Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution

[Ikari]

Oh - right, like there's nothing wrong with driving drunk? How has that led to 'being soft' on other things? I'm not seeing the connection.

It's not hard to avoid the DUI cash-cow trap as a motorist - don't be *under the influence* of anything when you drive . . . that's common sense right there.

I'm not really feeling the sympathy for tipsy vroom vroomers over here I guess.

I don't claim that it should be legal or that there isn't anything wrong with drunk driving. I have said that the punishments are far too excessive. In part due to the emotionalization of the topic itself. DUI is big money for a city now, an they like it. Sure, it should still be illegal; but because something should be illegal does not mean that the sky's the limit in terms of punishment. Everything must be within the proper constraints of law and punishment. Excessive punishment is not warranted, no matter how emotional you try to make an issue.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I don't claim that it should be legal or that there isn't anything wrong with drunk driving. I have said that the punishments are far too excessive. In part due to the emotionalization of the topic itself. DUI is big money for a city now, an they like it. Sure, it should still be illegal; but because something should be illegal does not mean that the sky's the limit in terms of punishment. Everything must be within the proper constraints of law and punishment. Excessive punishment is not warranted, no matter how emotional you try to make an issue.

Ah well - I don't consider our current punishments to be excessive. . . in fact, I feel they're not strict enough. As my Law professor says - Law is an argument and the courts merely pick a side.

Maybe DUI quotas lead police in the wrong direction - but as far as legalities go I don't think it's taken seriously enough for those who are actually under the influence and behind the wheel.

 

[Caine]

Ah well - I don't consider our current punishments to be excessive. . . in fact, I feel they're not strict enough. As my Law professor says - Law is an argument and the courts merely pick a side.

Maybe DUI quotas lead police in the wrong direction - but as far as legalities go I don't think it's taken seriously enough for those who are actually under the influence and behind the wheel.

This is my argument as far as quotas are concerned. I disagree with them, we don't use them, however.....

As long as an officer isn't making **** up just to reach some "goal" (quota) then I see nothing wrong with it.
Just because a "quota" (goal) is being used does not mean that the cases are false.

But, people will use anything to try to deflect from taking personal responsibility for their actions.....

 

[Ikari]

Ah well - I don't consider our current punishments to be excessive. . . in fact, I feel they're not strict enough. As my Law professor says - Law is an argument and the courts merely pick a side.

Maybe DUI quotas lead police in the wrong direction - but as far as legalities go I don't think it's taken seriously enough for those who are actually under the influence and behind the wheel.

Incredibly excessive. There aren't many motor vehicle laws which do not result in property or personal damage which carry the penalties currently assessed to DUI.

 

[Caine]

Incredibly excessive. There aren't many motor vehicle laws which do not result in property or personal damage which carry the penalties currently assessed to DUI.

but the act of property and personal injury and DEATH, does occur in DWI incidents.

 

[MaggieD]

I don't say that you don't get a ticket. I say that the ticket must be within some reasonable context of law and punishment. As well as noting that because we have these things as legal, they will happen. Drunk driving may not be legal. But so long as alcohol and driving both remain legal, you're going to get people who drink and drive; that number will never be pushed to zero. Because of the way we've set up our system of restricted government, people are going to be free to make choices for themselves, even the wrong choices. And given enough people, all those wrong choices will be realized in a real system. That's the base. You can't make it a zero number, not with horrible abuses of government and even then it may not get to zero. That's reality. We have chosen many dangerous abilities and realities of the world and society we live in, this is one of those. There will always be drunk driving. But just because the worst case scenario of drunk driving can be horrible doesn't mean that we excuse excessive punishment for the crime. Everything must exist within the limited construct of government and proper punishment.

Ahhhh, now that I understand. I totally agree. It will never be zero. If you are arguing that drunk driving punishments are too severe, then we've got somethin' to discuss. Here's what Illinois does:

Driving Under the Influence

First Conviction
Minimum of one-year loss of full driving privileges.
Possible imprisonment for up to one year.

Second Conviction
Minimum of one-year loss of full driving privileges.
Possible imprisonment for up to one year.
Maximum fine of $2,500.

