Am I supposed to feel sympathetic towards these drunken pals? The OP mentions that these poor saps are “first-time offenders” as if that should get them a free pass to climb behind the wheel and potentially kill a few people…as long as it’s just this one time.
They should be thanking the Juju Gods they didn’t get any jail time out of it.
Well they don’t need to rough up an ugly girl either. Or a man, whatever his looks. Not sure why she shoudl get favorable treatment from the cops because she is pretty.
Seems pretty proportionate to me. Other than the aggravated assault situation, which I am guessing carries jail time too, and more often, it doesn’t seem wrong that shoptlifting is considered less serious than a DWI, or owning weed, or vandalism.
Could be because nobody shoplifting, owning weed or vandalizing things T-boned me at 50 mph.
This is a common complaint about a lot of things.
The reason is that it’s easier to enforce things that are measurable.
OT: ISTM that drunk drivers kill a lot of other people but are rarely seriously injured or killed themselves. Does this jibe with other people’s observations and if so, what could account for it?
(Possibly my observation is an error based on dead drivers not being tested for alcohol.)
Anybody have statistics for how many accidents/deaths are caused by the very intoxicated vs. merely intoxicated? Alcoholics? How about people who’ve already lost their license for DWI? My gut feeling is that the big threat is from habitual drunks and those who don’t give a shit about the law (like driving w/o a license), is there anything to back this up?
My problem with the current systems, as I’ve seen them in use, is that they don’t discourage drinking and driving. I’ve never seen a checkpoint that locals didn’t know about in advance, and know how to avoid. Obviously, the police can’t be everywhere, but one would think that a single cop in the parking lot of any large bar could probably do more to cause people to take a cab (or arrest those too stupid to take the hint) than the nebulous fear of being pulled over for a busted taillight or somesuch.
I’m not sure that the typical combination of low chance of being caught + highly variable penalties is the optimal solution.
I agree with some of the posters here that drunk driving is an especially egregious offense. And Texas doesn’t mess around when it comes to stuff like this. But as Gonzomax said, it’s also largely about getting revenue. The Piney Woods of East Texas are notorious for this sort of thing - not just DUI, but hassling drivers for all manner of minor infractions like going a few miles over the speed limit, getting too close to the center line, having a burnt out taillight, etc. Other than the lumber industry and a few poultry plants, there’s nothing there, so I’m guessing the tax base isn’t too large. The local governments there need to raise money somehow and fleecing motorists is a pretty easy way of doing that.
If you ever have to drive through those parts with out-of-state plates, be reeaall careful.
Huge expense and jail are being done. Has it solved the problem?" Has it diminished it? We love to think there are solutions to any problems.
TV commercials with beautiful people having big fun drinking sink into the sub conscience of the youth. You have to drink to be cool. More and tougher enforcement = more revenue.
It is not they don’t give a shit. Some people are addicted. It is tough to stop addiction. It is good heavy enforcement cured the drug problem in America.
I can buy an addiction to alcohol. But drinking alcohol isn’t illegal. Even if the alcoholic is somehow addicted to drinking in bars rather than at home, then get a fracking cab.
You’re missing “while driving with a blood alcohol over the legal limit.”
Roughing up, no. But often people do need to be manhandled by the police whether or not it frightens them…even “cute” ones.
What do you find “shady” about it?
The financial cost of getting caught drinking and driving is expensive everywhere. As it should be.
And drinking and driving just once can cause the death of several other innocent people.
Oh, well since you put it that way, drinking and driving doesn’t seem so bad. :rolleyes:.
You don’t know what’s going to happen to you when you go to a bar 10 miles from your house to drink alcohol…with your vehicle?
Okay? Checkpoints shouldn’t be by bars because…it’s just not fair to those drinking and driving?
Wow!
You don’t have to play a game of chance. Drinking at a bar with your own vehicle and no designated driver is not something you’re forced to do. Attempting to drink enough to stay just under the legal limit is still playing a game of chance. Besides, if you’re a little over, you’re not in the “right mind” to make the right decision, remember?
I was not saying that all alcoholics disregard the law. I was saying that alcoholics (addicted, to use your construction) are a separate, though overlapping, group from those who don’t give a shit. More importantly, I was asking if anybody had any data to help determine if the the main groups of DWI offenders are:
If we can correlate probability of accidents/deaths with a particular group, that is a step to designing more effective techniques to reduce the number of such accidents/deaths.
