Why is D.U.I. not considered to be a more serious crime?

[LostInAnomie]

In many states a DUI is considered to be a class B misdemeanor which to me seems like an extremely light punishment for a behavior that risks the lives of everyone on the road. Crimes that do not risk the physical well being of others, like possession of various drugs, are considered to be felonies. Why not driving under the influence?

[cspanlovr]

1. 'cause its a good 'ol boy crime!

[ComerPerro]

71. Exactly. Bush and Cheney both did it several times

[Renew Deal]

2. In NY, the second one is.

I don't know about other states. I don't think the first one should be without some level of egregiousness or additional crimes. People fuck up and a first timer that sneaks over the limit shouldn't be a felony.

[Pavulon]

3. Because it is not

Unless a person is physically impaired the arbitrary limit of .08 is a revenue item for local government.

DUI is a traffic crime and does not come close to a felony. A dwi with injuries in a felony here.

If a person is physically impaired at .03 they should be jailed, if they injure someone charge them etc..

It used to be a joke to get a dwi charge. That changed mid-eighties.

[MoseyWalker]

12. I don't think

it should be a felony, at least in the first case where no injuries occur.

Why do some think it should be? Because of the potential for danger and death? That's a very good reason, but we used to be a nation of laws that punished punitively for actual crimes, not possiblilities.

Pre-emptive DUI. Let's just hand one out to everybody. It has become a HUGE moneymaker for every county in this nation, and it doesn't solve the problem.

People get sentenced to short jail terms (if at all) and pay out the ass.

Then, they get to ride a bicycle to work for a long while. If they still have their job.

No. I don't ride a bicycle to work, and don't have any charges to deal with, but I do understand the frustration of those who do.

DUI laws are excessively punitive, and minimally rehabilitative.

One of these days, we'll be asking who doesn't have a DUI. That's how popular they are to the counties looking for revenue.

[Bretttido]

82. Attempted murder is still a crime even though that is also a possibility

Driving drunk I believe falls into a similar category.

[pitohui]

4. because there's such a thing as unfairness

it is a consequence of the way we have structured our society that even decent people must, at times, drive drunk because they have no safe alternative

we do not have decent public transportation, we do not have safe or affordable taxi service -- in many areas taxi drivers rent their cabs and licenses to "others" and if you complain to taxi cab authority you are told "well, you can't prove it was so-and-so who long-routed you or raped you" -- this happened to me so don't even bother to pretend it's rare or you don't know what i'm talking about, it has probably happened to every woman who regularly takes cabs that sooner or later she is put in a situation she doesn't need top be in -- and some taxi drivers won't even accept drunk women as passengers because on their end of things, they're afraid of being accused

so there are no safe ways for women in particular to get home

black men are often refused service as well

should we then have a society that completely frowns on being convivial and any expression of pleasure?

having it as a VERY SERIOUS misdemeanor w. consequences that include days in jail and many thousands of dollars is enough considering we have NO safe alternatives to get home in most parts of the country

[Pavulon]

6. I have

and have never had an accident. My alcohol consumption and body mass make .08 4 beers. I have played around with the pocket Breathalyzer.

You can drink get a buzz and then let it go away. 4 hours later you could still blow .08

It is a responsibility issue.

There is a difference in driving "legally drunk" and driving drunk.

$$ DWI is 5000 - 7000 to disappear in my parts. Pay a lawyer it goes away. With no injuries involved.. I have never had one but here from good sources.

[Wonk]

7. WTF? re: "even decent people must, at times, drive drunk"

If you don't have a good way planned to get home (designated driver, transit, cab, whatever), then don't get drunk. It's pretty simple, really.

[pitohui]

20. many people here actually live on planet earth

i would love to live on planet fantasy but i can't even count the number of times i have arranged for a designated driver -- and the designated driver got stinkin' drunk or didn't show or went off w. a chick or any number of things

you are asking me to get raped to satisfy your morality, you can't ask me that

life is only simple if you are dead

but i'm glad life is simple and there are never difficult choices on planet fantasy, maybe i can go there when i die if i'm real real good :eyes:

[Wonk]

23. You've got someone putting a gun to your head and forcing booze

down your throat?

Or maybe you're unable to say no to alcohol?

Sounds like you might have a problem.

I'm an adult. I sometimes drink. I never drink and drive, because I plan ahead. I made a conscious choice to never drink and drive before I ever had my first drink, and it is do-able. No fantasy world involved.

