Poll: How many DWIs should it take to put someone away for good?
posted at 6:05 pm on April 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Western nations have a tradition of justice that can best be described in the axiom, Let the punishment fit the crime. Many people misunderstand the “eye for an eye” passage in the Old Testament, as it actually advised children of God to not seek excessive punishment in an era when the slightest offense could result in death. For that reason, we measure our punishment carefully, allowing people to pay a reasonable debt to society while (in most cases short of murder) giving the opportunity for rehabilitation.
On the other hand, society at some point has to protect itself from its most dangerous members. Usually this involves violent criminals who continue to offend, and public outrage over these criminals has resulted in longer prison sentences and three-strikes life sentences. But what do we do with dangerous non-violent criminals when they refuse to rehabilitate? Minnesota needs to ask itself that question (emphasis mine):
A Minneapolis man has been charged with two counts of felony driving under the influence of alcohol, one gross misdemeanor count of driving after license cancellation and a misdemeanor violation of the open-bottle law.
For Daniel Lynn Mills, the new charges follow 11 prior DWI convictions.
The charges against Mills, brought by Stillwater police in Washington County District Court on March 24, stem from a March 20 incident in which police found Mills near a vehicle that had run off the road and was wedged against a house in Stillwater.
Mills has had eleven chances to either quit drinking or quit driving. Cancelling his license didn’t stop him from getting behind the wheel while he was so drunk that he couldn’t speak properly. He apparently hasn’t killed anyone yet, but he ran into a house this time and could have killed someone inside or someone on the lawn.
No one but the most fanatical would propose a life sentence for a single DWI/DUI, or even a second one. By the time we get to three, however, we have clearly established that the driver can neither control his drinking nor will refrain from driving. After eleven convictions, Minnesota should have the option of either committing the defendant in a mental institution or to life in prison, if for no better reason than to save the life that the driver will inevitably take.
Mills, by the way, is younger than I am. He’s 42 years old. How many more years will Mills have to drink, drive, and run into houses? How many times will Minnesota allow before we do something to remove him from society? I’d say at this point, the state should have the option of throwing away the key.
Let’s have a poll. When should Minnesota “throw away the key” for repeat DWI offenders who have not yet killed anyone?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Really well said. The Conservative part in all of us has to be happy about this one.
Canerican on April 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM
How about you get kicked off this website forever because you’re an unfunny d*ck? I’ll take an older driver that is paying attention but driving slow over a younger one text messaging and driving like a lunatic.
And as far as Mr. drunken a**hole is concerned, no more license after conviction 3, and no more car after conviction 4.
austinnelly on April 1, 2009 at 8:10 PM
How about you stay classy?
Proud Rino on April 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM
I would favor incarceration for three or four years. Let the guy dry out in prison. Perhaps the state could require a drug therapy that would sicken this person if he ingested even small amounts of alcohol as a condition of his eventual parole.
There may be no need to throw away the key.
gridlock2 on April 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Let the punishment fit the crime. One should not be punished for potential to do harm. Harm to person or property deserves punishment. Cross a white line, get a ticket for that. While you all want to punish potential, lets start with cellphone use while driving. Or we should chop off everybodies hands because someday they might choke someone. Most of you are nanny staters. Hell lets ban walking just in case you get hit by a bus.
infidel on April 1, 2009 at 8:20 PM
So…wait…he’s allowed to have a car, but he’s not allowed to drive it in between conviction 3 and conviction 4?
Proud Rino on April 1, 2009 at 8:23 PM
For a repeat offending DWI driver. Drinking should be a priviledge not a right.
petunia on April 1, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Most here say punishment should vary by degree of BAC.
I totally agree. First offense.
.08 – .14 1 Week in jail minimum no early out but can be served as three weekends.
.15 – .20 2 weeks
.21 – .24 4 weeks
.25 – .27 2 months
.27 + 1 year in state prison.
2nd offense weeks are months. All in State Prison.
3rd offense on weeks are now years . 10 years for .27+
This would make 11 offenses very difficult in one lifetime.
Of course Probation should also be given with no D. L.
Steveangell on April 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM
After three DWI’s, revoke driver’s license for life. Take the keys from his besotted slob and anyone else like him as a danger to society.
Getting drunk is not a right. Driving is not a right. If you can’t responsibly use the privileges you have, and instead use them to rack up insane costs to the public (perhaps including innocent lives), those privileges should go bye-bye.
