Why are drunks still allowed to drive?
Doug Thompson January 23, 2008 - 5:56am.
Virginia's General Assembly, a group of legislators not known for ground-breaking initiatives, says it wants to do something about the spiraling number of drunk drivers on the Commonwealth's roads.
One of the more laughable proposals is to issue special license plates for those with DUI convictions.
Reports The Richmond Times Dispatch:
Could Virginia drivers convicted of three drunken-driving offenses be required to use special license plates?
Many legislative observers say the matter is unlikely to make it out of committee, but the measure by Del. Lionell Spruill, D-Chesapeake, is up for discussion today.
Spruill's measure would require plates saying the driver has had three DUIs -- an effort to shame the driver and warn the public.
Which begs the question: Why are people with three DUI convictions still on the road? Why haven't they lost their licenses for life?
Drunk driving is a personal issue for me. I'm a recovering alcoholic (sober 13 years, six months and 17 days) who lost loved ones to a stoned truck driver with a two DUI arrests. I'm neither objective nor compassionate of those who drink too much and get behind the wheel of a vehicle.
I believe that a person convicted of driving under the influence should lose their license for at least five years. They should go to jail for at least 30 days. If the drunk driving involves a vehicle wreck where people are injured the penalty should be at least a year in jail and a 10-year loss of license. If the accident kills someone, at least 20 years in prison and a lifetime ban on driving.
A second conviction (not involving a wreck) should bring at least five years in jail and a lifetime ban with no second chances. You drive drunk once: You pay the price. You drive drunk twice. You don't drive again. Period.
Giving a drunk a special license plate after three DUI convictions is a joke. It doesn't shame the drunk. It shames a state that allows those who habitually drink and drive to remain on the road.
DUI tags
That rather precludes the rest of the familyfrom driving the car, doesn't it?
hmm..
Bureaucracy at work, huh? Perhaps VA should also require to have child-abusers get special strollers to identify them as they push their children around.
Why are drunks allowed to drive?
Because it's a nasty job and somebody has to do it...!? :|
In all seriousness unless drunks for each level of offense aren't locked up for some period time they'l just climb in a vehicle and tear off down the road again. What's to stop them, an impotent court order, no license in the wallet, shaming plates etc....?!
These sentencing guidelines are all predicated on simply no fatalities, serious injuries or property damage is involved.
First offense: a mandatory 3 months in the county slammer.
Second offense: a mandatory year in the county slammer
(somewhat less than Doug's reco) Note: County slammers in most jurisdictions are a "nasty" place to do time far less safe and sanitary than state or federal facilities. Scary, very sobering places indeed.
Third offense: five years in the bighouse with no chance for parole...!
If after five years they get out, climb in a vehicle and get caught offending again then they become "three time losers" and go to prison for life with no chance for parole. People of this category are incorribile losers and need to be removed from society.
Carl Nemo **==
Will you pay for it?
Virginia currently spends $1 billion/year on prisons. The Department of Corrections is Virginia's largest agency. About 38,000 Virginians are currently sitting in prison, costing taxpayers an estimated $25,000 each. So clearly we have that old-time punishment thing in good working order, and boy howdy are we paying for it.
I think we need a new way of looking at this beyond labeling drunks as "incorrigible losers" and locking them up. Although taking them off the road, and down to the drunk tank is a good idea. I know nothing about the course of Mr. Thompson's path to sobriety, but I'm willing to bet that it included something much more enlightened than a threat of prison.
Will you pay for it...?
Thanks Bubby for your feedback...
I agree with your reservations concerning the cost. My reference to "incorrigible" losers, excuse my earlier typo, was reserved for those that had finally become three time losers. Damn, after six years plus 90 days in various levels of lockup both county and state and they still don't get the message that they best not operate a vehicle while under the influence, then they need to be put away.
These suggested sanctions were for people that hadn't caused bodily injury and property damage which hopefully would have put them away for a much longer period of time from the getgo.
Many inmates housed in America's 2.2 million prison population are there for minor drug offenses, possession and cultivation of marijuana is one of them.
Minorities who have sold a relatively few rocks of cocaine compare to those that have moved alot of powder cocaine are serving lengthy sentences costing taxpayers everywhere in this nation a bunch of bucks. The ratio of blacks to whites housed in our prison system is greatly skewed and for various reasons that I will not pursue in this reply.
As a note, I'm against the death penalty because the ongoing cost of litigation to actually achieve an execution is four million dollars per offender. So the best way to save money is to simply meter out life without parole to this class of dangerous offender.
Maybe the three time offender rule could be toned down for non-violent repeat offenders to 25 years without parole as it is in Canada. By the time anyone has done 25 years in the bighouse, if they survive, they are a changed individual for sure. When they finally get out many are senior citizens...! :|
Carl Nemo **==
Consequences
I subscribe to the notion that those who are responsible for driving while drunk should have consequences that place them more uncomfortable with their behavior, than those they've harmed, or could have harmed. I don't believe the current system begins to do anything remotely close to that. Until there are "teeth" to these laws, and we can count on consequences, I believe that things will stay as they are now.
