What was his BAC Rick?
1 Like
I think I agree with Keith. We are so quick to stereotype someone that gets a DUI or does a text and throw the book at them, but there may be other circumstances for a first offense. Second and third though is another matter. In rural areas it is virtually impossible to get a taxi or public transportation so if you happened to be at a gathering or just had a few with dinner and thought you were ok and its 10 below out, you might be tempted to drive the 5 miles home. Remember that sitting in your car with or without the heater going while you let the alcohol work its way out is still a DUI offense in Minnesota. It gets mighty dark out in rural Minnesota when everything is closed and sitting in a bar parking lot at 1:00 in the morning is likely to draw the attention of the police making their rounds. Never been there myself but I can see the circumstances of a first offense. In the old days the police would have simply driven the guy home and complemented him on being responsible for sleeping in his car instead of driving. I say āhimā but there are as many or more āhersā involved.
Its a longer story but I got a call from the police one night to go pick my 88 year old dad up and take him home. He did nothing wrong but wasnāt able to drive from the bar home. The idea is to keep the streets safe not to ruin peopleās lives. Usually its the parent having to rescue the kid but Iām one of the few kids that had to rescue the parent.
According to NHTSA 1/3 of DUI offenders have prior convictions.
https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/TT085.htm
This site, while promotional, also has some interesting facts.
https://www.intoxalock.com/Portals/0/PDF_docs/FAQs/DUI_Statistics_2015.pdf
There are a whole lot of stats on drunk driving and repeat offenders. Repeat offenses are far too great to be letting even a first time DUI offender off with a āslap on the wristā. For first time offenders I would support loss of license for a year combined with public service and an educational program. For repeat offenders I support jail time combined with confiscation of the automobile (if convicted) no matter who owns it.
IMHO we are way, way too tolerant of drunk driving in this country, Too many innocent people die, too many families are destroyed, for this to be tolerated.
(redacted)
The other 2/3 are first time offenders who will likely never do it again. Whilst we need to get the repeat offenders off the street, thereās also something to be said about second chances.
Who among us has never been a little intoxicated at some point in their life?
Overall, I agree with you. After all, the guy who mowed-down ~20 people in Times Square last week (while apparently under the influence of drugs) had two prior arrests for Drunk Driving. While last weekās tragedy might not have been inevitable, I think it is possible to view it as a likely occurrence, given his prior record.
That being said, license suspension also isnāt necessarily a solution to the problem. While reasonable peopleālike you and meāwouldnāt get behind the wheel w/o a valid license, people who are risk-takers (and drunk drivers and drug users surely fall into that category) probably would take the chance that they could driveāsans licenseāand not get caught.
With repeat offenders, the only solution might be to seize their vehicle, but then that gets into murky legal grounds. Iām not sure what the solution really might be.
Thereās a difference between being intoxicated home or out with friends and being intoxicated behind the wheel of a car. I have NEVER EVER been intoxicated behind the wheel of a car. HUGE HUGE difference between drunk and driving drunk. I started going to bars at 16 when drinking age was 18 in my state. Bars were very lax about drinking enforcement. Even back then I NEVER EVER drove even a little intoxicated. Weād always have a designated driver. I few times I took the bus home slept at a friends.
In this day and age where the dangers of drunk driving is well knownā¦even ONE DUI is too many.
I propose youāre first DUI should be $1000 fine and attend second safety classes (paid for by you).
Second DUI - 1 year in jail.
Perhaps, but the other 1/3 kill innocent people and destroy innocent families.
Would you be so quick to defend drunk drivers if your son or daughter was killed by one?
My suggestion allows a second chance, but only after having paid a price for drunk driving serious enough to infuse a lifeās lesson and to make those who would be āfirst timersā think twice about driving drunk. If young people drinking knew that the cost was severe if they get behind the wheel, perhaps they choose not to do so.
When are we going to get serious about this? When are we going to stop feeling sorry for the drunk drivers and start making the cost of their doing so severe?
