Are we too lenient on drunk driving?

[WriterDom]

Statistics gathered over the past 25 years show that, on average, nearly 51 percent of all deadly traffic crashes on July 4 are related to alcohol.

 

[WriterDom]

I think so. In Georgia there is very little jail time for a first offense. I think you should go to jail every weekend for a year. Or at the very least do community service for a year.

 

[midwestyankee]

The real question to ask (ok, one of the real questions to ask) is this: who has a dog in this hunt? My guess is the liquor distributors.

Who in his right mind would think that it's in the people's best interest for the state to punish drunk driving, which is clearly a significant danger to the public good, as leniently as possible? Only someone whose wealth depends on selling as much booze as possible to as many people as possible. Regardless of what those people do after consuming the booze.

In Illinois, the liquor distributors (i.e., the Wirtz family that owns the Black Hawks hockey team) have real political clout.

 

[MisterSir]

Yip. I don't care what your excuse is, if you drink and you drive you're a fucking moron and if you then hit somebody, you're an even bigger fucking moron. Exceptions can be made if it's clear that you weren't at fault for an accident - I have in mind the Donte Stallworth case, who was drunk and driving, but did make a genuine effort to avoid the pedestrian - but Christ, it's not a difficult rule to remember.

 

[graceanne]

Ok, as a rule I agree, but sometimes . . .

my best friend was with her boyfriend at his house and they were drinking, and he started beating on her. She got in her car and drove off and the fucker called the police and told them she was driving drunk.

Because she was drunk the police wouldn't do anything about J hitting her. Assholes. And she got a DUI.

Granted, she should have called me to come get her, but she'd just been bitch slapped - she wasn't thinking real clearly.

this is why they're so much more lenient on first time drunk drivers - cause sometimes it was just one of those things, and they aren't perpetual drunk drivers.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I've transcribed a lot - a lot - of DUI cases over the past seven years. Almost all the first-time offenders who got convicted got, at most, a fine, probation, community service, ten-day immobilization of their car, and DUI school. However, a substantial percentage (maybe 30% of those I've transcribed) of DUI charges get plea-bargained down to reckless driving; another 5-10% of the cases I've done got thrown out because the stopping or investigating officer (large jurisdictions in Florida have dedicated DUI officers who do nothing *but* investigate suspected DUIs) screwed up on some tiny detail, like (in one memorable case) using an two-week outdated Miranda card that had two words different than the newly-approved Miranda card.

Personally, though I've never had an accident involving a drunk driver, nor had a close friend or family member involved in one - and therefore, "no dog <directly> in this hunt" - I think DUI should be a bottom-level *felony* charge, similar to aggravated assault, aggravated battery or assault/battery with intent to commit grievous bodily harm. In my opinion, that's exactly what it is - an attempt to severely injure or kill someone else: anyone else who just happens to get in the way. If no one happens to get in the way, they're just lucky; sooner or later, it's likely to happen.

MADD goes overboard on a few things, but in general, their campaign to cut down DUIs and increase penalties for them are, IMNSHO, spot on.

 

[00Syd]

I know people who have stopped drinking completely because of the sentences they got from DUIs. Also, the penalties are different in every state, which is something to keep in mind.

 

[Netzach]

I've known too many people who are dead since I graduated college who were not the ones drinking but are the ones dead.

DUI - probation first time.

DWI - car go bye bye for good, first time.

If it actually hurt to get caught people would crash out, taxi, drink at home or bars would start hiring shuttles.

I also think that early close should be illegal in a city of the scale of the one I'm in. We have stretched our close out to 2 our last call to 1:30. The city likes it because they know when to be in place to nab people going to cars and cash in. The problem is that every drunk can't be nabbed and those who can drive and only had one drink are endangered by the ensuing craziness. The city doesn't give a rat's ass about public safety.

 

[WriterDom]

That's not a bad idea. Seize the vehicle and some might think twice about it.