[pitohui]

27. read the post before you respond

it's hard to have a rational discussion on the internet, a written medium, with people who don't read

i said clearly that arrangements were made beforehand

you will find when you graduate 6th grade and get into the real world that many adults lie and many adults "intend" to keep their commitment to be the designated driver but then they slip

reality bites but if you prefer to learn the hard way, don't worry...you WILL

[Wonk]

28. I suppose I should add why I feel so strongly about this.

When I was about 8, a cousin killed himself in a drunk driving accident. He also killed his fiance, and left their friend who'd been in the backseat in a wheelchair for life.

When I was in my early teens, a drunk driver ran a stopsign onto the highway right in front of my grandfather, who teeboned him and suffered a neck injury that bothered him for the rest of his life.

Driving drunk is stupid and reckless, and you are much much more likely to have a collision (I won't say accident, because it's preventable) and hurt yourself or someone else.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. No, I'm asking you to act responsibly.

If you're not confident that you can get home without driving, then the thing that has to give is your ability to enjoy yourself by drinking, not everyone elses safety.

You may think that you can drive safely while over the legal limit.

So do lots of other people.

Sometimes they're wrong.

Getting drunk is *not* an inalienable right. If you're not *confident* you're not going to need to drive, you have no right to do it. That way, you can drive home safely, and there's no risk of you being raped.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. They have this amazing thing now, it's called a TAXICAB.

Beyond that, no, it's not asking you to get raped, it's asking you not to drive drunk. (The idea that cab drivers are out there menacing women wholesale is just plain ridiculous. Perhaps you should conisder counseling or therapy to help you overcome this fear of cab drivers.)

It's asking you to take responsibility for yourself, to GROW UP. I know, once upon a time I thought it was "too much of a pain in the ass" not to occasionally drive after having one or two. To have a designated driver. To call a cab.

I learned. The hard way. My best friend was killed by a drunk driver.

Difficult choices? Calling a cab is an EASY choice. Driving drunk, endangering your life or others- that's the difficult choice.

[Lindacooks]

24. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, there is ALWAYS an

alternative to driving drunk. There is NEVER any excuse for driving while intoxicated. NEVER. If you haven't made arrangements for transportation BEFORE you drink then you don't deserve to drink. Grow up.

Drunk drivers KILLED almost 17,000 people in 2004.

[pitohui]

25. read the post before you respond

i always make arrangements before i go out but i see you have ignored what i quite explicitly said

the person you make the arrangement with quite semi-regularly lets you down

or as one of my friends said, "i never knew a designated driver who didn't drink:"

that is the real world, and when you're older, you'll find out

i wonder how many drunk drivers were killed in 2004 because the person who SAID they were going to drive them home...went off with somebody else and wasn't seen again for two weeks...AFTER it was too late

for some of us, 0.08 is two beers -- two effin' beers

the usa economy would fall apart if people were afraid to drink two effin' beers

liars probably killed 50,000 people in 2004 but nobody cares abt them apparently

[Lindacooks]

29. You have no idea how old I am.

And if you drink and drive, you deserve what you get, whether that's an accident or an arrest.

If any drunk driver ever, EVER kills a member of my family they will regret the day they were born.

[pitohui]

31. i have a pretty good idea of how old you are

if anyone kills any member of my family by any method sure they will regret the day they were born

we all say that

and it's all b.s. because not one of us, including you, linda, would do anything to get in trouble w. the law

the talk is v. tall on the internets, in the real world it's something else entirely

i prefer honesty to puffing myself up w. boasts but to ea. his own!

it's damn cheap to talk about what we're "gunna" do when, in the event, we're "gunna" do nothing except maybe call an attorney to sue somebody if they have any $$$

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Yeah, and when YOU'RE older, you'll probably find out, too.

I'm sorry to say, but experience tells me that with an attitude like that, it's probably inevitable.

"two effin' beers". Tell it to the po-po.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. And let me get this straight- Whose car is your AWOL designated driver

friend driving?

If they're driving their own car and constantly disappearing, I'm not sure how you can be driving home.

If you're bringing your own car, that sounds to me like you're pretty much planning on driving home from the get-go.

Been there, done that- and I'm not buyin' it.

[Lady President]

73. I don't drive drunk. Period.

I strongly disagree with your claim that everyone rides with someone drunk or has driven drunk. That is an excuse for being irresponsible. If you want to be a menace to the public, that's your business, but don't insinuate it has to be that way for others.