Third Conviction is a Class 2 Felony
Minimum ten-year loss of full driving privileges.
Mandatory 18-30 month periodic imprisonment.
Possible imprisonment for up to seven years.
Maximum fine of $25,000.

It gets worse from there -- special penalties for under-aged offenders....for people who knowingly permit an intoxicated driver to operate a motor vehicle...for bodily injury accident, yada yada: Influenced Driving

It's also my understanding that the penalties I've listed above can be mitigated at trial or plea...one can drive to work...maybe a six-month suspension. In any case, whatever the penalty, it's sure going to change someone's life.

Drunk driving in Illinois is not for sissies. Are the penalties listed above too harsh? Ask the families of these five people: Driver found guilty in DUI crash that killed 5 teens - Chicago Breaking News

 

[Ikari]

but the act of property and personal injury and DEATH, does occur in DWI incidents.

yup. and you tend to get more than dui in those cases. Maybe things like vehicular manslaughter or homicide for the instances which cause death. Straight up DUI, however, carries far too much punishment. For the instances in which drunk driving does lead to property or personal damage can have other crimes charged against them, which would then account for the increased punishment warranted for such a case.

 

[Ikari]

Ahhhh, now that I understand. I totally agree. It will never be zero. If you are arguing that drunk driving punishments are too severe, then we've got somethin' to discuss. Here's what Illinois does:

Driving Under the Influence

First Conviction
Minimum of one-year loss of full driving privileges.
Possible imprisonment for up to one year.

Second Conviction
Minimum of one-year loss of full driving privileges.
Possible imprisonment for up to one year.
Maximum fine of $2,500.

Third Conviction is a Class 2 Felony
Minimum ten-year loss of full driving privileges.
Mandatory 18-30 month periodic imprisonment.
Possible imprisonment for up to seven years.
Maximum fine of $25,000.

It gets worse from there -- special penalties for under-aged offenders....for people who knowingly permit an intoxicated driver to operate a motor vehicle...for bodily injury accident, yada yada: Influenced Driving

It's also my understanding that the penalties I've listed above can be mitigated at trial or plea...one can drive to work...maybe a six-month suspension. In any case, whatever the penalty, it's sure going to change someone's life.

Drunk driving in Illinois is not for sissies. Are the penalties listed above too harsh? Ask the families of these five people: Driver found guilty in DUI crash that killed 5 teens - Chicago Breaking News

First offense DUI can cost in total of nearly 10,000 dollars depending on state. You will almost not get away with it with anything less than 3 grand. Sound reasonable? You have to go to classes that you pay for. You have to have alcohol evaluations, which you pay for. From that evaluation you get hours of therapy (lots of therapy), that you pay for, community service, which you pay for, almost certainly a MADD panel. Those are standard punishments for DUAI (the baby DUI), you can also get up to 3 months in jail for DUI. Get it? We're not just talking some loss of license and a fine. The court fines themselves in CO can be in excess of 1500 dollars. But you're talking months of classes first off. Then up to a year of therapy afterward if you get sentenced that much. Probation, which you pay for; plus a plethora of other things. CO just made it so that you cannot PR out of DUI. Which means that you must see the judge to get bond, which means on Fri night; have a nice weekend in jail. Oh, and you pay for that too. Too harsh? In CO now if you want to get a work license, so you can still drive to work, you have to have installed a breathalyzer interlock. You pay for installation and the monthly fee which goes with it. Your insurance goes through the roof even if this is the first offense you've ever had. Sound reasonable still? That's for the first offense, and that doesn't go off your record ever. Get another DUI 18 years later, that's your second and you're almost assuredly going to jail. Is this reasonable?

Lots of people like to use appeal to emotion, such as your last line there. It sucks that living in societies and free societies at that, have such consequences. People will die from a myriad of reasons every day. How many people got shot in LA today? Take guns away? Punish people who try to get a gun? If you accidentally discharge the weapon should you be looking at 10K in fines and lawyers fees along with months of class and a year of therapy? Or do we acknowledge the innate danger which exists since humans are imperfect creatures?

 

[Caine]

yup. and you tend to get more than dui in those cases. Maybe things like vehicular manslaughter or homicide for the instances which cause death. Straight up DUI, however, carries far too much punishment. For the instances in which drunk driving does lead to property or personal damage can have other crimes charged against them, which would then account for the increased punishment warranted for such a case.