 

[Netzach]

That's not a bad idea. Seize the vehicle and some might think twice about it.

That's how the Scandos do it, commie.

 

[JMohegan]

Are we too lenient on drunk driving?

Yes.

Not just in terms of legal sanctions, but also with regard to the number of people who either laugh about, or make excuses for, the drunk drivers whom they personally know.

 

[Cattypuss]

I have strong views on this.

I think if you are caught driving with more than a TRACE of alcohol in your blood you should get an instant lifetime driving ban.

I LOATHE drink-drivers. How the fuck dare they take an intoxicating drug and then get behind the wheel of a lethal weapon?

 

[Netzach]

I have strong views on this.

I think if you are caught driving with more than a TRACE of alcohol in your blood you should get an instant lifetime driving ban.

I LOATHE drink-drivers. How the fuck dare they take an intoxicating drug and then get behind the wheel of a lethal weapon?

I don't feel that way because of what gracie brings up. I'm having a cocktail at home and I cut off a finger with a chef's mandolin and no one's around, who knows what kind of things. There's always some kind of really unusual circumstance and you should be able to use one pass on weirdo situations.

 

[Cattypuss]

Thing is though, you could dial for a cab (with your other fingers)...

and in Gracie's situation, she could have run out into the street and hailed a cab, or simply knocked on a neighbours door etc etc

 

[WriterDom]

Or she could have driven far enough to get out of his sight and parked it.

 

[Netzach]

Thing is though, you could dial for a cab (with your other fingers)...

and in Gracie's situation, she could have run out into the street and hailed a cab, or simply knocked on a neighbours door etc etc

Your neighbors may pose as much threat to you as your bf, and you may live in a place where cabs can't be hailed only called.

 

[Cattypuss]

Yes, but you'd have to be hellish unlucky to have a murderous BF AND murderous neighbours AND no cabs in the area AND no ability to run off AND no ability to run into the street and scream AND no ability to call a cab or call the police.

 

[Netzach]

Yes, but you'd have to be hellish unlucky to have a murderous BF AND murderous neighbours AND no cabs in the area AND no ability to run off AND no ability to run into the street and scream AND no ability to call a cab or call the police.

You probably live in a city with cabs all over and standard Euro-density.

In a lot of the US you have to drive to get anywhere, even TO the neighbor. Standing in the street and screaming would be pointless.

Fat lot of good it did Kitty Genovese anyway, but I digress...

I have no idea what the setup is, but it's possible that the car was the only option in this setup.

 

[Cattypuss]

You probably live in a city with cabs all over and standard Euro-density.

In a lot of the US you have to drive to get anywhere, even TO the neighbor. Standing in the street and screaming would be pointless. I have no idea what the setup is, but it's possible that the car was the only option in this setup.

Guilty as charged re. not taking into account the wide open spaces of America.

But I'm sure if you could demonstrate that you did it to save your life, that you had no other choice and stopped driving as soon as you were out of reach (which I'm guessing she didn't do, given the cops had time to be called and find her still driving), I would have thought you'd be in with a chance of getting off, whatever the law.

Yes, there will be freakish situations, freakishly, where someone has no choice but to drive with alcohol inside them in order to save their life.

And I'm sure that in a court of law those cases could be sorted out.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I have strong views on this.

I think if you are caught driving with more than a TRACE of alcohol in your blood you should get an instant lifetime driving ban.

I LOATHE drink-drivers. How the fuck dare they take an intoxicating drug and then get behind the wheel of a lethal weapon?

When I was a teen I used to go to AA, I'd never drunk a glass in my life but my family is Irish on my moms side and french on my dads, there is a lot of cultural drinking. Well quite a few members of my family have been alcoholics including one of my parents. I remember being determined to never end up in the same position. After having gone to 4 years of AA meetings I've seen my share of people's lives who have been ruined by alcohol. A man who crashed his car while drunk, killing his sober brother in the passenger side. A woman who had gotten MS from drinking who recently passed on. A man who drank himself blind quite literally. The problem with alcoholism is that in it's simplest form, it's a desire to escape from reality and responsibility... and it scares me cold when someone who doesn't want to take responsibility for their own life decides to take responsibility for another life by getting behind the wheel.

