I have to side with **Hamlet **and RickJay and advocate harsher punishment. Drunk Driving is a horribly easy crime to do and the results of a bad break are as devastating as murder. People need to take into account the ease of doing this on accident when they cry about how harsher laws are unjust. Lets face it, DD very often isnt like a robbery or shoplifting or even jaywalking in which people consciously do and take the risk. DD can happen to anyone who drinks
The root of the problem seems to be the casual availability of alcohol and the social nature of it. Beer commercials are always filled with sexy people having a good time. If you and your friends were in that situation, and you had maybe one or two drinks, how much more effort would it be for most people to say they’ll find a phone book, call a cab, wait for it, pay lots of money, and get driven home only to not have your car the next day? Most people would wait a bit until they think they’ve sobered up, then take their chances. Drunk drivers dont ever think they can be the next statistic, thats why its so pervasive. Unlike the murderer or robber who knows they are doing something bad, the drunk driver takes his chance. Its no wonder that its so hard to stop even with harsher laws
Unfortunately, I dont see the trend reversing until we seriously curb the appeal of alcohol and its social nature. People drink to get drunk, thats the goal. Until that changes, drunk driving will continue to kill thousands of people
I should stress that while I have no sympathy for the OP’s dumbass friends, I would agree that drunken driving punishments for FIRST offenses are generally cvurrently adequate, IMHO. I think perhaps more emphasis should be put on education and scaring the first offense idiots. People can be pretty shaken up by their first experience with law enforcement, and I think a good slap on the wrist the first time and a hefty fine will get the message across. Some community service helping accident victims might be a good idea too.
More specifically, mandatory jail time as a condition of probation, no probation and mandatory jail time, possible prison sentence, or mandatory prison sentence?
Punishment has been getting harsher and harsher for over 25 years and the drunk driving problem remains, so getting even more harsher still isn’t going to eradicate it either. There is such a thing as the law of diminishing returns. There is also such a thing as alcoholism, which harsher and harsher laws seem to effect not a whit. An alcoholic will take his punishment, go to the class, listen to the judge’s lecture, confess that he’ll never drink and drive again - and mean it - and then as soon as he gets released from prison he’ll scam a car and drive to the bar.
It’s unrealistic to think you can totally stamp something like that out. DWI laws aren’t written with the expectation that they will manage to stamp out every instance of drinking and driving. What you need to do is make people understand there will be consequences to their actions…and that if they continue their bad behavior that those consequences will steadily escalate until they become intolerable. Then you let adult citizens make their own choices.
That’s why I favor something like the 3 strikes (though it could be a more granulated process then 3 actual strikes) and you are out rule…you start out with a fairly mild punishment coupled with education on exactly what continuing this behavior will get them. Then, if they continue to break this law the punishments get harsher and harsher, until eventually (after 2 or 3 more instances, say), the person looses, permanently, their driving privileges. After that we start looking at serious prison time.
At a certain point they would have lost their license…at that point I’d say we would be talking about years or even decades of prison time for not only driving after having his or her driving privileges permanently revoked but for continuing the behavior of drinking while driving. And if the person, after spending years or decades in prison gets out and continues to do this, well…then don’t let them out of prison again. It’s harsh, but by that point it will be fairly clear to most people that this person is irredeemable. No?
In some places bar owners may be liable for letting a person get drunk enough to be dangerous. Not just bar owners - I’m involved in organizing conferences, and we worry about this kind of thing also when there are open bars. So the bar owner might not object. I doubt he’d want to get hassled by the cops in any case.
In California talking on a non-hands free cellphone is, and I’m glad. Before the law went into effect I saw a lot of people driving as if they were drunk with cellphones in their hands. I still see it, but not as often.
I’d guess that in cases other than DUI checkpoints a person gets pulled over because he is driving erratically, so DUI is almost a secondary offense anyhow - unless you mean by this that the penalty should be reduced.
Allow me to amend this statement in response to xtisme’s comment.
An alcoholic will take his punishment, go to the class, listen to the judge’s lecture, confess that he’ll never drink and drive again - and mean it - have his license suspended, and then as soon as he gets released from prison he’ll scam a car and drive to the bar.
Right, which is why, at some point, you throw their ass in jail. If that’s the only way to keep some drunk drivers off the street, I have no problem with it.
The problem of drunk driving won’t be solved by harsher laws. .08 is pushing too low to begin with. Lowering it further is unrealistic. Nobody should get a DUI driving home from a Valentines day dinner where they shared a craft of wine with their significant other. Lets face it, nobody gets T-boned by the person who blows a .08. Thats as unfit to drive as someone who hasn’t had a day of sleep. There are tons of cops, doctors and parmedics who pull shifts like that. Then there is the guy who gets a DUI because he passes out in his car, starts it because its cold before he nods off. Technically he is operating the vehicle just by turning it on. He doesn’t deserve the 10,000 dollar penalty. The problem will be solved when mass transit is availiable everywhere and/or cars can be programed to drive themselves ala Timecop.
I’m about 224 lbs. If this chart is relatively accurate, my blood alcohol level will be under the legal limit for driving after having four bottles of beer. I can tell you that even though my blood alcohol may be under the legal limit, if I haven’t had much to eat I can feel a pretty good buzz and my judgment is impaired. If you think think .10 is more realistic, then I should be good to go after drinking a six pack of beer in a 40 minute period. I guarantee you if I do that I’m really buzzed and not fit to drive.
When I was younger and spent a good amount of my weekend nights and some weekday nights in bars, my peers and I thought we were invincible and could drive well after drinking and not hurt anyone. What kept us from drinking and driving was the fear of harsh punishment that we witnessed affect others that we knew who got caught. Fear of punishment obviously doesn’t keep everyone from breaking the law, but it does work.