Dark-Star on April 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Let us differentiate between “drunk driving” convictions and causing accidents because the driver who caused the accident is drunk.
“Drunk Driving” is an arbitrary level of Alcohol in your system, which will get you prosecuted if you are stopped while driving and have that level or above.
I spent a long time in Wisconsin when the legal limit was .15. That’s too high, (IMO) but many or most people are not seriously impaired at .08, unless they are playing with a cell phone or something.
So? When people who ignore the road and dial their Cell Phone manage to kill someone, should we send them to jail for life too?
Just wondering. Dumb is as dumb does, be it with a bottle, a cell phone, or whatever else keeps them from paying attention to driving.
If they get stupid enough to kill someone, and are at fault? Throw the book at them. Until then, you have to have a sense of proportion, and .08 or less may not be realistic.
If they are at .15, go ahead and get them. But make sure they are a danger to someone else first. I’ll offer a wager that most of half of the drivers on the road on Friday or Saturday nights after 8PM are “impaired” by the legal definition. Most of them don’t have wrecks. Actually, very few of them do.
jefferson101 on April 1, 2009 at 8:43 PM
I think they should be forced to have an ingintion lock in the car for a minimum of five years after the first conviction.
boomer on April 1, 2009 at 8:43 PM
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST
Dude, how does one spell his own handle wrong?
I still think driving is inherently a right, regardless of what the de facto situation is. But just like other rights, they can and should be taken away when you violate the rights of others.
Free Constitution on April 1, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Mandatory Antabuse therapy on the third non-injury conviction. Living in New Mexico, one of the DWI capitals of the US, this is the best way to handle it without punishing the family… beyond just making the individual drive from a plexiglass bubble(no safety features) attached to the front bumper.
Catseye on April 1, 2009 at 8:48 PM
How much of a tax increase are you willing to accept to implement such a plan? I think my state built two new prisons in the last ten years. My county just made a new jail also about ten years ago and already it is overcrowded. The majority of them are in for driving offenses (a large percentage illegal aliens but that’s another topic). We have twice as many county cops as we had fifteen years ago, yet our population went down. I live in a city of less then 2,000 people and we have 8 full time cops.
I understand the peoples desire to protect themselves and others in the name of public safety but I also believe we have to realistically access the cost involved.
lowandslow on April 1, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Assess not access (stupid spell check).
lowandslow on April 1, 2009 at 8:53 PM
I’m stunned the guy could still afford his insurance, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. AIG used to have a specialty practice underwriting people with terrible driving records.
DrSteve on April 1, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Hey where are the carmakers in all this? The technology to equip every vehicle with a breathalyzer to prevent drunks from driving exists. Why is it not on every car. If people can blame the gunmakers for death from their products, then I can damn well blame the auto industry fot its failure to prevent drunk driving.
Don’t y’all get it? This poor man is the victim of a permissive society, and the easy access to booze and cars led him down this path of ruin.
There, I have satisfied my sarcasm nerve.
Pelayo on April 1, 2009 at 9:14 PM
One is all it took for a drunk driver to kill my friend when he was only 17 years old.
I don’t think it should be an automatic life sentence, but it needs to be treated seriously.
Vegi on April 1, 2009 at 9:21 PM
This is how you do it.
Self-defense.
radiofreevillage on April 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM
In Texas, two DWI’s in a ten year period and you are listed as having an alcohol dependency. You will never be able to get a concealed handgun license. I don’t know what other prohibitions there are, but personally, I’m in favor of lifetime ban on driving as well as mandatory jail time.
DAT60A3 on April 1, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Your 3rd conviction in 7 years in Calif for misdemeanor DWI gets you a 6 month jail sentence, but most skate out on that. A 4th DWI will get you a prison sentence of 5 years.
GarandFan on April 1, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Ed: Do you really want to put someone away for life because they keep driving with a BAC above .08? In my state, the 3rd DUI is a felony and after the 4th DUI you lose your driver license forever. People that commit 4+ DUI’s with those steep punishments are alcoholics, and your life sentence won’t deter them.
bigbeas on April 1, 2009 at 9:37 PM
How instituting a sentencing structure that allows the criminal to determine how long they sit in jail?