First, I have often been a designated driver. I don't drink at all when I'm the designated driver.

Second, if my friend was the designated driver and drank anyway, I would take a cab. From that point on I wouldn't trust them to drive me. I would drive myself.

Third, I would stay home if there wasn't a safe way home.

I guess I'm fortunate that getting drunk isn't important to me.

Oh, and I'm 35, so I don't need to find out anymore about partying-- I'll stick with being mature.

[JVS]

35. Really drunk fares are a pain in the ass I don't blame cabs for avoiding.

All the worst fares are fucked up. Drunks tip poorly too.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Well, driving drunk people home is part of the job description.

Just like filling BC prescriptions is part of being a pharmacist.

Funny, where I used to live, the cab companies were always in serious competition for the various bars' business.

And I was always a *superb* drunk cab fare tipper, back in the day.

[JVS]

84. Fuck the people who get too drunk. Let them walk or get arrested...

for public drunkeness.

[grannylib]

5. I agree that a first-time offense (as long as no one is hurt) should not

be, but I think that any subsequent ones definitely SHOULD be.
Talk about preventable...

I lost my oldest daughter to a drunk driver. He could have done 4 years in the state pen, but we worked with the county attorney to get him a lesser sentence in exchange for more community service time, all with MADD or SADD groups. I just couldn't see sending a kid with an otherwise clean record to prison for four years...he had no other moving violations nor any previous DUIs. If he had, I might have felt different.

[blonndee]

8. Oh, man, I'm so sorry for your loss.

How tragic. Your compassion is incredible.

[grannylib]

15. Thank you...We just really felt that for the driver to have any kind of

healing, he needed to deal with the issue, and I couldn't see how sending him to prison would do that; I think in his case it would have been 'school' for bigger and 'better' crimes, so to speak. It was an accident...stupid and preventable, but still an accident, and he and my daughter were friends. I bet the guilt he carries is more punishment than anything the State could have done to him. And I sure didn't want to poison myself with hate or vindictiveness - it wouldn't bring her back, and unless I acted on that hate, it wouldn't do anything to him and would be pointless anyway (not to mention wrong...)
So in this case, it was the right choice, I think. Like I said, if it had been a situation where he had a string of DUIs behind him, I might have felt different.

[Pavulon]

10. Sorry

That is terrible. People make choices, some are life long. I can not say how I would react in your shoes.

That gives me hope that something good could come from a terrible thing.

Looking back on my youth I am glad my choices never harmed anyone.

I believe a person who is impaired physically and drives is committing depraved indifference murder. Murder 2. It is always preventable.

[grannylib]

16. Thank you...and something good DID come of it...

I drove cab for a while, and the last fare I picked up on my last day driving was a kid who had left his car at a party the night before. I told him how happy I was to hear that he made such a good choice, to leave it there and get a sober ride home. He said that his best friend just got out of jail after a year for killing a young woman in an accident, and it was the kid who was driving when my daughter died. I told him who I was, and he nearly lost it...
I was meant to pick him up! He got it, and he got it specifically due to this accident, so...it let me know she didn't die for nothing. It's had an impact on others, and a positive one. So that made me happy.
We also found out about a year after she died that one of her corneas had gone to a child who was born blind and had never seen his mom; the other went to a woman who became blind as a teen due to diabetic retinopathy, and who had never seen her kids. :-)

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Oh, Jeez, I'm so sorry.

I lost my best friend at age 26 to one. Sigh.

[ovidsen]

9. Make the second time a charm

People are often surprised by how how little alcohol it takes to hit an 0.08% BAC, and how much that amount varies from person to person, and from day to day. And at that level, they aren't accidents waiting to happen. If anything, I think that limit's too strict, but that is arguable.

At any rate, first time offenders shouldn't be hit with a felony... unless they've hurt someone in an accident or register something truly outrageous, like a 0.18% or so.

The second time? Hmmmm....

[Jersey Devil]

13. It doesn't vary from day to day

For the average person (maybe 160 lb) you add about .037 per drink/beer and you burn off an average of only .015 per hour. Tolerance (how you handle it) has nothing to do with what reading you get. That depends only on the amount you drink, your weight and over how long a period you consume your drinks. And, whether you ate or didn't eat all alcohol is into your bloodstream in a maximum of 45 minutes.

