Posted on 09/24/2006 6:16:50 PM PDT by Dubya
So you had a few drinks too many and, for the first time in your life, got pulled over on your way home.
The prosecutor offers a simple deal: Instead of going to trial, you can plead guilty to driving while intoxicated and get probation. That's an easy one, right?
For a surprising number of first-time DWI offenders in Harris County, however, the choice isn't so clear.
Facing the stiff costs and strict rules that come with probation, thousands of convicted drivers in recent years have decided spending time behind bars is the better option.
And in a county already struggling with crowded jails, that's a disturbing trend. Sentences can be short enough to mean losing only one weekend and a vacation day, but some end up behind bars as long as half a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
When the "deal" is worse than the punishment, its hardly a suprise that folks don't take the deal.
3 days in jail does sound better than a year of harassment.
Read the article, and I'd take jail. The "deal" doesn't sound like much of a deal to me.
Not only that, there's always a chance the jury might find you not guilty for various reasons.
All I have to say about drunk driving in Texas.
Heartbreaking. Beautiful girl horribly disfigured.
Since everyone in this country is destined to be put in jail for some reason eventually, you might as well get a little experience.
"Hi, Tex. Ain't seen you for a month. Wha'cha been doin'?"
"Thirty days."
Jacqueline Saburido has basically told me I have no problems.
I have a good friend who was put through the DWI machinery in Florida. They made her life miserable for a year. But Jacqui's is miserable for all time. I now know clearly where I stand on this issue, whereas before I was more tolerant. After all, I've seen lots of abuses by the Florida Sheriff's department.
Now, however, I'm glad I'm not a deputy, because I'd have it in for drunk drivers in a very big way, having seen Jacqui's story.
Make that two years direct harassment, plus a lifetime of consequences.
She lived. That's a lot better than the worst case. She's disfigured - literally, no more facial features. Er, damn, sucks. Get on with life, maybe not count on getting married.
Another statistic. Doesn't make drunk driving any worse than it already was, shouldn't make anyone less likely to drink and drive. Drunks usually think they can handle it - they think they can drive fine. Usually they are just lucky they didn't wind up wrapped around a tree or telephone pole - or plowing into a telephone pole. And paradoxically, the alchohol leaves them so unaware they don't tense up in an accident, and usually end up with fewer injuries than their victims.
That's nice that you would have it in for drunk drivers. In a motor vehicle cause fatality, the chances are about 1 in 84 that it was a drunk driver who was at fault. People who are not drunk kill the other 83. But being a good Deputy, that wouldn't bother you. Only people killed by drunk drivers would bother you.
And, frankly, there are no more arguments about the issue for me. I hardly drive; I don't drink and drive.
If it were within my authority and responsibility to prosecute those who do, I assure you, I would, with as much excellence and commitment as I do whatever I do.
Oh, let me see, I think I see your "logic" -- pitiful as it is. You appear to be proposing that, since "only" 1 out of 84 traffic deaths is attibutable to a drunk driver (your stat), that, what, try to stop it is a bias against drunk drivers?
I'll point out just a few of the easier to spot flaws in the this poor excuse for an argument.
First of all, drunk driving is entirely preventable. How many of the other 83 deaths are?
Next, of the people who drive drunk, what percentage of them cause debilitating or fatal traffic injuries and/or property damage? Do you suppose it occurs at the same rate as those who drive unimpaired by alcohol?
What do you suppose the proportions are of deaths per drunk driver, versus deaths per drivers as a whole?
Here's your argument right back at you: many, many times more people - thousands of times more -- will die from heart attacks, industrial accidents, crime, drunk drivers, you name -- than will be killed by terrorists this year -- than have ever been killed by terrorists. So, why do we "have it in" for terrorists?
I'm completely sure none of these people are MEXICANS.....!
That's obvious, so I'll 'splain it different Lucy. There are approximately 42,000 traffic fatalities each year. Of these, approximately 500 people are killed by drunk drivers. The other 41,500 people are killed by non drunk drivers. But, if you were a mighty and powerful Deputy, you would join the national jihad against the drunk drivers who killed 500 people, but you wouldn't be too much concerned about the drivers who killed the other 41,500 would you?
"If it were within my authority and responsibility to prosecute those who do, I assure you, I would, with as much excellence and commitment as I do whatever I do."
That is pretty much what is happening now. They are muchly excellently committingly prosecuting those who are legally classified as "drunk" while missing the really bad drunks. Why should you be any different?
"Oh, let me see, I think I see your "logic" -- pitiful as it is. You appear to be proposing that, since "only" 1 out of 84 traffic deaths is attributable to a drunk driver (your stat), that, what, try to stop it is a bias against drunk drivers?"
First, it's not "my" stat, as you will read from the link.
"that, what, try to stop it is a bias against drunk drivers?""
Sorry, that is incoherent, please rephrase it.
"First of all, drunk driving is entirely preventable. How many of the other 83 deaths are?"
Probably 83.
"Next, of the people who drive drunk, what percentage of them cause debilitating or fatal traffic injuries and/or property damage? Do you suppose it occurs at the same rate as those who drive unimpaired by alcohol?"
Oh c'mon Lucy. Put on your thinking cap. If the number of people killed in traffic fatalities is approximately 84 to 1 of non-drunks to drunks, how would the ratio of other injuries and property damage be significantly different?
"What do you suppose the proportions are of deaths per drunk driver, versus deaths per drivers as a whole?"
Drunks kill approximately 1/84. Non drunks kill approximately 84/1. Unnerstan?
"Here's your argument right back at you: many, many times more people - thousands of times more -- will die from heart attacks, industrial accidents, crime, drunk drivers, you name -- than will be killed by terrorists this year -- than have ever been killed by terrorists. So, why do we "have it in" for terrorists?"
Here's your point right back. It's not relevant to this thread.
"In a motor vehicle cause fatality, the chances are about 1 in 84 that it was a drunk driver who was at fault. People who are not drunk kill the other 83."
Your 1 in 84 statistic is erroneous. Further, only a da** fool would try to deflect in any way the stupidity or illegality of driving while intoxicated (as it is called in Texas) or driving under the influence (in many places elsewhere).
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
I'd like to know if you drive drunk.
I am not deflecting, just educating. Read the link so you don't look like a da** fool. My stats are approximations, so anytime someone approximates, it can be subject to error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.