I think stiff penalties for DUI are a good thing, but I think roadblocks should not be allowed. Stopping a car for no reason should not be allowed under any circumstance. Not to mention i have read conflicting reports about whether or not roadblocks actually catch more DUIs than roving patrols looking for erratic driving or other violations.
Roadblocks are an invitation for harassment and abuse of police powers.
DUI is a serious problem, but not all offenders should be treated the same. The people who are hardcore repeat offenders do a disproportionate harm. They should be focused on, as it is they who need to do serious jail time. Like, 3rd DUI should be a minimum time served offense of 3 years in prison. A fifth DUI should get you 8 years time served.
Similarly, I suspect that someone who is at 0.09 BAC (completely legal not that many years ago) does not pose NEARLY the threat to the public that someone who is at 0.25 does. How about having gradations between (a) 0.08 to 0.14, (b) 0.15 to 0.20 and (c) 0.21 and above? It just seems stupid to allow the law to treat the person who had one (1) beer too many at a picnic the same as the person who is blacked out and drunk driving all over the road at 3am.
Some data from here.
That the number has not increased over 10 years certainly shows some progress, given the increased number of drivers over this period. I don’t have data for even further back, but drunk driving is considered a lot more serious now than when I was just beginning to drive, and that is good.
I’ll just add here that I’m not too impressed by the “first offense” argument. This may be the first time these people got caught, but I suspect it is not the first time they drove drunk.
A cop in the parking lot is excellent, in that it helps to get the drunks off the road faster, which reduces the chance that they’ll kill someone. Good for Texas.
If i owned a bar I would not want a cop sitting in my parking lot all night. I assume the owner must give permission for this?
Basically, i think DUI should only be enforceable as secondary offense…just like not wearing a seat belt and talking on a cell phone, although those are starting to become primary offenses in some places.
Let’s add in the people driving on heroin, weed and oxycotin, and see how many impaired people are tooling along. Toss in cell phone users and texters and the roads are dangerous places to be. We also have speed demons who just love to drive fast and cut in lane to lane. We are very good at dealing with symptoms.
Nobody is in favor of DWI/DUIs and everyone would like to see laws that reduce them, but the problem with increasing penalties is the law of unforseen consequences.
The Texas DWI surcharge in the OP is one example; it doesn’t seem to have served any intended deterrent effect so far, and has had the unintended effect of causing huge headache for district attorney’s offices and county sheriffs in prosecuting and jailing the huge numbers of people who just can’t afford the $3000 it takes to get back and keep their driver’s license. There are now so many ways to lose your license now that prosecutors are having to add a docket that takes up an entire day just to keep up with the driving while license invalid offenders. Instead of decreasing DWI offenders and rasing revenue, they’ve increased their own costs and created a new class of criminal, the perpetual DWLI offender. When I mentioned to one of our local prosecutors that sombody suggested to me that first time DWI offenders should lose their license forever, he literally groaned. It sounds like a good idea on paper, but enforcement would be a nightmare.
Take Clothahump’s suggestion: if you make a first time DWI offense a felony with mandatory prison time, you’re creating a huge headache for district attorneys. Every single DWI in his jurisdiction is now going to be a jury trial because prosecutors can’t make offers, and the conviction rate plummets because juries are less likely to send an 18 year old honor student who drank five beers on prom night to do hard time in prison. In order to free up overloaded felony ADA’s and unclog the courts, local district attorneys start offering pretrial diversion programs where the defendant reports to their investigator, and get their charges dismissed if they sucessfully discharge from the program (which is actually happening already). So by dramatically increasing the penalties, making mandatory hard time and doing away with probation, you’ve actually decreased the penalties people are actually serving and decreased actual convictions. “Lock the bastards up for good!” may be a viscerally satisfying battle cry, but in actual implementation dramatically increasing penalties for any crime is something that has to be very carefully thought out.
Would you mind pointing me to this statute? And by the way, it’s not the only such offense; family violence cases can also be denied bail in certain circumstances.
One more correction: first-time DWI in Texas is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2000, 180 days in jail, or both. Most folks, of course, do probation and pay out their fine over that term. A second DWI would be a Class A (one year jail/$4000 fine), and DWI #3 becomes a third degree felony, two to ten.
