requires cooperation of law enforcement, courts, and medical professionals to assist prosecutors in convicting alleged offenders. (15) The effect is that most states have two entirely different methods of prosecution to prove offense of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). (16) This system is not only confusing for jury and unfair to criminal defendant, but it is also untenable. (17) One method of proof, consisting primarily of evidence from field sobriety tests, is subjective. (18) and inaccurate, (19) while other method of proof--breath, blood, or urine tests--cannot be properly implemented. (20) Drunk drivers create a very serious social (21) and international (22) problem that needs to be corrected. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».