[lectrobyte]

45. You can thank MADD for lowering the limits. I'd think .12 is a more

realistic limit, if you have to have a number. .08 is like 3 beers for a lot of people, and far from what I would call impaired or even dangerous.

[ovidsen]

65. MADD took it to the extreme

I'm old enough to remember when if you were pulled over for drunk driving (and you weren't a Mel Gibson asshole) the cop let you walk home without a ticket as long as you weren't too drunk to walk. Now that's trivializing a problem.

But this demonizing of someone with an 0.08% is just absolute bullshit. MADD had a noble goal, but it's drive to make pariahs out of drivers who have had a drink or 2 (as opposed to drunk drivers) is a crime in itself.

[raccoon]

53. Another thing, if a person is taking prescription drugs, such

as some antidepressants, the alcohol could affect them more.

[TahitiNut]

11. Alcoholic Beverage lobby

Huge. Really big. Mucho dinero. Mucho potaxrk. :dunce:

[MrSlayer]

14. I don't know, I consider it reckless endangerment and extreme indifference

to human life. I don't believe there is any excuse for it.

[elocs]

17. Anybody where I live is at more risk from a drunk driver

than they are of being assaulted, mugged or murdered. It could happen at any place at any time.
Just last week there was a woman here who was arrested for DUI during the day when she struck a child, who thankfully was not seriously injured. It was her 5th DUI and that is not even the worst that I have seen here. Then again, I live in a city which seems to talk out of both sides of its mouth. It is against drunk driving, but seems to celebrate excessive drinking with community festivals that would be little if there was not beer drinking at the heart of them. There are more bars per capita than any other city in the state and lately male college students seem to mysteriously wind up in the Mississippi after a night of drinking. So much of the concern about excessive drinking seems to be "do as I say and not as I do".

[jsamuel]

18. because, culturally, we have a double-standard

it's cool to drink
it's cool to drive
it's acceptable to drink and drive
it's not acceptable to kill someone

It is weird. I have known people involved in these things they think it is culturally "acceptable" to do so. And unfortunately, for the most part it is. Our culture says, "it's no big deal", unless they kill someone or they are a minority, then it is always wrong. But that of course can only be found out AFTER they have killed someone, when it is too late.

If we really want to stop drunk driving, we need to CULTURALLY inforce tough punishments for even the littlest drunk driving.

Tell you friend who drove drunk last night that you will not talk to them for two weeks as punishment because it was wrong. It is questionable how effective that would actually be though. A more large scale effort would be needed.

[Swamp Rat]

19. I think DWAS is more dangerous!

'Driving While Anti-Semetic' :D

[Warren DeMontague]

21. It took me having a friend killed by a drunk driver to realize how serious

it is.

I think a big part of the problem is that it's one of those things where most people intellectually know it's bad- but it's something "other people" or "drunks" do, and they don't stop to think that when they've had a couple glasses of wine at dinner, it's suddenly become something THEY are doing, as well.

It took some serious eye opening shit, but I learned that lesson- and for the last decade or so of my drinking "career", I took a LOT of cabs. Fortunately, now it's not even an issue.

Taking a wider view, also, it's unfortunate that we as a society are so car-focused. If we had widespread, comprehensive public transit, it might make it easier for folks who want to go out and drink. I used to fantasize that the answer was having everyone get ferried around in computer controlled bumper cars.

Just not drinking is far simpler, however.

[gulliver]

26. I think we can do without it in our leaders.

It just is not hard at all to not drive while drunk. Anyone who does it is at minimum an ass.

Bush and Cheney are a DUI pair. Sometimes I can't believe reality.

[Bluebear]

30. Because our President done done it!

It's something to ASPIRE towards!

[Octafish]

47. Because if our pretzeldent does it, then it's OK.

LOL, Bluebear. You took the words off of my keypad.

There are even worse types behind the wheel...

DRUNKEN COKEWHORE

[leftofthedial]

32. drunk drivers should be stripped and beaten to death

right there on the side of the road

and their families should then be shamed by public identification and repeated broadcasting of the video of the beating

and don't get me started on the fines





enforcement of drunk driving laws is incredibly arbitrary

[pitohui]

33. what if this had been done to ted kennedy?

our society would be a poorer one if people took your idea seriously

not just poorer because of the destruction of the restaurant/tourism industry although people's jobs being destroyed is not to be laughed at

but also poorer because alcoholism is not a disease that just picks on people you don't like and who don't have anything to contribute, it often seems to preferentially pick out the most talented and sensitive members of society

[leftofthedial]

34. uhhh, i left out the

:sarcasm:

I think DUI is a victimless crime 99% of the time

it is inaccurately, capriciously and inconsistently enforced

causing injury or death while driving impaired should be punished incredibly harshly

breaking other laws (speeding, reckless driving, etc) while driving drunk should be punished harshly

being pulled over for a broken tail light, or for no reason at all, which is often the case, and then arrested for DUI should never happen. Ever.