But what you are failing to recognize is that the "possible punishment" by statute for a DWi and the ACTUAL PUNISHMENT that somenoe gets vary greatly.
The "possible punishment" (which you like to think of is the norm) only happens in situations where there are enough aggravating factors to warrant such.

It bores me to no end to watch people throw max punishments out there as if that is what people get. In over 4 years of law enforcement, I have yet to see a single offender get the maximum punishment in any case I have personally been involved in, a colleague has been involved in, or that has been handled in court while I was waiting on my own personal cases.

To say that the maximum punishment is THE punishment, is blowing reality out of proportion.

The circumstances involved in a particular case are the deciding factors in how that case will be handled, punishment wise, in court..... and rightfully so.

Will people recieve fines? Absolutely. Will people lose full driving privleges? Absolutely.
Will people do time in jail? Rarely, only in very bad situations. Will people lose ALL driving privleges? Rarely, only in bad situations.

Ive only seen a few of my over 200 DWI cases where someone got jail time, or where someone completely lost the ability to drive.
One of those got 15-18months for Felony Habitual (was 4th time offense of DWI, offender was only 22 years old, BAC of .20)
A few of those who were 3rd time offenders got 10 days sentence, to be allowed to be served on weekends and released during the week. One of these guys was sentenced to 30 days in an alcohol rehabilitation facility, chosen by his parents.

The only people Ive ever seen NOT be permitted a "Limited Provisional License" were those who were underage offenders, or offenders who I caught driving when their driving privlege was revoked from a previous DWI.

So, seriously, knock it off with using the max sentences as the norm, its nowhere NEAR reality.

 

[Ikari]

Standard punishment in CO first time offense DUI is near the max minus the jail time. You're paying tons of money, you've got years of classes and therapy. The fact is we allow for these "max" penalties as a way to account for more grievous cases; but in the end the near max tends to get pushed as standard punishment. It bores me that people continually try to dismiss the max penalty by saying "they never get it" without showing what punishments they actually get. Plus the max penalty is the max penalty for a crime. While DUI can also include other crimes, fact is DUI laws are excessive and while perhaps many get away with no jail time on their first offense, they still reap near max penalties on everything else. The real world actual costs and punishments of DUI are excessive. DUI in and of itself does not include property or personal damage crimes. Those crimes can also occur while DUIing, but not innately part of it.

 

[Caine]

First offense DUI can cost in total of nearly 10,000 dollars depending on state. You will almost not get away with it with anything less than 3 grand. Sound reasonable? You have to go to classes that you pay for. You have to have alcohol evaluations, which you pay for. From that evaluation you get hours of therapy (lots of therapy), that you pay for, community service, which you pay for, almost certainly a MADD panel. Those are standard punishments for DUAI (the baby DUI), you can also get up to 3 months in jail for DUI. Get it? We're not just talking some loss of license and a fine. The court fines themselves in CO can be in excess of 1500 dollars. But you're talking months of classes first off. Then up to a year of therapy afterward if you get sentenced that much. Probation, which you pay for; plus a plethora of other things. CO just made it so that you cannot PR out of DUI. Which means that you must see the judge to get bond, which means on Fri night; have a nice weekend in jail. Oh, and you pay for that too. Too harsh? In CO now if you want to get a work license, so you can still drive to work, you have to have installed a breathalyzer interlock. You pay for installation and the monthly fee which goes with it. Your insurance goes through the roof even if this is the first offense you've ever had. Sound reasonable still? That's for the first offense, and that doesn't go off your record ever. Get another DUI 18 years later, that's your second and you're almost assuredly going to jail. Is this reasonable?

And you will get all this.... if you crashed into a bus of nuns and sent them all to the hospital while having a BAC of .18 and driving on a revoked license at a high rate of speed going the wrong way on an interstate...............

Now, if you were going 35 in a 50mph zone and weaving, blew a .11, had a good driving record prior to this incident, Then no, this won't happen to you.
REALITY.

Lots of people like to use appeal to emotion, such as your last line there.

You ALSO are using an appeal to emotion by making the "MAX PUNISHMENT" out to be the norm for DWI incidents that have mitigating factors and no aggravating.