I donāt think this give a clear picture. I believe that one of the reasons why the other 2/3rds will not drink and drive again is because of the steep fines from the first conviction. The first conviction needs to be harsh with the promise that subsequent convictions will be much harsher.
The dangers of drinking and driving first need to be taught in school before one becomes an offender. Young people need to understand that ādrinking gamesā are not really games and have serious consequences.
I also believe the BAC should be lowered. Many casual or first time drinkers will be impaired at only half the current legal BAC. I used to not believe this because I have had quite a few friends and acquaintances killed by drunk drivers and in every case, their BAC was well above the legal limit, usually 2 to 3 times as high.
I think I can make the case that a lower legal BAC is justified because most people who drink and drive, start out by getting just a little drunk the first time. The more they do it without any consequence, the drunker they become each time. The lower limit would help ānip it in the budā.
Second offenders should get some jail time. Many second and subsequence offenders donāt pay the fines. The only penalty for not paying the fine is that they canāt get their license back until they do, but they donāt care because they will drive anyway. Whatās the worse that could happen, they get more fines that they arenāt going to pay and they will continue to drive under the influence without a license until they get convicted of vehicular homicide where they finally get put in prison. And 5 years later (or sooner) they are back out doing it again.
There needs to be a way of stopping the multi-repeat offender as these are the ones with the highest vehicular homicide rate. Right now, the only way I can see to stop them is a very long prison sentence for 3rd and subsequent DUIās.
I agree emphatically. I still believe that impoundment of the vehicle upon failure of a field sobriety test with confiscation of the vehicle upon conviction, no matter who owns it, combined with a stiff jail sentence and public service mandate, would work. I believe that if that were the penalty a convicted DUI would be unable to get a car to drive inā¦ nobody is going to lend a friend their car if they stand a good chance of losing it. If a drunk canāt get a car, he canāt drive. Sure, thereāll be a few wealthy people or good friends of Justin Bieber that can always get a car, but it would eliminate 99.99% of the problem.
You ever heard of āGrand Theft Autoā?
I fall on the side of leniency for the first conviction if no property damage has occured, In addition to the fine there are insurance costs probably for 3 years or so associated with the ticket that will be a pretty good reminder you screwed up. I knew one lady, married and kids, and 2 glasses of wine put her 118 lbs over the limit. Got pulled over and issued a DUI, I would not think a mandatory jail sentence would benefit society or her family and job. As far as I know she never got another DUI.
All that happens with unreasonable penalties is that the perp holds out and pleas the offense down to a lower penalty. Selling cars on a first offense would pile up endless court cases in my humble opinion and further alienate the public. I still think of that guy in Duluth riding his motorized easy chair back from the bar and they sold it on him. Doesnāt seem justified and like they say laws that are not respected by the majority of the public are not real laws.
Well, Bing, leniency certainly isnāt working!
Well you canāt smoke in bars anymore, maybe you shouldnāt be allowed to drink in bars anymore. That would do it. Maybe theyād just take drugs then. Me thinks its a human nature problem not a law enforcement problem at this point.
1 Like
Punishment for a great many victimless offenses might begin with serving weekends in the local jail. A few Saturday nights spent with the drunks might discourage someone from wanting to make jail their home.
Rod, I like your idea, at least for preventing DUI. āScared straightā programs have been shown to work. Kids whoāve seen the possible results of dangerous behaviors do seem to go forward with much wiser perspectives.
Iāve been in four prisons in two different states and the county jail-just visiting or on business for all of them. True Iād never want to live there but I have to say I never associated my visits with other actions that might put me there as a resident. Maybe the scared straight thing works I dunno. Sounds more like the old boot camps for wayward youth when nothing else worked. If we could figure out why people take street drugs maybe we could figure out why there are people with multiple DUIs.
Thatās been figured out for decades.
The problem is how to solve it.
A good portion of these kids come from abusive homes. Let me know when you have a solution for that one.