First Offense – 1 Year
Second Offense- 2 Years
Third – 3 Years
.
.
.
Eleventh – 11 Years. After finishing this sentence, he will have spent 66 years behind bars. For those 66 years, he would not have the opportunity to kill while drunk.
BobMbx on April 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM
It’s hard to drink and drive from a prison cell. Deterred or not, alcoholic or not, we’re all safer. For the rest of his life.
BobMbx on April 1, 2009 at 10:00 PM
The punishment must fit the crime. As long as no one is killed by a drunk driver that driver should not have to fear life in prison. If he maims someone for life then jail time is called for.
If we cannot apply the death penalty to someone who has killed 3 or more people then even having this question is as irrelevant as it gets.
DannoJyd on April 1, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Germany has an excellent system of licensing. First, that license ain’t free. It’s big bucks (~$2,000). Lose your license? Lose your money. Want your license back? Fork over more cash after your revocation ends.
I drove around Germany on vacation like a typical American driver. No turn signals, left lane cruiser, fog lights on with no fog, etc…..
This lasted about 2 days. Everyone was honking, pointing, flipping me their version of the bird, flashing headlights at me. I made mention of it casually somewhere, and got read the riot act.
They take their driving damn serious in Germany. A word of advice: DO NOT CRUISE in the left lane in Germany. You can be arrested for it. If you’re moving at less than, say, 120mph in the left lane, you’re in danger of being run over by a 4 ton Mercedes. Ask me, I know. No collision, but don’t ask me how……
BobMbx on April 1, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I think life is a bit much. I would like to see someone do increasing stints in jail for each DUI. Say, by the third one they get to see about 10 years.
4shoes on April 1, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I hope you sued for any and all income that bi@tch ever earns. I also wish you would post her email address–she needs to hear from 100,000 of your closest friends.
Bless you and your son, in all of your trials.
tcn on April 1, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Think of the misery that could have been prevented if george bush had been locked up for his dwi.
benny shakar on April 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Maybe a lobotomy is in order after 11 convictions.
AES on April 1, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Think of all of the misery your parents could have avoided if they had an ObamaBortion.
DannoJyd on April 1, 2009 at 11:21 PM
your idea screams “nanny state”
Seven Seas on April 1, 2009 at 11:31 PM
I reject the idea that DWI can get someone a life sentence.
Particularly since murder doesn’t even always get a life sentence.
Bad cases make bad law.
Now this instance you describe, why hasn’t the DA charged the driver with reckless endangerment, and put him in prison that way?
We don’t need more laws, just more common sense application of the ones that already exist.
Sackett on April 1, 2009 at 11:47 PM
If you’re an Illegal Alien you get as many as you want…no problem!!!!
RealDemocrat on April 1, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Liberalism = Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Don’t pick on the poor cancer cell. He don’t mean it. It’s the body’s fault.
Meanwhile, Sharon Tate’s sister has to keep attending Charles Manson’s parole hearings.
Feedie on April 2, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Interesting question. I think I would go for 3 to 5.
Isn’t is interesting that some suffering from diabetes can drive down the wrong side of the road for miles, crash into other cars and even kill people. But they are not guilty of anything because it is a “chemical imbalance”. It is a “chemical imbalance” that occurs because they have failed to manage their disease by eating or taking their insulin.
Drunks, on the other hand, are routinely jailed and reviled because of a “chemical imbalance” (high blood alcohol content) that occurred because of their own actions.
I had some friends that were police officers that chased a car for over ten mile through rush hour traffic. It was weaving and driving on the wrong side of the road. When it ran off into the ditch and they ran up, driver started fighting with them. They slammed him and cuffed him up. Once they got him in the car they noticed the smell indicating a diabetic reaction. They called medics and they treated the driver for a diabetic reaction.
For this they were harassed and reviled by the local newspaper,local politicians and the public. They thought that the policemen were too rough with the driver.
schmuck281 on April 2, 2009 at 3:51 AM
How many times would you let someone drunkenly fire a gun out of his window on a city street.
.
The first offense should carry at least a three month jail sentence, and forfeiture of vehicle. If driving a borrowed, or stolen vehicle a fine equal to the retail value of the vehicle. Plus forfeiture of driver’s license for two years.
.