 

[MaggieD]

Standard punishment in CO first time offense DUI is near the max minus the jail time. You're paying tons of money, you've got years of classes and therapy. The fact is we allow for these "max" penalties as a way to account for more grievous cases; but in the end the near max tends to get pushed as standard punishment. It bores me that people continually try to dismiss the max penalty by saying "they never get it" without showing what punishments they actually get. Plus the max penalty is the max penalty for a crime. While DUI can also include other crimes, fact is DUI laws are excessive and while perhaps many get away with no jail time on their first offense, they still reap near max penalties on everything else. The real world actual costs and punishments of DUI are excessive. DUI in and of itself does not include property or personal damage crimes. Those crimes can also occur while DUIing, but not innately part of it.

I looked up Colorado -- it was kind of confusing and I chose not to take it apart. http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/COLORADO DRUNK DRIVING LAWS.pdf

I don't know how true it is, but I've heard that in Illinois a first offense might cost $5,000 -- no accident/no extenuating circumstances. Just pulled over at a checkpoint and asked to blow. (If you don't blow in IL, you get an automatic 6-month suspension.)

I've driven plenty of times when I shouldn't have. I need my car for work. I'm a Realtor, so it's not just to get there and back. Do I drink and drive occasionally? Yes. If I get caught, I've got it coming. Same as when I speed. Does the punishment fit the drunk-driving crime? Well,maybe I can even see your point.

But what punishments do YOU think should be meted out?

 

[Ikari]

And you will get all this.... if you crashed into a bus of nuns and sent them all to the hospital while having a BAC of .18 and driving on a revoked license at a high rate of speed going the wrong way on an interstate...............

Well you've also added crimes, so it doesn't matter if the DUI has added punishments, they will be dwarfed by the other crime. DUI in and of itself is not a crime of propery or personal damage, we have other crimes for that. Why do you need to make a "max" which is only called up if you commit other crimes too?

Now, if you were going 35 in a 50mph zone and weaving, blew a .11, had a good driving record prior to this incident, Then no, this won't happen to you.
REALITY.

In that situation you get almost everything but the jail time. A little off the court fines. That's it. Near max. So why is the max so excessive? When even if it's a first time offense, .09, weaving you're still getting near the max. And what's wrong with talking about the max? Your rhetoric is really a "it's not a big deal" rhetoric. In that, you seem to be very dismissive of the penalties. Oh you don't get near max. Well what do you get then? You keep saying not max, but what is it? I'll tell you what it is, it's damned well near the max you can get.

You ALSO are using an appeal to emotion by making the "MAX PUNISHMENT" out to be the norm for DWI incidents that have mitigating factors and no aggravating.

Why can't you talk about the max? That seems to be saying "don't talk about what you can get?" Mitigating factors usually come with other crimes, so why do you have to beef up a crime which does not inherently carry with it property or personal damage? And why is it your seem to refuse to talk about nominal punishment. Nominal punishment, even for a first time DWAI (not even DUA, but DWAI starts at .05), is several thousand dollars, is over a year of classes and therapy, community service, at least a year of probation (this keeps going up) that you pay for. There's a lot of crap that goes with it, a lot of costs which they don't tell you about. So Mr. Not Max, what is nominal? Stating the max punishment is not appeal to emotion, it is a fact. This is what you face. And you will see almost all of it. Less you got yourself a good lawyer. Then you pay him 3 grand instead of the State.

 

[Ikari]

But what punishments do YOU think should be meted out?

First time, 3 month loss of license. The ability to get a restricted license right off the bat (that's one you can only take to work). 1000 bucks max, bunch o' community service. No classes, no therapy, no hidden costs, no raping you up the ass while everyone else carries a smug smile cause you were a dirty drunk driver and deserve everything that gets crammed up there.

 

[Psychoclown]

First off, I'd like to see some reasonable levels to DUI charges. Barely blowing .08 and blowing past .20 is not the same level of impairment and some states (including mine) treat it as the same. I'd say first time offenders who are just above the legal limit should be treated very leniently. $500 fine, some community service, and probation on their license. First time offenders who are seriously sloshed, double or triple the fine, more community service, 3 month suspension w/ the ability to drive to work. And from their we have harsher penalties for repeat offenders, depending on their exact record.

