Well, I didn’t say I explained it right. I just said you missed the point. 
It’s not a mistake, though; it’s SOP.
Well, living in an ostensibly free society requires its trade-offs. I am sure I’m not going to phrase this optimally, but I think in many cases one ought to be able to take chances by violating rules, provided they pay the price if they are caught. Under my twisted ethic, one must figure in the chances that if their screw-up seriously harms someone else, their punishment will be greater.
We also seem to view driving “under the influence” somewhat differently. I see a HUGE difference between someone who exceeds .08 because he had 2 quick beers on an empty stomach, as opposed to the long-time heavy drinker who is 2 or 3 times over the limit. The first guy I’m willing to cut considerably more slack than the second.
I’m not entirely convinced that the average driver with a couple of beers in them qualifies as a “menace to everyone else.” And tho I have no statistics, my WAG is that considerably more folks get stopped for DUI after blowing a stop sign than after killing or seriously injuring an innocent victim.
Finally, my personal opinion is that a good share of alcohol-related accidents result from fatigue in combination with alcohol. And then there is the issue of luck. IMO there are many accidents that are essentially unavoidable (at least the way mos people drive) - whether you are driving drunk or stone sober.
Just enough elements creating enough shades of grey that I do not favor a universal rule of throwing the book at every first offender. Repeat offenders, sure.
Just to add some medical data, in the modern US culture overall:
1 DUI means your chance of being an alcoholic is about that of a person who’s never had a DUI, less than 10%
2 DUIs mean that your chance of being an alcoholic is about 90%.
3 DUIs means the chance of being an alcoholic goes up to about 99%.
Just sayin’. Most ‘normal’ drinkers won’t risk drinking and driving after getting a single DUI. Problem drinkers will risk it.
Yep. And here is a story i just found with a Google news search:
Bolding mine.
which is why you are supposed to have your ride home planned out before you start drinking
I realize this should be obvious to most posters here but it never fails to amaze me that people are surprised when others do things like drive drunk.
yes its painfully stupid but really how much education did any of you get on the subject of alcohol beyond “Dont do it, wait til youre 21”
and then what? figure it out for yourself??? thats a great fucking plan.
We dont educate kids about alcohol, we dont have them start drinking in a safe environment (home) we just put our thumbs in our ears and run around screaming “LA LA LA LA LA LA” because we dont want to hear it. we dont want to think about actually doing the adult responsible thing and educating them…and so they grow up to be the same dumbasses we all were when we were young.
I am completely down with strict and harsh punishments for DUI offenses, but it would certainly be nice to have some actual education for young people out there.
I agree with this. I went through D.A.R.E. in school, and it did pretty much boil down to, “Drugs are bad, mkay?” There was no education about how to responsibly use legal drugs, and we went home thinking our parents were alcoholics.
I disagree on locking everyone up, though. I don’t want my taxes to go up that much.
From the CDC:
1.4 million is about 60% of the nation’s current prison population.
From the Department of Justice:
It’s just not feasible to throw them all in prison. I don’t know what a better solution would be; looking at Qadgop’s numbers, it makes me wonder if the people who will be deterred by harsher penalties are the same people who are deterred by current penalties, and it won’t make a difference to the others. We need a better way, and I don’t see one other than education.
its interesting how close that figure is to the % of people in prison for things like smoking pot…yet another twist on American Values.
And according to what I’ve read, repeat DUIs cause a serious majority of the problems - including the fatalities. This argues that the response to a first DUI conviction should be harsh enough to get the person’s attention, but not enough to really screw up their life. The message should be: You’ve had your warning - either figure out how never again to drink and drive, or figure on wrecking your life if you do so.
Well put.
Thank you.
I made broadly similar comments in the GD threat about frat boys. I honestly believe that one of America’s biggest self-inflicted problems is the attitude to alcohol imparted by a legal system that says, “don’t drink until you’re 21, but then, go crazy!”