Punishment for most DUI and DWAI offenses is already overly harsh. It is a growth industry in which a parasitical breed of lobbyists have imposed judgement on a segment of society for huge monetary gain. It has not made the roads safer or saved lives.

If everyone who has ever driven over the legal limit lost their license tomorrow, the economy would collapse before noon.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. I strongly disagree.

I think that the severity of the punishment should depend on the factors inside someone's control, not the other ones.

When you drink and drive, you're playing Russian roulette with other people's lives. Whether or not it comes up on the full chamber should be irrelevant to the state.

I would like to see people who do drive drunk and don't cause accidents punished only slightly less harshly than those who do, or, conversely, those who do cause accidents punished only slightly more harshly.

Whether or not you're driving recklessly should be a factor, though, I agree (although any form of drunk-driving is reckless in itself).

Drunk-driving probably shouldn't be a felony, at least not for a first offence, but anyone caught doing it should be paying a considerable fine, and anyone caught doing it more than once should not be driving again for a long, long time, if ever.

[Atman]

48. You DO understand that drinking IMPAIRS YOUR JUDGEMENT!

I've always found this to be the most fascinating element to the DUI argument. You're supposed to have the good judgement to know you're too impaired to drive -- while under the influence of a substance known for impairing your judgement.

Soon, states will lower the BAC level to .02, then cops can just park outside any Hooters or sports bar in town and load people directly into the paddy wagon on the way out the door. In fact, they should pre-emptively impound the cars of any person sitting in a bar, because obviously they'll be 'impaired' when they leave.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Funny, it's .08 now- which is pretty easy to hit after one or two

yet I see cars parked outside of bars all the time, and the cops aren't sitting in wait.

[Atman]

46. Time for DAMM?

Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. There was a time in my life when I would have agreed.

No more. By the time a drunk driver hurts someone, it's too late.

I'm libertarian on what people do with their own bodies- but when you get behind the wheel of a car and drive on public roads with other people who you are clearly endangering, your freedom has now inextricably crossed into other people's lives.

Balancing the cost to society of what drunks do on the road against the inconvenience to people to have to take a cab or find another way home from the bar is a no-brainer. And it HAS made the roads safer. DUI deaths are way down, and driving drunk is not nearly as socially acceptable as it used to be.

Too late for my friend who was killed at age 26 by a drunk driver, however.

[no_hypocrisy]

36. As a traffic attorney, IMO, it's because it's so prevalent. Specifically,

if all DWI's were arrested and convicted, and penalized appropriately for their violation, A LOT of people would be unemployed as they could not get to their jobs OR there would be such a number of convicted drivers breaking the law and driving anyway, that the justice system would be seen as irrelevant and less meaningful as far as enforcement goes. If "the System" really wanted drunk drivers off the roads, they would impound and/or auction off their vehicles. Not enough space to do that, constitutional liberties at issue, and impractical. All that can be done is maintain a charade of safer roads by some real convictions, but it usually gets to the point where a defendant has been before the court more than three times for DWI before the court gets very serious. Not to mention that some DWIs are more equal than other DWIs, meaning that some DWIs have connections to judges, prosecutors, cops, and the charges are either dropped or downgraded.

[leftofthedial]

37. "charade" is the correct term

I live in Colorado, where penalties for even first-time offenders are (IMHO) overly severe.

Again IMHO, the system does not exist to make the roads safer, to save lives, or to solve the "problem" of impaired driving. It exists to funnel money into the anti-drunk-driving industry.

[no_hypocrisy]

38. Honorable mention to whom DWI benefits:

1. The cops. They meet their quota of tickets meted out.

2. The courts. They appear to be protecting the public from a demographic inherently dangerous to its safety.

3. The municipalities. They collect on fines and penalties upon convictions. Keeps down the property taxes to some extent.