Someone who goes out and has a few drinks and gets behind the wheel is not the second coming of Hitler. A simple DUI shouldn't be something that can ruin a person's life.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

They have to draw the line somewhere, though.

 

[Caine]

Well you've also added crimes, so it doesn't matter if the DUI has added punishments, they will be dwarfed by the other crime. DUI in and of itself is not a crime of propery or personal damage, we have other crimes for that. Why do you need to make a "max" which is only called up if you commit other crimes too?

The damaging property portion of a DWI is not a crime, as it is near impossible to prove intent. No intent to damage property = no damage to property. Same for the injury. These are called AGGRAVATING FACTORS. You can't charge someone for damage to property unless you have intent.

In that situation you get almost everything but the jail time. A little off the court fines. That's it. Near max. So why is the max so excessive? When even if it's a first time offense, .09, weaving you're still getting near the max. And what's wrong with talking about the max? Your rhetoric is really a "it's not a big deal" rhetoric. In that, you seem to be very dismissive of the penalties. Oh you don't get near max. Well what do you get then? You keep saying not max, but what is it? I'll tell you what it is, it's damned well near the max you can get.

You are considering the probationary terms part of the punishment. Its not.

Why can't you talk about the max?

Because you are taking the max punishments and arguing that this is what your standard fare DWI recieves. Its dishonest.

That seems to be saying "don't talk about what you can get?" Mitigating factors usually come with other crimes, so why do you have to beef up a crime which does not inherently carry with it property or personal damage?

This doesn't make any sense. You might want to rephrase. Property Damage and Personal Injury are AGGRAVATING FACTORS in a DWI (Mitigating are factors that play out in the defendant's favor). Also, as previously mentioned, property damage and personal injury are NOT seperate charges when there is no intent to do so. (Note, I did not include death)

And why is it your seem to refuse to talk about nominal punishment. Nominal punishment, even for a first time DWAI (not even DUA, but DWAI starts at .05), is several thousand dollars, is over a year of classes and therapy, community service, at least a year of probation (this keeps going up) that you pay for. There's a lot of crap that goes with it, a lot of costs which they don't tell you about. So Mr. Not Max, what is nominal? Stating the max punishment is not appeal to emotion, it is a fact. This is what you face. And you will see almost all of it. Less you got yourself a good lawyer. Then you pay him 3 grand instead of the State.

Rehabilitative measures aren't cheap. Everyone wants to scream REHAB NOT JAIL REHAB! Well, I think the person who should pay for said rehab is the person who needs it.

 

[Caine]

First time, 3 month loss of license. The ability to get a restricted license right off the bat (that's one you can only take to work). 1000 bucks max, bunch o' community service. No classes, no therapy, no hidden costs, no raping you up the ass while everyone else carries a smug smile cause you were a dirty drunk driver and deserve everything that gets crammed up there.

Why don't you agree with rehab?

 

[Caine]

A simple DUI shouldn't be something that can ruin a person's life.

Tell that to the ones who kill themselves or other..... :roll:

 

[MaggieD]

First time, 3 month loss of license. The ability to get a restricted license right off the bat (that's one you can only take to work). 1000 bucks max, bunch o' community service. No classes, no therapy, no hidden costs, no raping you up the ass while everyone else carries a smug smile cause you were a dirty drunk driver and deserve everything that gets crammed up there.

Then you and I can say we agree. I'd have no problem with that for a first-timer. What about repeat offenses?

 

[MaggieD]

Why don't you agree with rehab?

I could see classes showing the effects of small amounts of alcohol on driving films. I know they're startling. I could see films of drunk-driving accidents as a wake-up call. But sending someone to alcohol rehab because they drink and drive? I come down on the side of, "Huh?" Send them (us, if I'm honest) to "idiot rehab." That's more what we need. With the laws on the books against drunk driving, it's just plain STOOOPID to do it.

 

[Caine]

I could see classes showing the effects of small amounts of alcohol on driving films. I know they're startling. I could see films of drunk-driving accidents as a wake-up call. But sending someone to alcohol rehab because they drink and drive? I come down on the side of, "Huh?" Send them (us, if I'm honest) to "idiot rehab." That's more what we need. With the laws on the books against drunk driving, it's just plain STOOOPID to do it.

