Life in prison for DUI

[nehalem256]

I was arrested for DUI in my parking spot...my ex knew the cop that arrested me. She had him waiting. I told her I was moving out the next day.

In my classes, they have you write "how much has DUI cost you?"

There was one attorney from NYC that now resided in FL. He was a criminal defender that made too many police look like idiots. They arrested him in his driveway washing his new Corvette. They confiscated it based on the keys were in his pocket.

His DUI had cost him $150k and he wasn't done defending it. It was just one of his cars. The guy was a multi-millionaire, had a limo bring him to each class.

I have heard stories like that before. The whole idea of arresting people for being parked in their car while intoxicated is retarded.

DUI laws are a bit extreme, I don't buy into the .08 rules (and neither does the founder of MADD/SADD).

There should probably be a graduated system. With more severe penalties for being more intoxicated.

I could see a case where someone might make an honest mistake think they were okay and then blow a .08.

But if you blow double or triple the limit, especially on multiple occasions...

 

[drebo]

Which is almost worthless with judicial activism and the 538 people in washington who decide how and in what manner you can defend yourself.

Think about what laws actually are. Laws are either an incentive to do something, or a disincentive to do something. Laws are based on the 'morality' of those in power and the majority voters, assuming it's up to a vote.

Government exists for the people and, more importantly, by the people.

The government cannot do anything the people do not want really want it to do.

If the government passes a law tomorrow declaring Obama king, you can bet that the people will rise up and overthrow it.

 

[alkemyst]

But if you blow double or triple the limit, especially on multiple occasions...

Here is the rub, that night I had a bar tab only a few beers from around 6pm to 2am. I got in a fight with the soon to be ex and got hit in the face with a shelf that put my lip over my teeth.

I was able to do the field side tests, say the alphabet backwards (which was my fault, I thought they said backwards, but the cop didn't understand what I was saying. He wrote it down as I said them, I didn't miss a letter...they had me doing my field sides in the middle lane (on the stripe) of a road), and have cars whizzing by me during the tests.

Two hours later at the jail I blew a .168.

It cost me $5000 and some cab fares back in the late 90's. They even let you buy your community service hours back cheap.

 

[alkemyst]

Government exists for the people and, more importantly, by the people.

The government cannot do anything the people do not want really want it to do.

If the government passes a law tomorrow declaring Obama king, you can bet that the people will rise up and overthrow it.

Wow, serious?

It's easy to get a law, much harder to remove a law.

 

[Lithium381]

Government exists for the people and, more importantly, by the people.

The government cannot do anything the people do not want really want it to do.

If the government passes a law tomorrow declaring Obama king, you can bet that the people will rise up and overthrow it.

Very naive Drebo. What is our avenue for grievances? The Supreme Court? Separation of powers? Checks and balances? It's an illusion.

 

[mikegg]

I have heard stories like that before. The whole idea of arresting people for being parked in their car while intoxicated is retarded.



There should probably be a graduated system. With more severe penalties for being more intoxicated.

I could see a case where someone might make an honest mistake think they were okay and then blow a .08.

But if you blow double or triple the limit, especially on multiple occasions...

I know someone who got a DUI for fixing his car in the garage. The car didn't even have an engine in it.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's ridiculous.

I can't see a life sentence. Heck, actually killing someone gets you much less time in many states. There should be another solution. She's just a burden on taxpayers now.

Fern

I'm usually against draconian punishments, but I kind of understand it here. It isn't even about punishing her. It's about public safety.

After 6 DUI's, the last coming within weeks after she gets out of prison for the 5th, and doing it brazenly with an open container, this woman is undeterrable. She WILL drive drunk any time she's not in jail. And will continue to do so until she dies or is physically unable to drive. So the choice is simple: jail her for good, or accept that she will continue to drive drunk until she hurts or kills someone. At age 45, she has at least another few decades of this reckless behavior.

From a public safety standpoint, she's a bigger risk if free than someone with one DUI who killed someone when it happened. That could have been an isolated drunk driving incident where the person happened to kill someone. After going to jail for a few years, that person may never re-offend. Statistically, a one time DUI manslaughter case is safer than a 6 time DUIer who luckily hasn't hurt or killed anyone yet.

I agree it cost a lot of taxpayer money. If there's a third alternative I'd be all for it.

 

[momeNt]

Scary precedent.

