What can be done about DWIs?

[Moliere]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/bo...-fm-2920-crash

This doesn't hit too close to home (figuratively), although it is close to home (literally), but a drunk driver ran a red light at a nearby intersection. He hit another car and killed three people. This was his 4th DWI. Because he hit and killed someone (three people actually) he is being charged with felony murder. Let's say that he hit the car and just seriously injured the 3 people...would he still be facing life in prison? Probably not, but is that fair? Maybe.

Stupid people that drive drunk. Self-driving cars can't come fast enough.

[myboynoah]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/bo...-fm-2920-crash

This doesn't hit too close to home (figuratively), although it is close to home (literally), but a drunk driver ran a red light at a nearby intersection. He hit another car and killed three people. This was his 4th DWI. Because he hit and killed someone (three people actually) he is being charged with felony murder. Let's say that he hit the car and just seriously injured the 3 people...would he still be facing life in prison? Probably not, but is that fair? Maybe.

Stupid people that drive drunk. Self-driving cars can't come fast enough.

We need better automobile control.

[creekster]

We need better automobile control.

if you make owning cars a crime, only criminals will have cars.

[imanihonjin]

It is amazing to me that we treat DWIs so leniently in the criminal justice system. Here is the latest example:

http://espn.go.com/espnw/sports/arti...uilty-dui-case

The charges could be completely dismissed after a year, WHAT!?! Seriously this is outrageous. How can we be so lenient on a completely avoidable problem?

[Uncle Ted]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/bo...-fm-2920-crash

This doesn't hit too close to home (figuratively), although it is close to home (literally), but a drunk driver ran a red light at a nearby intersection. He hit another car and killed three people. This was his 4th DWI. Because he hit and killed someone (three people actually) he is being charged with felony murder. Let's say that he hit the car and just seriously injured the 3 people...would he still be facing life in prison? Probably not, but is that fair? Maybe.

Stupid people that drive drunk. Self-driving cars can't come fast enough.

Holy crap...


http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...ht-7904445.php

I thought Texas recently passed a law requiring breathalyzers ignition switches to be installed in the cars of people with a DWI conviction or something like that.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I made a bunch of other defense attorney's uncomfortable by saying that I feel that penalties for first and second dui's are too lenient. I also believe that most of the people that I know who drink have driven drunk a time or two. I just wish the message would get across more thoroughly.

[Moliere]

Holy crap...


http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...ht-7904445.php

I thought Texas recently passed a law requiring breathalyzers ignition switches to be installed in the cars of people with a DWI conviction or something like that.

Yeah, the intersection is where two 45mph streets cross (one might even be 55mph). He ran the light at least at full speed.

I'm fine with alcohol being legal but the penalties for driving drunk should be worse for at least the second and third offenses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Copelius]

Having been on both sides of the argument, I feel like they are too harsh and too lenient at the same time. By setting the legal limit at .08, enforcement has basically turned DUI into a cash cow for the courts, treatment providers, interlock providers, etc. However in all the DUI's I have seen involving accidents the BAC has been much higher, .12 or above. Based on the various metabolization rates of alcohol, someone can get in a car legal and be illegal before they get home or vice versa. I would give "one free bite" between .08 and .119 with minimal penalties including no loss of license, but mandatory interlock for a couple years. The reasoning for that is that most of those DUIs are simply the police fishing with pretextual, but allowable stops for blinkers, rolling stop signs, etc. after 10pm. They get someone who had a drink or two and barely fails a field sobriety test designed to be failed, and that person is then without a license for 4 months and looking at 3-4k in extra expenses. Let people have a rude awakening with the interlock and a basic reminder course but that is about it.

For anyone who blows a .12 or higher, I have no sympathy. To get in a car with that much in your system is a conscious choice and cannot be claimed as a mistake. They should lose the privilege to drive for a minimum of one year, spend a month in jail with work release or work crew if unemployed (no ankle monitoring allowed), and be required to be sober for 2 years with random testing.

2nd offenses of anykind should be a felony with permanent loss of license and other commiserate penalties. I think that would solve the concerns of both sides of the argument that the current limit is too low and that penalties are too lax.

Additionally any driving while suspended for DUI or without proper interlock needs to result in stiffer penalties because right now those can be pled out with a very insignificant slap on the wrist, though there are a few judges that as a policy impose jail time.

[Non Sequitur]

I have no sympathy for people driving under the influence. I was almost killed several years ago when I was stopped at a traffic light on a motorcycle, and a guy plowed through me and into the intersection without slowing down. It totaled his truck, threw me about 30 feet and put me in the hospital for a couple of weeks. Turns out it was his third DUI in a year and he was set to be prosecuted as a felony and I was scheduled to testify. He pleaded down to an interlock system. The only way he would have seen jail time is if I had actually died. You'll never convince me that the current laws are too harsh.

[Copelius]

I have no sympathy for people driving under the influence. I was almost killed several years ago when I was stopped at a traffic light on a motorcycle, and a guy plowed through me and into the intersection without slowing down. It totaled his truck, threw me about 30 feet and put me in the hospital for a couple of weeks. Turns out it was his third DUI in a year and he was set to be prosecuted as a felony and I was scheduled to testify. He pleaded down to an interlock system. The only way he would have seen jail time is if I had actually died. You'll never convince me that the current laws are too harsh.

Maybe I didn't word it correctly, but my biggest issue with the current laws is the low BAC at which someone is considered DUI. I suspect that the guy who hit you was .15 or higher, as is the overwhelming case with DUI related accidents. My proposal hits those who are in BAC range more likely to cause an accident harder than any current law in the nation but serves as a decent reminder to those who are at a lower level.

[The_Tick]

If you have even one drink and get behind the wheel, you should be penalized. I don't drink, I have no sympathy for those that do.

I am active in my local golf club. I am shocked at the amount of alcohol people drink and then get in their car and drive. Some people have zero regard for anyone else.

[Topper]

Maybe I didn't word it correctly, but my biggest issue with the current laws is the low BAC at which someone is considered DUI. I suspect that the guy who hit you was .15 or higher, as is the overwhelming case with DUI related accidents. My proposal hits those who are in BAC range more likely to cause an accident harder than any current law in the nation but serves as a decent reminder to those who are at a lower level.

I understand this argument. Once upon a time, BAC was .12 or .10. Then came the understandable outrage at some of the horrendous accidents, which usually involve BACs far above those limits. A small woman can easily be legally intoxicated after a drink and one half, what some people drink at a dinner without any noticeable intoxication or impairment.

[Copelius]

If you have even one drink and get behind the wheel, you should be penalized. I don't drink, I have no sympathy for those that do.

I am active in my local golf club. I am shocked at the amount of alcohol people drink and then get in their car and drive. Some people have zero regard for anyone else.

I can get on board with that position as well. My issue is if you are going to say don't drink and drive period then say it, but if you are saying that DUI is based more on impairment then .08 is too low and the penalties should reflect that.

[Non Sequitur]

When I was in Australia the BAC was .05. Everyone took the train.

[CardiacCoug]

I agree that there are plenty of people who can and do drive (pretty safely) all the time at the lower limit of legal impairment.

Tough to feel bad for people who get arrested for DWI because most of them I'm sure have broken the law dozens if not hundreds of times without getting pulled over by the time they finally wreck or get pulled over once or twice. Throw the book at them!