It is a sad, avoidable truth.
I'm no more worried about
I'm no more worried about drunk drivers than I am about the far larger group of theoretically unimpaired drivers that cause the majority of accidents and fatalities.
The only thing that has spiraled upward is the warm and fuzzy feeling responding to emotionally impaired folks that lost someone in a car wreck that may or may not have been the result of alcohol and driving. It's not entirely accurate or truthful to simply identify one easily measureable possible cause and reach a conclusion.
It's somewhat ironic how this post reflects an obvious conflict between Floyd Fest patrols and the reason more people have DUI convictions. I'm not an advocate for drunk driving or any other impaired driving that isn't measured or accounted for. Do you need a list of new and more rapidly growing dangers that exist and continue to increase? I am vehemently against road blocks for any reason less than an Amber Alert or in attempt to intervene in an actual crime.
It's easy and popular to persecute and prosecute a minority. Let's take it up a notch and take blood samples on everyone to determine if they might be unsafe behind the wheel because of mind altering or sedative pharma happy pills, or two shots of Nyquil. Read all the over the counter pill bottles that folks ingest like candy. Is that warning about drowsiness and caution operating machinery simply casual insurance against a lawsuit?
Thanks for supporting the prison industry, I believe we already have the largest population in the western world. I want to adopt a prisoner if someone would pay me what it costs to keep one in a gov't facility.
I know someone that was grievously injured 10 years ago because of an inattentive cell phone user. I know someone that rolled into a ditch because of a dog fight in the back seat. How many years for narcolepsy, sleep deprivation, text messaging, reading, crying on the phone in a domestic squabble while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle?
Alcohol isn't going away and neither are people with ADD, recovering stroke drivers, reckless daredevil youth drivers, or generally inconsiderate, inattentive people that aren't labeled before or after they are involved in an auto accident. If you believe that 1:150 births are autistic, will they get license to drive?
It's time for all vehicles to have cameras installed so I can take a snapshot of that car headed my way in my lane on these country roads. I upload it someplace and someone else will too, and then again. Share the road campaign had no teeth. 3 photos, no court, directly to jail.
Life is messy, risky, and not fair. Good Luck.
drunk drivers
I agreed with the high jail time then the cost kicks in, but what about the cost of lives vs dollars for prision? I vote we just shoot the second offender on the scene, period.
Drunk Drivers
Our family were the victims of a multiple-offense DRUNK 16 years ago. Luckily no-one was killed, but we all suffered lasting results from broken bones to a closed skull brain injury. It was at least his third offense and that only counts those that weren't bargained down.
The drunk involved did not have his car registered under his own name because his insurance company had already dumped him. His relatives were stupid enough to supply him with an insured car.
The DRUNK was under the impression that he was on another road about 30 miles from the actual location after he had liquefied himself on a golf course until about 11pm.
As far as I am concerned, Doug has the correct idea, jail time is the least I would like to see. Drinking and Driving is a deliberate circumventing of the law and they know they are breaking the law. Book 'Em!!! & Leave them there. No waiting at home in comfort while the lawyers gabble, sit in jail with other attempted murderers.
I would personally prefer a hangin' judge like Judge Bean, but he's not here anymore.
Drunk Driving
Unfortunately, Virginia is not the only less than progressive state when it comes to drunk drivers.
Back in '97 my car was hit (T-boned) by a drunk driver (he was also an off duty cop) that was mixing a boiler maker (a beer and a shot) below the steering wheel, and he drove through a red light.
When everything stopped grinding, crunching, and moving (he pushed me into oncoming traffic with the force of the impact) I made sure my wife was OK, then I got out to check on the other parties involved...this clown watched me come over to the car (slumped on the door) and his first words were "My mother drives a car like that, I can sell it to you for about 400 bucks."
He was unable to get out of the car unassisted. He almost fell asleep on the hood of his car waiting for the EMS response. They were there in less than 10 minutes.
The responding officers recognized him, and did everything they could not to arrest him at the scene. I had to state that if they would not do their jobs, the State police would. So they "allowed" him to refuse a Breathalyzer, and busted him.
This was in a small New England town roughly 40 minutes out of Boston. It took TWO YEARS for this clown to get hauled into court, and all he got was a slap on the wrist and a 6 month suspension on his license...meaning desk duty for 6 months. He completely destroyed my car, and that's all he got.
What the D.A. refused to let me bring up in court was that this SAME fool was busted by the SAME arresting officer, at the SAME intersection, this time driving without a license, and was DUI again.!! This was all of 24 hours later almost to the minute.
I brought the newspaper clipping with me.
The D.A. told me that bringing that up in court would "mess up his next case against him".
I was so mad you could have fried an egg on my head. The D.A. didn't even let me speak in court. They plea bargained the entire thing while the court looked on. I couldn't believe it.
So I'm with you sir. Get these people off the road, and make it stick.
Post new comment