But hey, if you try hard enough you can kill someone on your very first outing, so what the hell, go have fun.
I’ve spoken at length about this topic in the past.
I think that DUI as a crime could be totally eradicated if society actually wanted to do so. There are a few things I can think of off of the top of my head, but as I’m not a constitutional lawyer I do not know if these ideas would pass muster:
I actually imagine this could become law because we are not talking about a criminal statute but simply a license revocation as punishment and since driving is seen by the courts as a privilege and not a right it is less protected. For example the administrative hearings you go to if you have been accused of DUI have much fewer protections of your rights than the actual criminal court you go to for the criminal charge of DUI.
Obviously there would be other ways around this “safety feature” like perhaps the driver wearing gloves. No system will be perfect but I am willing to bet this device would cut drunk driving drastically and save lives. For a lot of people I think the mechanical warning that you are registered as “too drunk” would deter them from continuing on in their car.
This one may have some constitutional issues with it–I’m genuinely unsure. There is also the argument that “a bar owner would hate this” or “it would be bad for business.” As for the bar owner hating it–I wouldn’t care too much, they need to look at it as a layer of regulation they need to submit to in order to own a bar. As for it being bad for business, if this was a law it would apply to all such establishments so people would have the choice of drinking at home or drinking under these stipulations, given that no bars would be exempt I think most bar patrons would continue to visit their local establishments.
I also feel that DUI should be punished harshly, especially on a first offense. Some of the most dangerous DUI offenders are the repeat offenders who are serious, chronic alcoholics. Nothing will ever dissuade them from drinking or driving and they often are perpetually far more impaired than some average drinkers ever get in their entire lives. To address this any person convicted of a first offense DUI should be subjected to a much harsher treatment program than is currently seen in most states. No simple 18-24 hours of alcohol education, but a vigorous assessment by a mental health professional and any determination by said professional that the offender has a drinking problem would mandate a lengthy treatment process and no driving privileges until said professional feels that person is in full recovery.
All that being said, I also feel that DUI is handled in a way that is not consistent with constitutional ideals in this country. DUI defendants in many ways do not seem to have the same rights as other misdemeanants. For example it is not supposed to be the case that you can be compelled to witness against yourself, but people arrested for DUI in many states can be all but forced to submit either a breath or blood sample. The breathalyzer as a device is, in my opinion, subject to serious technical problems and is strictly inferior to a blood draw. I feel that for the purposes of convicting someone of a criminal offense breathalyzer results should be inadmissible. I’m fine with the use of a breathalyzer for other purposes (such as making a preliminary determination on the road side), but feel that a blood draw should be the only acceptable evidence in court. With a blood draw the person is either over the per se limit or they aren’t, and there is virtually no room for error as long as the lab does not confuse one person’s sample with that of another.
I also have some issue with the concept of a per se limit because I feel that what society really has a problem with is “driving while too impaired to drive safely.” By setting the per se limit (which has only gone down over the years) we’ve basically given the police and prosecutors a very easy crime to prove and convict on–but from a philosophical stand point I’m not sure how I feel about using such a strict line as the means of conviction. I think we should have to demonstrate that someone is actually impaired. Which means someone who is pulled over for a broken tail light but who is not driving in any other noticeably irregular way, and who passes a field sobriety test, should probably not be considered impaired even if later tests show they are right at .08 or some other arbitrary number.
A final problem of course is most police reports written up for a DUI offense always read that the police officer observed the driver “driving irregularly” that they had “watery eyes” “the smell of alcohol” and other such “signs” of intoxication that a police officer is trained to put in an incident report. These are all things that can be put in a report and for which there is no way to ever prove or disprove they actually happen–so in a great number of cases it is guaranteed a police officer will put these in a report if they “feel” that someone is drunk, whether those indicators are actually there or not. The field sobriety test when administered correctly is a good test for impairment, however it is a very subjective test since the police officer can simply say you failed based on any reason or no reason at all. In fact I’m not aware of very many people who have ever “passed” a field sobriety test, even people who later have BACs well below the legal limit and who beat their criminal charges.
Bar owners should not be expected to do police work,for which they have no training . That would open the doors for abuse and law suits.
That’s just garage talk and not thought through at all.
I don’t think fining people their life savings or more is the most effective way to get them not to drink and drive. If you can prove that it is, I’m willing to listen.