Posted on 01/11/2009 2:21:48 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
The civil slap on the wrist faced by Wisconsin's first-time drunken drivers would become a warning with the threat of criminal prosecution under a unique proposal being considered by two Milwaukee-area legislators.
It would keep the first offense a civil matter if a driver didn't re-offend, but would criminalize it retroactively if a second offense were committed. Although the proposal still needs fine-tuning, proponents say it would address two of the biggest obstacles to criminalizing first-offense drunken driving in Wisconsin: the cost of adding cases to the criminal justice system and the feeling that in many instances, the change would unduly penalize what many consider a simple mistake.
The idea came out of a working group that includes state Rep. Peggy Krusick (D-Milwaukee), state Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr., victims and anti-drunken driving activists.
Here's how it would work:
The cases of first-time drunken drivers would be put on hold for a period of time, somewhere in the ballpark of 18 months to three years. Those who had not committed another offense by then would be sent to municipal court and punished the same way all first-time offenders are now, with a ticket, license suspension and fine.
Those who drove drunk again within the period would face two misdemeanor charges, one each for the first and second offenses. The two charges could be prosecuted simultaneously, saving the courts time and money.
"We all agreed that this hybrid was a really solid step in the right direction," Darling said.
The next step is to gather input from lawyers, judges and others involved in the courts, work out the details of the plan and get an estimate for how much it would cost, Krusick said.
Jurisdiction issues
Several people involved in the criminal justice system were intrigued by the idea, but agreed there were lots of practical concerns.
Now, first offenses are handled by municipal courts, which are paid for and managed by cities or groups of smaller towns. Subsequent offenses are the jurisdiction of the circuit criminal courts, which receive a combination of state and county funding.
In 2007, about 24,000 people in Wisconsin were convicted of first-offense drunken driving, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Charging them all with misdemeanors would likely cost the state some $8 million a year just to pay for prosecutors, public defenders and judges. That figure doesn't include costs to counties, such as salaries for other court personnel and jail expenses. It doesn't take into account a possible deterrent effect that could result in fewer cases.
The hybrid idea likely would cost less, but wouldn't eliminate the need for increased funding.
Moving thousands of first-time offenders into the criminal courts - even just to charge them and reserve the right to prosecute them later - would greatly increase prosecutors' workloads, said Ralph Uttke, president of the Wisconsin District Attorneys Association.
"We're perfectly willing to do that, but we're going to need additional manpower," he said.
In addition, the more time that passes, the harder it is to prove a crime against someone, he said.
Another approach would be to secure a guilty plea to the misdemeanor upfront, then remove it from the defendant's record if he or she doesn't re-offend. That, too, would require cases to move from municipal courts into criminal courts, and therefore wouldn't alleviate the need for additional attorneys and judges, said Waukesha County Circuit Judge Kathryn Foster. Under that approach, the defendant also would have to live with the consequences of the criminal conviction for the 18-month to three-year interim period.
If legislators can find workable solutions to such concerns, the hybrid idea likely has a better chance at getting a hearing in the Legislature than straight criminalization, although that also is being proposed this session for the first time since 1997.
'Time for tough love'
State Rep. Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay), who is sponsoring a bill to make first-offense drunken driving a misdemeanor, said the hybrid idea doesn't go far enough.
"I think it's back to coddling people to try to get them to do the right thing that they haven't been doing anyway," he said. "I think it's time for tough love in this state."
Under his proposed legislation, first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol content below 0.15 would serve a mandatory five days in jail. Those with higher blood-alcohol levels would serve eight days. The time could not be served on work release, and defendants would have to pay at least $52 a day to cover the cost of the jail time. Bies' bill also includes progressively longer terms of incarceration for subsequent offenses.
"My legislation gives the offender an immediate message that if you continue this behavior, you're going to jail," he said. "I think the public is to the point, that they will let their voices be heard that they are fed up with it."
He acknowledged the court expenses, but called them "the cost of doing business."
"What's the alternative?" he asked. "To say because of costs, we're going to let these people keep driving?"
HOWEVER...it's become such a 'racket' (as in 'racketeering') for the states to raise money, that that in itself seems criminal!!
Any reason my state and yours can't spend their time CUTTING their budget instead of thinking up more ways to screw us?
FYI, two DUI’s in a five year period is already a felony here in Indiana. It’s very likely that offenders will serve prison time, depending on the judge.
While I agree with everything you said, its still seems odd that DUI has not been a criminal charge up to this point.
Being based on a problem someone might cause, how serious should it be?
Realize that DWI or DUI are victimless crimes.
Surely the are victims of drunk drivers, but until hammerhead hits someone he has done no harm.
>> Being based on a problem someone might cause, how serious should it be?
Realize that DWI or DUI are victimless crimes.
Surely the are victims of drunk drivers, but until hammerhead hits someone he has done no harm. <<
I do agree that hysteria about intoxication is excessive... but what I meant is that after 20+ years of MADD propoganda, I was surprised to hear that any state still did not have a criminal charge for DUI.