The second offense should carry a one year prison sentence, and forfeiture of vehicle, If driving a borrowed, or stolen car a fine equal to the retail value of the car, and all other on road vehicle he owns, if driving a borrowed vehicle the vehicle’s owner looses vehicle; a stolen vehicle shall be returned to owner. Plus permanent Forfeiture of driver’s license.
.
The third offense should carry permanent removal from society,and forfeiture of vehicle, If driving a borrowed, or stolen car a fine equal to the retail value of the car, and all other on road vehicle he owns, if driving a borrowed vehicle the vehicle’s owner looses vehicle; a stolen vehicle shall be returned to owner.
darktood on April 2, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Why not just up the class of crime for any injuries or fatalities that happen when driving DWI? This would include other driving problems during a DWI, so that lack other on-the-road infractions would be cumulative and pushed up a class in crime… multiple infractions of a very minor sort then become a demonstration of poor judgment of one’s own ability to drive and putting the public in danger.
Diabetics do have a metabolic disorder and management of it is something that can be controlled within limits. These are inexact analogies as how one’s body processes blood sugar varies widely across the day and even day-to-day. Having been in an NIH study to examine the effect of a medication on Type I, I can say that individual reactions can even confound the medical research specialists. I’ve had the experience of waiting four hours for my blood glucose levels to rise and they didn’t… barely budged around a central value just within the human normal range. Each individual can understand their own responses, over time, but anamolous highs and lows, with no forewarning happen. Unlike alcohol there is a direct way to measure blood glucose, and that is via blood testing… and with each test on a glucometer costing 2-5 cents (for all materials and cost of index solution spread across its 90 days of shelf life when opened for use on each container), plus it being relatively invasive makes some diabetics hesitate to pull over when driving to test blood glucose levels: you now have to pull out of traffic to someplace relatively safe, test yourself, and then get back into traffic.
There are longer-term blood glucose testing systems, but they suffer in higher daily cost and have a lag time of fifteen to twenty minutes. So those are good for trend-line analysis, but very poor for what your current condition is… that said you can set warning indicators and meal indicators and other things on the device, as it is worn on the wrist. I am hoping that Moore’s Law will bring down the cost of these devices and their test surfaces (those things cost like you wouldn’t believe), plus get longer life per test surface. That isn’t there yet. Purely mechanical fixes don’t work when its a question of individual liberty – self-restraint and personal responsibility must be the key.
This in no way mitigates the driving hazard of having an insulin reaction or slipping into the early phases of extremely high blood glucose levels… but take a look at the percentage of diabetics in the general population and compare that to the accident rate due to such incidents, and remember these people are on-call for self-monitoring all day, every day, no time off ever. You can binge drink, but you can’t do that with a metabolic condition like diabetes and expect a half-way decent life before complications start to set in, and some will happen no matter how good your control is as there is just so much that can be done via manual or automatic injection methods. So the equation for that is far more difficult than ‘take X ozs alcohol and your BAC is at Y for Z time and decreases at a decay rate thereafter’. I really, really wish diabetes was that simple: it isn’t. Nor are other metabolic conditions that can have impairing effects with sudden onset (sudden being 5 mins or less). That is quite different than the imbibing of alcohol with a known body mass distribution, uptake and outcycle in someone with normal metabolic function.
Thus exercise is alcohol uptake is a personal liberty: do or do not according to your capability to fund it and suffer the consequences.
Exercise of personal responsibility for diabetics is not a liberty: it is mandatory, has important factors playing outside the control of the individual, it can be managed over time to give a sense of decent control of the situation but that can change suddenly with little warning and requires resources from your liberty to maintain control on a constant basis. When you treat it as a liberty and decide not to take care of yourself, you pay the consequences of that by just being alive and then we hear folks bemoaning the costs of retinopathy, neuropathy, and dialysis. Those are not cheap to society, either, but its main cost is to the individual, and no matter how good your control is, you cannot predict internal tolerances for these longer-term problems, just mitigate them by better control and see what your physical response is over time.
Both can have one incident problems: over exercise your liberty to drink and you get consequences, let slip your oversight of your diabetes for a short period of time and lose the ability to recognize that something is wrong.
One requires forethought.
The other constant vigilance.