4. Municipal prosecutors. See "the courts", supra.

[Atman]

41. My brother has been arrested two or three times. Always gets off. $$$$$$.

My brother has lots of money. He still jokes about the time when he and his buddies get arrested in Vermont, and the cops told them they'd had the highest BAC they'd ever seen. Actually spent two nights in jail (he wasn't rich then, but had a wealthy friend who pulled the strings). He subsequently had two other DUI arrests, and also beat them both by shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for attorneys...they found punctuation errors and time stamp errors, or signatures in the wrong place, or a non-calibrated breathalyzer. It was always something, and it always worked. Money is the answer to any problem in this country. That, and don't call the cops Jew haters when you're getting your field sobriety test!

[no_hypocrisy]

54. I rest my case, Your Honor. n/t

[H2O Man]

42. In NYS

getting arrested for it is indeed serious. A person who gets a DUI faces serious consequences, including the potential jail time and fine. There are issues with insurance. And treatment is the usual choice, rather than the jail time. When a person opts for treatment, they are required to follow the recommendations of those providing services .... and those who provide those services do not tend to think of the offense as minor.

[Atman]

44. The "treatment" is a total farce

It is the expense that they hope will scare you sober. Thousands of dollars, loss of job, loss of liscense. If you have MONEY, you're all set. If you're an average Joe, your life is fucked up for a long time, and you learn only that the system is a fucking scam that is designed to work against you. It's enough to make you want a good stiff drink.

[H2O Man]

49. It sounds like

you have had a bad experience, perhaps with a family member. But the fact is that treatment benefits a large portion of the people who are invested in it. Addiction is a disease of relapse, and while it is to be expected that many people who are addicted will have episodes in the future, it does not take away from the benefits of treatment.

There are, of course, a group who will not be invested in treatment, and who will continue on their merry way. The people providing treatment services are able to identify them easily, and make their recommendations known to the courts. Then, the responsibility is with the court for providing the consequences.

The success stories far outnumber the failures. Those who take the "it makes you want a drink" route generally have a chip on their shoulder. They view the loss of job, etc, as their being victimized. Pathetic.

[Atman]

50. Actually, I don't even drink

My chip on my shoulder comes from watching good people's lives destroyed (a friend I am currently counseling), while shitheals like my bro get to buck the whole system just because they can afford to pay lawyers until the end of time, if that's what it takes. If the courts were interested in treatment, there should be no ability to have a lawyer argue about the technicalities of your arrest report, or whatever. If the courts were concerned with stopping drunk driving, one's income would never, ever be a factor. But it is, all the time.

[H2O Man]

51. Had you taken

the time to read beyond the first half of my first sentence, you would have found I said you appeared to have had a bad experience, perhaps with a family member.

It is fair to say that our judicial system often treats the rich very differently than the middle class or poor. That is distinct from a substance abuse treatment program. But for one example: in Otsego County, NY, the top judge from the 1970s and '80s was an alcoholic. He used to drink to excess in local bars, and he had a number of minor accidents, often driving into a ditch. The police would quietly drive him home, and have his car towed.

One night, after he drove into a ditch, a local resident called the Oneonta Daily Star. They came out at 2am, and took photos. The judge finally faced legal consequences. I can say for absolute certainy -- without any possibility of being wrong -- that the treatment team that handled his case did not give any consideration to his status in the community.

That is but one example. I could list many, many others. The legal system is far more likely to allow for the favoritism of the wealthy, than are substance abuse treatment providers.

[Atman]

52. "Had you taken the time to read beyond the first half of my sentence..."

Ass.

[Kingshakabobo]

56. Huh?

"there should be no ability to have a lawyer argue about the technicalities of your arrest report, or whatever"

WTF?

[Atman]

57. If you take a sentence out of context, don't expect it to make sense.

Of course I don't believe that. Jesus Christ, don't be dense. Put what I said back into the context of my entire post, please, and then it isn't so "WTF." My point was simply that my brother WAS drunk. Drunk as a proverbial skunk. Just as drunk as Joe Sixpack who could only afford $500 for his buddie's friend's cousin's lawyer. But my brother went on to get arrested at least two more times, with absolutely no consequence, except for a slight hit to his wallet. Because he could afford to hire an attorney who could hound the DA and keep filing paperwork and motions until something stuck. Joe Sixpack gets his life fucked over because he can't afford a lawyer to argue about the technicalities of his arrest report and file endless motions and appeals.