I don't hate people who drink, I don't have problems interacting with them, I'm just determined to not be one.

 

[Cattypuss]

Interesting HM. My older brother is an alcoholic (he has yet to admit this), and he has been since I was in my early teens nearly 30 years ago. My teenage years were hell.

I am sure that a lot of my problem with drink drivers is related to my knowledge of how much stress and pain one person's drinking can cause those around them, and also related to seeing my brother, TWICE, get his licence back after a drink-related ban and DRIVE TO THE PUB TO CELEBRATE.

 

[DVS]

Have nobody personally connected on either side, but I think it's too easy to get a lawyer and lower the charges. If you have the cash, it seems something can be done. I don't know what the best answer is, but I do think there should be changes.

I agree that there are circumstances that could be involved, so there can't be a flat law, in all situations. But, there has to be a time when the charge must stick with no chance to plea bargain it down. There are just too many multiple DUI or DWI offenders out on the road, and probably at this very minute.

Some know they are driving drunk and some still think they can handle the booze and the car, too. It's a sickness, alcohol abuse. The first manditory sentence should be medical help. If the person doesn't help themselves, society has no choice but to remove the danger, by whatever means. Once the offender is considered habitual, the whole scenario should change. No more plea bargains to lesser offenses!

There is technology that exists where the driver must blow into a device and if it says he's drunk, the car won't start. There are other devices that do similar things, but don't allow the car to start, for whatever reason.

The habitual offender should be required to purchase these devices and have them installed on their car, and make them tamper proof. I don't want to see someone pay a stranger to blow into the machine for $$$ just so the offender can get his car started.

There should be harsh penalty for someone assisting in bypassing the device, no matter how it's done. This would include another family member loaning the drunk driver the use of a car without the device, as well as a technician who will disable the device for a price.

I like the idea of the cab service on holidays that will take someone home for free, if they feel they are too drunk to drive. That is a great service and all cities should encourage such service. It could be one of the penalties for the offenders...required fines that go to help pay for year round cab service instead of it just being on holidays.

 

[graceanne]

In Oregon first time DUI's are all dealt with the same way. First of all, unless you're contesting you were drunk (which rarely works), you don't get to argue your judgment. You get diversion for a year, which is 80 - 100 dollars a week (depending on whether or not you get a piss test that week). You lose the car you were driving in, and your license. (Three months if you took a breathalyzer test, a year if you refused.) Then, when that year is over, it 'goes off your record' unless you get another DUI.

The second DUI you spend every weekend in jail for three months or more. You lose your license for a year (and you can't even get a hardship permit). You do diversion for a year, and when you get your license back you have to have a breathalyzer put in your car for a year, so you can't start the car drunk.

 

[JMohegan]

Some know they are driving drunk and some still think they can handle the booze and the car, too.

Right. And some say, "I never drive very far after I drink," or "I only drive on familiar roads after I drink," or "I've driven drunk many times and nothing's happened," or "Oh, c'mon, everyone does it."

It's not just the drunk drivers, but many people who know the drunk drivers, who make these excuses. And the collective effect of all these excuses is a social stigma that's not nearly as profound as it should be.

I'm down with the idea that some extreme emergencies may warrant driving while intoxicated - as long as the emergency is so dire that it's comparable to that which would reasonably compel someone to shoot off a gun in a dark, but occupied, room. You might kill an innocent person, but the alternative would guarantee something worse.

 

[WriterDom]

They have recently toughened up Georgia law. If you get two within 5 years you lose the right to drive for 3 years. But after 5 years is up your record is wiped clean. To be a felony you have to get 4 within 5 years.