I’ve always wondered what they’d do if they switched to 100% ethanol. You’d basically have moonshine at every gas station for the cost of a gallon of gas. Would you have to be 21 to fill a fuel can?
So, do you feel that the same penalties should be applied for people who talk on the phone while driving? These people seem to have evidence that it is just as dangerous, just as damaging to society.
Personally, my opinion is a bit more nuanced. I think that multiple offenders should basically have the key thrown away like you (though I am not sure about giving them the needle). First time offenders should be given the chance to reform, heavy economic penalties (thinking fines/community service here, not license suspension), and mandatory education should be the norm. License suspension/revocation and jail time should be reserved for second time offenders. Three strikes, throw away the key.
I post this based on my own experience: As a teenager I drank heavily and was lucky I never killed anyone, especially myself. I was even luckier I never got caught. This was in the 80s when drinking and driving was pretty unexceptional. When I was 19 my best friend was killed by a drunk driver and several of my other friends were seriously injured (a couple of them permanently). As an aside, he got 8 years IIRC, and was out in less than 5. My life and social circle was smashed by this event. I cleaned up and did not drink for many years (6-8?). Now, at 40 yo, kids in grade school, living in suburbia, complete with minivan, I have to admit that there were probably a couple of times in the last decade I would probably have run afoul the law. 2 glasses of wine with dinner at a restaurant is probably enough to put me over the edge with regard to the law, though I don’t believe I am significantly impaired in these cases.
Anyway, about 2 years ago an acquaintance of mine received a DUI driving home from a diner party. I was not there and do not know how intoxicated he was, but I would guess a maximum of 4 glasses of wine over a 4 hour dinner. His life was fucked! While this guy is not a good friend, I do respect him. He is, like me, in his late 30s/early 40s. He lives in suburbia with kids. A professional. And unlike me (not that this matters, but I am painting a picture here) he is a devout Christian and a die hard Republican. Whatever his faults (;)) I believe the punishment he faced was disproportionate to his crime and record.
Anyway, since this event, I have not driven after drinking. Way too much risk.
Speaking as someone who has driven home drunk hundreds of times, I am continually astonished at the hysteria surrounding drunken driving… It must be similar to what someone who smokes pot realizes the first time they try it and realize that all the anti pot laws are complete bullshit. Unsurprisingly, I must confess I feel the laws are too strict. I grant that I’m not falling over puking drunk, and the few occasions I was that bad, I simply slept in the car, happy for a soft seat. I am impaired when I do this. I understand it. I understand the consequences of being caught. I understand that people say I’m a danger on the road, and will kill people. And, sitting in the car, with the keys in the ignition, I laugh, because even with a twelve pack in me, there are zero issues on my way home. Bit slow on the brake? Yep. I know this. I drive markedly slower to compensate. I take back roads. Its 2 AM in rural Iowa, on gravel. Its rare to meet cars on main roads. On gravel, I go weeks, months sometimes, in between seeing a car at that hour. And I’m a danger? To who? The deer?
So, in my own rambling roundabout way, my opinion is that the laws are simply stupidly rigid. 0.25 in downtown wherever during rush hour with your kids in the back? You are a fool. 0.14 on deserted roads with only yourself in the car, along a route you know like the back of your hand? Not the smartest thing to do, but nowhere even near as bad as the former, and a tolerable risk that I would never fault anyone for taking,. Stupidly, the people in each case would be punished identically. The DUI laws are simply being used as a bludgeon to force the wide variety of offenders and circumstances into one neat hole, where they can be properly demonized and used as additional nontax revenue.
Oh well. Its a good thing the cop goes off duty at 10. I won’t have to worry about an absurdly harsh punishment for such a benign infraction.
I thought Arizona with our 4 levels of DUI was the rule, not the exception. Is it really the case that in most states a DUI is a DUI, no matter how drunk you are?
I think there should be a gradient of punishment. Barely at the legal limit shouldn’t be punished too harshly, especially if the person was caught for some reason other than bad driving - a checkpoint, a cop pulling them over out of a bar parking lot, a busted tail light, etc. If the person was pulled over because they were swerving then that deserves more punishment.
Dangerously drunk should definitely be punished very harshly.
I concur. From the things I’ve seen and heard (yes, I recently completed the hell that is a DUI - fines, community service, education, AA meetings and groups) it simply is not an equal punishment to “their” crime. I’ve seen many people with a BAC of .06 - .08 that are required to spend the same money, do the same amount of time, get licenses suspended , etc. as do the people that are in there with .14-.16 BAC! In no way is this fair (especially hearing some of the circumstances in which they were pulled over/caught. One guy was the passenger in his brothers car–he’d had ONE beer-as the cop was taking the bro into custody he ASKED the other brother to please move the car to the side of the road, and then BUSTED HIM as soon as he put the keys in the ignition!) On the other hand, there are some truly shocking and frigtening stories of .27 or higher. The highest I’ve ever heard (and both of these people are in my class), are .33 and .34!!! Now THATS a crime. BTW~ the way it works in CA is if your BAC is .19 or higher you automatically get the longer sentence (.19 would probably be the 9 mo. status) anything over becomes 18 mos. A first offense at the "typical .14 - .17 is the three month program. ANY second DUI within ten years of the first is automatic 18 mo. even if your BAC is .07. DUI checkpoints are pure bullshit in pretty much every aspect.
I don’t know about that…checkpoints before vehicles enter the freeways on major holidays…not a bad idea.