We can punish for the activity and consequences, but the law also allows for mitigating factors beyond the ability of an individual to properly control at all times at all places. One is putting oneself in harms way, the other is coming to danger by relaxation of one’s cognizance of their physical state. They can both have bad outcomes one is fully under the control of the individual, the other is not. Which is why we have mitigating factors for punishment in the law.
ajacksonian on April 2, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Getting behind the wheel drunk as a skunk is, in my mind, a violent act in search of a victim. It’s no different than waving around a loaded gun; eventually it will go off and someone will get hurt, or die.
Throw away the key. Who cares about this guy who clearly cares little about himself and even less about others.
redfoxbluestate on April 2, 2009 at 7:51 AM
Instead of three strikes, I’ve always prefered a multiplier.
On your first offense, your punishment is what is in the law books.
On your second offense, regardless of what the offense is, the punishment is doubled.
On your third offense, the punishment is trippled.
And so on.
MarkTheGreat on April 2, 2009 at 8:20 AM
I think that what some people here don’t seem to realize is that if someone hasn’t learned after the 3rd offense not to drive drunk, what makes any of you think he is going to change after the fifth, seventh or tenth. You can take away his license, big deal. The only way you can stop these people is to make sure they never have access to a car. But the only way to make that happen is if they spend many years in jail…
There are hundreds of people that have lost their license for one reason or another. But yet, you hear about them getting pulled over for the 15th time still driving without it. It will never change until you make it not worth doing it and spending a few years in jail just might get the message through.
Oh, and I’m not talking about sit on your rear end, work out with weights all day jail. I’m talking tent city, chain gang, make big rocks into little rocks jail time…..
People will never get the message until they learn that the consequenses far out weigh the crime…
Charger73 on April 2, 2009 at 9:04 AM
There seems to be a great deal of aversion to locking this twit away in the name of society. C S Lewis recounted how one ancient city-state would only prosecute if an offense was committed against a viable entity. Thus, if a man killed an unmarried, orphaned slave-girl who had no child and who had been emancipated the killer was set free because there was no one living in whose name the prosecution could proceed. From there Lewis argued that the murder had effected society as a whole and its injury was unpunished.
Still, liberalism has gotten us to throw the baby out with its bath water. So be it; perhaps we should do away with forcibly committing mental patients just to stave off the usurping Obamas of the world. Then let’s talk about how his crimes still merit retributive punish and that retribution should increase as he continues to not only scoff at the law against drunk driving but make a mockery of the judicial system that continues to grant him lenience if for no other reason than the law as yet is not written to allow for greater punishment.
I would also argue societal considerations are valid because that is why we have a federal republic. The founders recognized that each state would be a community in and of itself despite being part of a greater nation and that is why the vast majority of laws–particularly those regulating society, i.e. marriage–are delegated to the states.
Mr Snuggle Bunny on April 2, 2009 at 9:20 AM
I can understand Ed, but come on Allah, enough with the Palin pictures.
LevStrauss on April 2, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I voted for “never” – a life sentence is unconscionable.
I would favor a “3-strikes = incarcerated rehab” proposal.
I would, however, also favor the option of the death penalty for any homicide resulting from DWI.
LimeyGeek on April 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM
I had a DUI in 2005. It was a humiliating experience and I never did it again. I cant imagine people who do it over…and over..and over.
I surely learned my lesson after shelling out almost $5000.00 for costs, fines, ARD class and lawyer.
becki51758 on April 2, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Take the license away for life after five.
loganthompson on April 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Crazy story, huh?
I think it really brings up attention to the issue that we’re a republic.
Some states have lax laws. My state? omigosh, don’t even think about a drink after work.
AnninCA on April 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Just my 2 cents on the 3 strikes business. CA has used it. While I must say, it drives down crime rates, it also puts even more power into the hands of prosecutors.
The deck is already stacked high on that account.
BUT…..there’s no doubt, we’ve used it to get career criminals out of the public.
Good and bad.
AnninCA on April 2, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Hey, I say we use the same rationale for alcohol that was used for tobacco – triple down on the current tax!
Have the PC police use the same tobacco jihad tactics against anyone buying booze. That is, start a campaign to ridicule and belittle anyone seen drinking. Make them societies outcasts. Afterall, anyone who abides in alcohol is a potential danger to themselves and others. They aren’t making the proper personal choices.
Oh, what’s that, – it’s ok to tax those stupid smokers you say. Those cigarettes aren’t good for them and we need to nanny them into proper behavior.
/s
SoldiersMom on April 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2