Being imprisoned for doing absolutely no harm. Only potentially causing harm if something had happened differently any of the times she drove her vehicle intoxicated.

I'd like to see the harm dealt with harshly. I don't believe we need to punish people because they could have harmed someone.

 

[woolfe9998]

Scary precedent.

Being imprisoned for doing absolutely no harm. Only potentially causing harm if something had happened differently any of the times she drove her vehicle intoxicated.

I'd like to see the harm dealt with harshly. I don't believe we need to punish people because they could have harmed someone.

I disagree. Punishing someone after they hurt or kill someone doesn't resurrect or uninjure the victim. You don't just allow people to behave recklessly and wait for them to harm others. Criminal penalties and lawsuits do not negate the harm caused.

The difference between a DUI with no resulting harm and one with resulting harm is happenstance more than anything else. Fundamentally the two crimes are the same by intent.

With your way, we let this woman walk and wait until she runs someone over. You want to trade someone's life or health for someone else's right to behave foolishly and recklessly.

 

[momeNt]

I disagree. Punishing someone after they hurt or kill someone doesn't resurrect or uninjure the victim. You don't just allow people to behave recklessly and wait for them to harm others. Criminal penalties and lawsuits do not negate the harm caused.

The difference between a DUI with no resulting harm and one with resulting harm is happenstance more than anything else. Fundamentally the two crimes are the same by intent.

With your way, we let this woman walk and wait until she runs someone over. You want to trade someone's life or health for someone else's right to behave foolishly and recklessly.

What victim? She did not harm anybody.

With your way, we weigh down our society by having shitloads of cops at checkpoints searching for DUIs instead of keeping budgets down or doing other things, like stopping greater sources of harms than DUI.

If damage caused by DUI was dealt with more severely it would serve as an adequate example to the community to not DUI. No need to have constant patrols trolling for DUI chipping away at people $10,000 at a time, and if someone hits and kills someone only give them 4 years for DUI manslaughter.

There should be more focus on the harm caused rather than how it was caused. The dead person and their family doesn't care if there was malice aforethought in the death, the person is freaking dead. Punish the harm, not the how and why of the harm.

 

[nehalem256]

Scary precedent.

Being imprisoned for doing absolutely no harm. Only potentially causing harm if something had happened differently any of the times she drove her vehicle intoxicated.

I'd like to see the harm dealt with harshly. I don't believe we need to punish people because they could have harmed someone.

So if I shoot a gun at you, but miss, I shouldn't be charged with a crime?

I agree it cost a lot of taxpayer money. If there's a third alternative I'd be all for it.

You take her out back behind the court house and shoot her. The woman has been given many opportunities to live by very reasonable rules of a civilized society. She refuses to abide by them. There is no reason society should be responsible for warehousing her for 30 years.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

First time should be 30 days in jail and loss of license for a year. Second time should be 90 days in jail and loss of license forever. Third time should be life in prison.

Driving without a license (or with a suspended license) should follow a similar progression.

We are far too lenient with our criminals in this country.

I'm wondering how this is going to help.

 

[woolfe9998]

So if I shoot a gun at you, but miss, I shouldn't be charged with a crime?



You take her out back behind the court house and shoot her. The woman has been given many opportunities to live by very reasonable rules of a civilized society. She refuses to abide by them. There is no reason society should be responsible for warehousing her for 30 years.

No, you don't take anyone back "behind the courthouse and shoot" them. They get a far trial, and they get an appeal if the trial wasn't fair. This isn't the freaking dark ages.

So now it's either let people do whatever the hell they want until they maim or kill someone, or execute them when they haven't harmed someone yet. Insane libertarianism or insane statism. How about sanity instead?

Are there actual adults anywhere on this forum? I mean, like more than a handful?

 

[alkemyst]

No, you don't take anyone back "behind the courthouse and shoot" them. They get a far trial, and they get an appeal if the trial wasn't fair. This isn't the freaking dark ages.

So now it's either let people do whatever the hell they want until they maim or kill someone, or execute them when they haven't harmed someone yet. Insane libertarianism or insane statism. How about sanity instead?

Are there actual adults anywhere on this forum? I mean, like more than a handful?

I am an adult...I don't get this post.

 

[woolfe9998]

I am an adult...I don't get this post.

If you don't get it, take a look at the last 2 posts I responded to, espousing two opposite but equally extremist views.

 

[woolfe9998]

What victim? She did not harm anybody.