Same in Michigan. In fact, there’s no longer a limit on the years between arrests. That’s where my felony conviction comes from. Prison doesn’t sound like much fun so I quit drinking.
Here in Michigan the law is now .8 for a DUI and I suspect the same in many other states.
The next target will be .7 then .6 then .5 until any trace whatsoever of alcohol will be grounds for arrest then the costly defense.
This whole movement has been carefully orchestrated by MADD and signed on to by equally minded radical judges.
The ultimate goal is to totally ban alcohol but as evidence by the prohibition eara, that can't successfully be done.
If it can't be banned, then what is the next best alternative?
I'll give you a hint, follow the successful progression of the anti-tobacco movement.......LOL!
I would rather ride with many people I know at twice the legal limit than some drivers stone cold sober. Numbers do not imply driving ability.
In texas it’s a money machine for the state 1st offense is $1000 surcharge for 3 yrs.
Don’t celebrate an anniversary or whatever with a dinner & drinks because many small towns prey on drivers.
One day it will be a felony to shake your fist at someone...
That’s why I get a little irritated when self righteous clows say that felons should never have rights. I fully agree with stripping many rights away from violent felons but it’s awfully easy to become a felon under michigan law.
Funny thing. Nameless illegal aliens without known histories can get jobs loading luggage on an airplane but I the dangerous former drunk driver can’t be trusted to do the same. I once drove drunk, you never know when I might snap and decide to kill a few hundred of my countrymen. LOL
Is that constitutional?
A friend of mine was nailed for a 2nd DUI in 3 years in Rochester Hills. He pulled out of a bar which happened to have a cop parked on the side of the building who pulled him over literally 2 blocks away from the bar and one block away from his house.......
That began the worst 3 year nightmare anyone can imagine for my buddy. In summation, he lost his house, lost his license for 2 years, spent over $25,000 in fines and legal costs and ultimately had to move into an apartment across the street from his employer in Canton because he could not drive.........
The prosecuting female judge was a member of MADD...........
And for the record, my friend is no more an alcoholic than you or I. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time......
The slowly creeping lower threshold bothers me.
Yes, at some point it should be against the law to DUI. But it appears to me they are attempting to make anyone who has had a single drink in the last several hours a criminal.
What about DWS (Driving While Stupid)? I see a lot of people doing awful stupid and wreckless things on the highways and they never seem to be stopped.
Thats the plan! And a great source of income for the state or local community I might add.........it worked for tobacco didn't it?
Such laws have to be carefully written, to avoid problems such as you describe. But it can be done.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "The Silence of Snow"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
I got arrested a 3rd time before quitting but beat the rap when they couldn’t produce any evidence against me. I had a couple of beers several hours earlier but I passed all the field sobriety tests and a breathalizer so they took me to the hospital for a blood test.
I spent the night in jail and got a court date. When I got to court the prosecutor wrote a number on a piece of scrap paper and said that it was my blood alcohol content and he would be lenient if I plead guilty. I refused.
I didn’t even get an attorney and won because I told the judge I needed to see actual evidence from the hospital. She dropped the charges. I quit drinking just because I didn’t want to take the risk anymore.
He pulled out of a bar which happened to have a cop parked on the side of the building who pulled him over literally 2 blocks away from the bar and one block away from his house.......I agree with what most people are saying here about the unnatural zeal of MADD and the racketeering of the state on this subject... however, in the case of your friend... couldn't he have driven straight home and then WALKED the 3 blocks back to the bar to have that drink?
I mean, really. Walking is a GOOD thing.
In hindsight, sure. But he was leading a couple of business clients to the bar.
I guess you could also make the argument that had he just driven home then he wouldn't have been drinking........
I sympathize with your friend. Don’t get me wrong. I think this obsession with smelling driver’s breaths has gone way past obscene.
I can see defense attorneys having a field day with this goofball idea
Thank you, Congressman Billybob!
I will. BUMP!
Exactly. And this is exactly WHY these topics make my head hurt!
Prohibition
Taboo
Tolerance
Acceptance
Mandate
Enforcement
It works this way with anything you want to ‘promote’ as in general acceptance of homosexuality as normal, and then just reverse the order for anything you want to ‘ban.’
Those Nazis. They sure were clever. *SPIT*
As a woman, if your insurance coverage allows it, you have my permission to accelerate to ‘ramming speed’ and get her attention. Hell, I would! :)
that would be .08. no one can blow a .8 because they would be DEAD. some of this is just a revenue scam. i think .08 is too low; it should be at least .1. quite frankly most folks who drink responsibly are probably safer driving at a .1 going home from the restaurant than someone who hasn’t had anything to drink but is talking on cell phone, texting, etc. the .1 driver knows they are close to “the level” and will be more cautious.
i should ask the government for a couple $mil to do a study.
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.