Replies

I have said for years that drunk driving laws need to be modifided, but probably not in the way most people think. The penalties for causing a wreck while under the influence whould be rasied tremendously. Now, this is caveated by the word "causing". I think the burden of prooof should be on the court to prove that alcohol was the contributing cause to the wreck. If that is proven, then I believe the first step is a lifetime revoking of the drivers license. If injuries are caused, then you get prison time and are responsible for all medical bills. If death occurrs, then the charge should be voluntary manslaughter with mandatory prison time, no less than 20 years.

Now, this is a "give and take" proposal. With this policy in place, I would like to see penalties for simple "DUI" reduced severely or removed. I think DUI laws in many cases are prime examples of "selective enforcement". If a driver is obviously impaired(swirving, eratic driving), then its not. But think about this: Bar lets out at 2:00 AM - most people are legally intoxicated, but given the percentages of wrecks caused versus the number of people driving intoxicated, the "DUI problem" is very insignificant. Cops could stand outside bars, wait till the patrons get into their cars, order them out, test them and arrest them. I would bet 90% were "over the limit". But this doesn't happen, and I do not propose it. You could stop all drunk driving like this. But, very few who drive "drunk" cause problems. Its no different than the number of law abiding gun owners versus thos who criminaly mis-use guns - very small numbers in comparison.

Raise the penalties for actual harm caused. Give no exceptions when the court proves that alcohol was THE contributing factor. IMO, this is the only thing that will stop tragedies caused by foolish people.

But, very few who drive "drunk" cause problems.

Numbers please? Hard facts? I say bust them all. Your plan will only cause more accidents since it will essentially decriminalize DUI and then it's just a mtter of time as statistics show us before these people cause a true accident. There are numerous methods people can use to avoid driving while drunk. I myself am the son of an alcoholic and while it has never had any power over me I will never drink while I have access to a vehicle, period. How can you draw an analogy to gun owners who are partaking of their freedoms legally and drunk drivers who are breaking the law? I agree that laws need to be tougher. I think mandatory jail/prison time for a second offence is not asking too much since they obviously have no regard for anyone but themselves.

Man, you are dead on.

Blood Alcohol counts are a very poor gauge of intoxication, and the one drink/hour rule is not reliable. Anyone having a drink with dinner will blow over .08, and not be a serious threat to the public. They are criminalizing people over a limit that is almost impossible to distinguish, portable BAC meters are questionable at best. And you do not have to blow .08 to get a Negligent 1 on your record.

The stigma of DUIs do not match the nature of the crime. I would like to see good numbers on how many deaths can be directly attributed by the intoxication of a .08 driver. I doubt it is very many, but if you hit a transient after a business diner and blow anything near .08 and you are ruined for life. The punishment is not fitting of the crime.

I agree with you entirely. Several things have always bothered me about the DUI laws.

1. I see no fundamental difference between a drunk driver who kills someone or a sober reckless driver who kills someone.

2. The penalties for the above offenses are inconsistent.

3. DUI Penalties are imposed based on the assumption that you are putting the community at greater risk of harm after drinking. While this is true, it becomes pretty scary when legislation is passed (with devastating personal repercussions), on the grounds that someone "might get hurt". This is especially true when you take into account the relatively low probability that moderate drinking will result in an auto accident. In a free society there is inherent potential that any person may harm (whether intentionally or inadvertently) another person. Every time you tee off while golfing or go skiing there is an increased risk that someone will be injured or killed as a result of your conscious decision to engage in these activities. But I think that most of us would agree that it is not the activities that should be punishable, but a failure to exercise due caution that results in another's harm.

4. Small, personally affected groups of people devote their lives to setting lower DUI thresholds and ever increasing punishments. They petition elected officials and no politician is going to tell a group of mothers, grieving over the loss of a loved one, that they will not do all that is in their power to correct the situation. Not even Ted Kennedy.

Don't mean to offend JMHO

Bar lets out at 2:00 AM - most people are legally intoxicated, but given the percentages of wrecks caused versus the number of people driving intoxicated, the "DUI problem" is very insignificant

Look alcohol is involved in almost 50% of fatal car crashs, but the percentage of miles driven by people under the influence is a tiny percentage of all miles driven. Alcohol is a HUGE factor in auto fatalities. Your Idea of just prosecuting those who actually cause a wreck would be like prosecuting only those who actually hit people when they shoot at them with a gun.