With your way, we weigh down our society by having shitloads of cops at checkpoints searching for DUIs instead of keeping budgets down or doing other things, like stopping greater sources of harms than DUI.

If damage caused by DUI was dealt with more severely it would serve as an adequate example to the community to not DUI. No need to have constant patrols trolling for DUI chipping away at people $10,000 at a time, and if someone hits and kills someone only give them 4 years for DUI manslaughter.

There should be more focus on the harm caused rather than how it was caused. The dead person and their family doesn't care if there was malice aforethought in the death, the person is freaking dead. Punish the harm, not the how and why of the harm.

It's not about punishing the "how and why." It isn't even about punishment. It's about prevention. Tough punishment only when harm ensues is insufficient deterrent because the drunk drivers never think they'll be the ones to run someone over. The threat of being pulled over because of shaky driving is much more probable and therefore much more worrying to the potential drunk driver.

Let's take another example of how your philosophy applies. If we punish only harm, then it's perfectly legal for someone to recklessly fire a gun into a crowd of people so long as the bullet doesn't connect with anyone.

Picture a police office in the employ of momeNtland PD who is standing next to the shooter. He cracks off a shot. Nope, whizzed over the head of that toddler over there. Not illegal. Can't do a thing. Second shot. Ah, just between the legs of that jogger over there. No harm, no foul. Third shot - pow! Right between the eyes of that middle aged woman over on the corner. OK, now we can arrest the guy! Not much difference from the cop who is behind a swerving vehicle with a driver who is obviously smashed and must wait until he plows into someone before stopping him.

When someone is recklessly endangering the lives of other people, you don't stand by and wait for the harm. You stop them.

Your argument is absurd.

 

[woolfe9998]

double post

 

[ThinClient]

Now my fucking tax dollars are going to support her every breath. Fuck that bitch. End her.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Should be 3 times, bullet in the head. Period.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's not about punishing the "how and why." It isn't even about punishment. It's about prevention. Tough punishment only when harm ensues is insufficient deterrent because the drunk drivers never think they'll be the ones to run someone over. The threat of being pulled over because of shaky driving is much more probable and therefore much more worrying to the potential drunk driver.

It sounds like you've never actually been drunk before.

 

[mammador]

Take away her licence, and ban her from ever getting one in all 50 states.

Life imprisonment is too harsh IMO.

 

[AViking]

Incarceration rates are too high. Drunk drivers do not respond well to threats of jail or actual jail time since they're generally alcoholics.

At what point are we going to realize that throwing so many people in prison is not helping. It's extremely expensive and we changed our system from rehabilitation to punitive in the 1970's so all they really do is serve as modern day dungeons.

Before burdening the tax payer with this large of a bill I would probably remove her ability to get credit, her driver's license, notify all the local taxi companies, car rental companies, and dealerships. I'd also make her pay for alcohol treatment and keep her in a clinic rather than throw her in prison.

Why should tax payers have to absorb such a huge bill because she's an alcoholic?

 

[AViking]

Lastly doesn't this violate her constitutional rights? Life in prison has to be cruel and unusual punishment. So now we're probably going to get a nice bill as the state has to defend itself.

 

[Mursilis]

Take away her licence, and ban her from ever getting one in all 50 states.

Life imprisonment is too harsh IMO.

Plenty of repeated DUI offenders drive without a license. The illegal who hit my brother-in-law and his family (luckily, they were not seriously harmed, but still pretty bruised) had already lost his license due to FIVE prior DUIs, but was still on the road, driving drunk. This was in Virginia.

 

[nehalem256]

No, you don't take anyone back "behind the courthouse and shoot" them. They get a far trial, and they get an appeal if the trial wasn't fair. This isn't the freaking dark ages.

Well obviously the execution would be after the trial. Hence the "courthouse".

So now it's either let people do whatever the hell they want until they maim or kill someone, or execute them when they haven't harmed someone yet. Insane libertarianism or insane statism. How about sanity instead?

If someone repeatedly shows a reckless disregard for the lives of everyone else why should everyone else show any regard for their life?

Are there actual adults anywhere on this forum? I mean, like more than a handful?

You basically have 3 choices.

(1) let people do whatever the hell they want until they maim or kill someone
(2) Babysit them for decades at great expense to society
(3) If after they have REPEATEDLY shown they are unable to live in civilized society you remove them from society.