IOW, in a perfect world, both were equally drunk, both deserved equal punishment. Only money paid to an attorney changed the outcome. I certainly am not advocating no attorney's, and it is silly to even think that is what I said. I hope this clarifies.

[Kingshakabobo]

60. Sorry. I have NO patience with people who don't......

........want to burden the police/government with technicalities. The police do just fine, thankyverymuch. See: Gestapo road blocks disguised as "safety checks" - nudge nudge wink wink.

I think I understand your point in that the rich are more likely to get off BUT that doesn't mean we should remove safeguards for everyone......not even a little bit........ That's all.

[warrior1]

43. I think it is...

DMV effected, insurance goes up, crimnal record forever. A second and third within seven years can get you prison time.

[gulfcoastliberal]

55. M.A.D.D.made it a serious crime

Even if no one is injured. I don't drink, but a recent (either state or SCOTUS) ruling said they can charge you with DUI if you have THC metabolites in your system and you aren't even under the influence at the time of the arrest. The 4th amenment has been effectively gutted & repealed by the WOD.

[AspenRose]

58. Because if they made it the serious crime it should be....

...too many judges, politicians and other people in authority would be in very big trouble.

[TSIAS]

59. ...

The problem is that the varying degrees of offenses are lumped into one category called DUI or DWI. The courts don't want to see the difference between someone who is borderline impaired (.08), and the driver who is falling asleep drunk and nearly comatose.

I'm totally for keeping drunk drivers off the roads. But I simply feel that .08 not a proper indicator of intoxication. I'm okay with .12 or even .10. But at some point, the federal government decided to force states to comply with .08 or lose funds for road construction. While MADD may have members that are coming into the battle with the best of intentions, there are some who are arch-conservatives hell bent on another prohibition. They aren't happy with .08. Some are trying to lower it to .05, or even a "Zero tolerance" policy.

States are happy to take the $1000 or so in money it takes to pay for a DUI and send you to probation. In the state of FL, most DUI's are handled in a standard manner. They offer the defendant the statutory minimums and rarely want to take a case to trial. But if the defendant chooses to take the case to trial, the courts threaten to impose jail time. And for most of the people charged with DUI (a more white collar crime), jail time is feared and they accept what the state offers.

I know that in the case of Mel Gibson, they've charged him with two separate offenses - DWI and driving with a BAC of over .08. The problem with this is that BAC machines are wildly inaccurate. But to obtain a driver's license, you have to agree to the implied consent cause which recognizes the supremacy of these flawed machines. The police officer or breath technician has the authority to force the defendant to blow as many times as he desires until the preferred result is achieved.

The effort in the last decade to curb drunk driving is a noble cause, but it's execution is highly questionable. I feel that people who are a danger to society should be treated harshly. In some ways, the system is too lenient. Repeat offenders get their license suspended for five years, but they still end up getting caught driving while suspended. Chronic, dangerous drunk drivers need to be kept off the streets by any means necessary. But the guy who had three beers and is technically over the limit shouldn't be lumped in with the chronic dangers to society.

[leftofthedial]

76. using BAC to define the offense adds to the capriciousness

1. In effect, all equipment (breathalyzers, etc.) is faulty all of the time. This is why money can get you off. It's just a matter of the lawyer having the resources to figure out what was wrong with the one used on you. I know several cops. None of them will consent to either a breathalyzer or a roadside sobriety test if they are ever put in that situation, because neither is reliable and both are "gamed" to deliver false positives.

2. Legal limits are arbitrary. BAC's effect is determined based on broad statistical samples, not the measurement of any specific effect on the individual. *

3. BAC's effect on driving is extrapolated from its statistical effects on reaction time and other abstract physical and emotional responses, not on any specific person's ability to drive safely in the conditions in which they were driving.

4. BAC level changes drastically in the hour or two after drinking. BAC generally spikes about 60 - 90 minutes after drinking. So, ironically, if there is any demonstrable delay in the BAC test from the time one quit drinking, that alone can invalidate the BAC.

* Roadside sobriety tests that allegedly measure a person's competence to drive do not measure driving skills and are designed to be failed by most people, regardless of their impairment or lack of impairment. Recently, a group of 5 other adults and I, all of whom do not drink, were administered typical roadside sobriety tests by a local cop. Four of the six of us failed. All six of us were sober. This was in the well-lit comfort of an indoor gathering, not on the side of the road (perhaps a busy highway in the dark) surrounded by armed, surly, rude policemen. Roadside test results are almost always thrown out if one has competent counsel, because the anti-drunk-driving industry's own literature shows them to be meaningless.