I agree. And Ikari should know my feelings about Rehab provisions as a part of probation in DWI cases, as we've discussed this in other threads in the past.

My responses were more on the side of sarcasm than anything. More like an explanation for WHY those measures are taken. Mostly because public opinion, and thus political opinion by proxy, always falls on the side of supporting rehabilitative measures instead of punitive ones.

Fortunately, the tax payers don't have to pay for these rehabilitative measures, thats where the high cost of this stuff comes into play.

"I find you guilty of Driving While Impaired, Class 1, Level 5, I sentence you to 30 days in the custody of the sheriff, suspended, placed on one year unsupervised probation with the following terms and conditions: You must pay a fine of $400 plus costs of court, You are to surrender your license to the clerk of court for a period of one year and not drive until licensed or until you have obtained a limited privlege to do so. You must complete 24 hours of community service within the next 60 days and pay a community service fee, You also must obtain an alcohol assessment within the next 30 days and follow all recommended treatment"

Ive heard that line, or something nearly identical, from a judge countless times in court in the past.

 

[MaggieD]

I agree. And Ikari should know my feelings about Rehab provisions as a part of probation in DWI cases, as we've discussed this in other threads in the past.

My responses were more on the side of sarcasm than anything. More like an explanation for WHY those measures are taken. Mostly because public opinion, and thus political opinion by proxy, always falls on the side of supporting rehabilitative measures instead of punitive ones.

Fortunately, the tax payers don't have to pay for these rehabilitative measures, thats where the high cost of this stuff comes into play.

"I find you guilty of Driving While Impaired, Class 1, Level 5, I sentence you to 30 days in the custody of the sheriff, suspended, placed on one year unsupervised probation with the following terms and conditions: You must pay a fine of $400 plus costs of court, You are to surrender your license to the clerk of court for a period of one year and not drive until licensed or until you have obtained a limited privlege to do so. You must complete 24 hours of community service within the next 60 days and pay a community service fee, You also must obtain an alcohol assessment within the next 30 days and follow all recommended treatment"

Ive heard that line, or something nearly identical, from a judge countless times in court in the past.

Wow, I'd say that $400 is sure not what happens in Illinois, though I don't know from personal/friend experience. I thought it was more along the lines of $2000 -- plus, of course, the expense of an attorney which can be a relatively bottomless pit. $400 is too cheap, imo.

Actually, this thread has gotten me to thinking that drunk driving penalties for first-timers may be too harsh. I'm on the fence, but posters have made some good points. There should probably be some middle ground. The "state" shouldn't be in the business of ruining people's lives (costing them their jobs...putting them in onerous debt) because of a first-time offense. But I will say that a awful lot of first-timers become habitual...

 

[Caine]

Wow, I'd say that $400 is sure not what happens in Illinois, though I don't know from personal/friend experience. I thought it was more along the lines of $2000 -- plus, of course, the expense of an attorney which can be a relatively bottomless pit. $400 is too cheap, imo.

Actually, this thread has gotten me to thinking that drunk driving penalties for first-timers may be too harsh. I'm on the fence, but posters have made some good points. There should probably be some middle ground. The "state" shouldn't be in the business of ruining people's lives (costing them their jobs...putting them in onerous debt) because of a first-time offense. But I will say that a awful lot of first-timers become habitual...

The expense of an attorney is not the problem of the state......................
The values of the person, company, agency, or department that employs the offender, in that they do not want to have DWI offenders working for them, is not the responsibility of the state.....

I get that complaint alot, "But im going to lose my job!"
my response....
"And just who's fault is that??? If you knew you would lose your job for being arrested for DWI... why did you drive while impaired?"

People need to learn to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

 

[Ikari]

Then you and I can say we agree. I'd have no problem with that for a first-timer. What about repeat offenses?

Depends on time between. I'm willing to let DUI go off the record in 5-7 years if you don't get another. Repeat offenses will have to carry longer license suspension. Also at this time you can start doing things like classes. I may hold of therapy till the 3rd time still. And massive community service. Jail can also start to become an option for repeat offenders.