I believe this is totally true. I’m a few years older than most of my college friends, so I got to watch them as they each turned 21. Every single 21st birthday amounted to “let’s all get alcohol poisoning tonight to celebrate the ability to drink legally!”. I fully believe the current legal system unintentionally encourages binge drinking.
This supports my own view.
First DUI: Stiff financial punishment (2k+), suspended license and lots of education regarding the potential problems of such behavior. Even though there are some offenders in this group who are going to be immune to the sentences given the majority are going to learn form the experience.
Second DUI: You can start taking the gloves off now. You have a flat learning curve starting to develop. Work-release jail time, another stiff financial penalty and more education, though the last might not be too effective. A friend of mine did a year of work-release time for a third (I think) DUI and it changed his life, not so much in his personality, but I see little of him anymore.
Third DUI: You can lock 'em up and just consider the prison time as a safer time on the road for the populace.
N.B. All of these hypothetical DUI’s do not involve collsions or death: That’s a different thing going on with respect to sentences.
Penalties have gone up by leaps the last few years. Yet the problem persists. For many alcohol is an addiction. We have to treat them with a drug program and attempt to reach them that way. The ever larger penalties do not work. They can not help themselves. A first offense in Michigan can run up to 5000 dollars . A lot of them serve time. I do not think we have solved the problem.
I am of two minds on that. Obviously, getting a DUI and the punishment that came with it did not make me stop drinking, or even make me stop drunk driving- I just resolved not to get caught again (yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight). On the other hand, as a sober woman, I believe that everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions, drunk or sober.
So maybe a combination of monetary penalties, loss of driving privilege and some sort of alcohol program MIGHT work for a first offense. But remember, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, so if someone doesn’t believe they are alcoholic or doesn’t want to quit, then they won’t quit.
It’s a mess, certainly.
Don’t you wish it was as easy as raising the penalties? But it is not. I wish it has simple answers. Treating the addiction will work in some cases. That will cut down some future problems, but not all. Even prohibition did not solve anything.
A casual friend of mine is now in prison for 2 years, in honor of being nabbed for DUI for about the fifth time. He had already done one 6-month stint, about 2 years ago.
Interestingly, he did not drive at all when his license was suspended, as it was for a year after his previous jail stay. A mutual friend told me that Mr. DUI stopped by on the day he got his license back to say hello and celebrate his return to mobility - he had a beer in his hand, and one empty on the floor.
He’s a nice guy and clearly not a criminal type. But he very obviously can’t keep himself from drinking while driving. He has caused a couple of accidents, though never one that included injuries. After this jail stay, he won’t be able to get his license back. Let’s hope he simply gives up driving forever.
That’s true, but when the negative consequences of unchecked alcohol-fueled behavior get ratcheted up, many alcoholics will face up to their behavior sooner, and change. (But many won’t, it is true. I see them daily at work)
You may not be able to make the horse drink, but shine a heat lamp on him, and he’ll get thirsty sooner.
There aren’t easy answers, it’s true.
No-one, least of all me in the OP, has ever suggested that it is “as easy as raising the penalties.” I’m completely on board with doing everything possible to help alcoholics beat their addiction.
But, as i said above, when their addiction leads them to break the law and put other members of society in danger, then we need to do something about it beyond simple treatment. Drinking is one thing; drinking and driving is something else. As Qadgop suggests, even the most hardcore alcoholics might take steps to get well, or at least to stop driving, if the penalties are stiff enough.
Bolding mine.
Actually, he sounds just like a criminal type to me.
Did you, in fact, get caught a second time?
I ask because if you did, that is the point at which escalating penalties should have kicked in. If so, did they? And if so, does that have anything to do with why you drink no longer?
Feel free to disregard if my questions are too personal.
That’s the reason I think there should be at least mandatory jail time on the first offense, not serious time, something like a 72 hour hold with no bail. Long enough to let the person sober up sit there and contemplate things.