Don't get me wrong. DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE. My complaint is not intended to encourage drunk driving.

But the current system is arbitrary and punitive. As stated in another post, its economic effects on individuals often make it MORE likely that someone with a drinking problem will get worse, not better, despite mandated "treatment" (which in most places is a joke). Bottom line--It has ZERO measurable effect on solving the problem. Statistically, two separate studies (one before and one right after the change of the BAC level to .08) show that if you are driving on I-25 in Denver after midnight, roughly two-thirds (!!!) of your fellow drivers are at .04 or more and over a third are at .08 or above. The industry currently is lobbying to change the legal limit to .04. I wonder why? Is it because someone driving at .04 poses a serious, imminent risk? Maybe that argument will be put forward, although the evidence is poor at best. More likely is that it doubles the potential revenue pool to the system.

People still drink and drive. People still kill others while driving drunk. The steady increases in enforcement, punishment and stigmatization of the past 15 years have had no effect on rates of death, injury or property damage. In fact, in many places the problem is getting worse, not better. The current approach does not work. But it sure makes a lot of money!

[Atman]

79. Would a pedestrian be less dead if he was killed by a .08 BAC than .27?

Excellent point about the capriciousness of the BAC.

[leftofthedial]

80. the point is that a pedestrian was killed

that's the worst dimension of the problem

and one that is related to driving with a .08 in the same way that your ownership of a gun implicates you in a random armed robbery.

[Atman]

83. Ouch, stop it...

You're making me THINK!

;)

[Recursion]

62. Because a large number of white males do it, maybe? nt

[Protagoras]

64. Because if it were half of congress would be behind bars

nt

[ck4829]

66. It is a crime that is largely committed by white males.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Because it's not that serious?

Being legally drunk behind the wheel is about the same as being behind the wheel after losing a couple of hours of sleep.

And everybody here has been behind the wheel after losing a couple of hours of sleep.

Not that I'm against prosecuting drunks who cause actual accidents to the fullest extent of the law.

[AzDar]

68. Drunk drivers are dangerous...so are people who drive long past the time

they are able to (DWO); women who put on mascara in the rearview while driving (DWV); and folks who eat and talk on their cellphones while driving (DWM and DWY, respectively).
Driving while tired (DWE), and driving while-thinking-about-your-high-school-boyfriend-and-the things-that-y'all-used-to-do-while-listening-to-this-Journey-tune-on-Sirius(DWR).
Don't even get me started on the teenage drivers....

[Joe Fields]

69. Because a lot of lawmakers are alkies?

[Bluerthanblue]

77. because too many people are guilty of it- and they don't

want to have to be held accountable.

If we looked at the number of people who die as a result of alcohol, and its abuse, we'd have to have a 'war on booze'- and that might mean having to look at ourselves, rather than 'others' as the 'bad guys'-

And that wouldn't 'feel' so good.

[Flaxbee]

78. don't expect laws regulating behavior to make sense...

the drug possession issue represents legislation by uptight idiots. You can't compare the two - drug legislation is ludicrous.

The DUI legislation actually makes more sense, and drug legislation should parallel it more. You can't (shouldn't be able to) punish people for "what-ifs". Driving while under the influence is stupid but so is running with scissors. You get stopped before you hurt someone or yourself, the repercussions are less severe. You plow into someone with your car or scissors, you get busted for something entirely different. Also, extremely bad judgement does not indicate intent to hurt someone. You throw intent into the mix, and then the repercussions are much worse.

People do stupid things ALL THE TIME. Laws try to (or used to try to) take that into account, so long as you don't hurt someone or make a habit of it. The drug laws really have no corollary to anything rational, whereas the DUI laws still do.

It's the same old argument - alcohol can affect people far, far more than some other controlled substances, the laws regulating both are just totally inconsistent.

[judaspriestess]

81. Not in Texas

my brother, foolish as he was back then, got about FOUR DUI's and went to PRISON for about 4 years.

We begged him, stop being an asshole cause you are going to hurt someone, he never did luckily. He did not listen and he got sent away. He got out about a year and half ago and is much older and wiser. He is not perfect but a decent person with an addicition that he has to control the rest of his life. He is doing great now and I am very proud of him.

[McCamy Taylor]

85. Because of Grover Norquist and the alcohol lobby.