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: 1 2 Next »
a fatality….
if we can’t prosecute lawyers for inflicting PC in airport security why nail drunks?
sven10077 on April 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
I don’t know about life in prison, but I do know that if something is not done, he will kill someone eventually.
Vashta.Nerada on April 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Driving is a right, not a priviledge.
jgapinoy on April 1, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Driving is a priviledge, not a right.
jgapinoy on April 1, 2009 at 6:11 PM
A guy hit me and then took off around Christmas of 2007. Some good Samaritans got his license. I am still waiting for it to go to trial. I don’t know what it will take, obviously they don’t stop driving and the play the system. I think jail time should be mandatory. That’s of course if you can even get them into court.
Cindy Munford on April 1, 2009 at 6:11 PM
I agree with jail time after three and longer sentences for each additional DWI, but I don’t think life in prison fits until he actually kills someone.
Esthier on April 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I voted never. Can’t justify life in prison for that.
Unfortunately – in some sense – bigger penalties kick in if he injures/kills someone.
lorien1973 on April 1, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I think coming up with a general rule from an extreme case is a bad idea.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
April Fool?
I thought I had caught my first comment in time to correct it, but I didn’t. The second one at 6:11 is “my story & I’m sticking to it!”
jgapinoy on April 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Not life in prison until he kills someone, but you lose a finger every time you’re caught after the first time.
Bishop on April 1, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Sliding scale.
1 DUI = 1 night in jail, no matter what, every time.
2nd DUI = 1 week in jail minimum (more if injuries, fatality, etc.)
3rd DUI = 1 month in jail minimum (more if etc.)
4th DUI = 1 year in jail minimum (“” “”)
5th DUI = 7 years in jail minimum (“” “”)
Nobody will get a 6th. They’ll be too old.
playblu on April 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM
I’d give a choice: Rest of life in a place that does not have cars (small, island, prison, ?) or have a device (like a long rod attached to a wrist) that would prevent him (or her) from driving.
lsheldon on April 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM
You need to put a picture of Sarah Palin for this thread also.
Rode Werk on April 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I can’t get over how collectivist that sounded.
If you knew how hard law enforcement was cracking down on DUI/DWIs across the country, you might think it resembles some oppressive regime. It’s increasingly harder to drink a single beer without worrying about a night in jail.
Oh, and driving is as much a right as free association is.
Free Constitution on April 1, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Anyone who is that irresponsible needs to be in a hospital for psychologically treatment. That should continue until he/she is rehabilitated.
csdeven on April 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Can you punish someone for crimes they have yet to commit?
ronsfi on April 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM
The laws will change when those who make the laws lose a loved one.
christene on April 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM
But you don’t need a license for the latter.
thomasaur on April 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I had a “brother” when I was little. My neighbor, but my best friend.
His mother had 6 or 7 DWI’s.
Kept getting off cause she knew someone. Finally spent some time in jail.
All before he was 10 years old, his mother did all of this.
The scars have never and will never healed, and they have caused him so much pain.
blatantblue on April 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Traveling is a right. Driving isn’t.
And sorry, but I have little sympathy for drunk drivers. I know not everyone is drunk at .08, but it’s really not worth the risk, even for yourself.
Would you want the bus driver or pilot to have that liberty?
Esthier on April 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I guess it depends on whether he is a citizen or an Illegal Alien?? Usually the Illegals don’t even get deported.
Dire Straits on April 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Answer: One
warbaby on April 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM
I’m thinking of the Singapore method of rehab. Start caning. First time, three lashes and progress it from there. Somehow, a person remembers pain and usually chooses to avoid it.
RJS2 on April 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Life in prison? It would have to be a fatality or causing bodily harm to someone else.
Only if you’re white. If you’re not white, you can claim the cops are profiling you and society will prevent them from citing/arresting you.
San Jose task force member proposes moratorium on use of public-drunkenness law(http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11594650?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com)
Kalifornia Kafir on April 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Why did Ted Kennedy’s ugly mug just pop into my head?
Y-not on April 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Its a bad poll. The article never revealed if
the man had spent any time for the previous
convictions. Most states don’t take drunk
driving seriously. Giving probation for
multiple drunk driving convictions. Giving the
excuse that a prison sentence would be to much
punishment for a simple mistake. And when the
person finally kills somebody, everybody
complains that something should have been
done earlier.
If this guy had done some serious time on one
of the earlier convictions, I would bet he
wouldn’t have driven drunk this time.
cozmo on April 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM
+1
Mike D. on April 1, 2009 at 6:24 PM
What about tired drivers? They cause more fatalities than DUI? Hey lets castrate Cellphone drivers too. How about we put half the population in prison and have the other half guard them then every five years switch? Aren’t there any real witches to hunt?
ronsfi on April 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM
If immigration laws were enforced, a very large part of the problem would be eliminated.
For US citizens, two strikes and you are done.
chalons on April 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM
As a father of a son who has been made quadriplegic by a stoned, drunken whore on PROBATION, I say the second time you’re caught you get 5 years, 15 years if you cause an injury, 25 years if you cause a death.
The asshat that hit my son and left the scene got 1 year in jail, not prison, and a couple years probation. She violated the probation and STILL no prison.
I’d give her name just to she could be publicly harassed, but that’s probably against HA policy.
Spiritk9 on April 1, 2009 at 6:26 PM
As a father of a son who has been made quadriplegic by a stoned, drunken skank on PROBATION, I say the second time you’re caught you get 5 years, 15 years if you cause an injury, 25 years if you cause a death.
The a$$hat that hit my son and left the scene got 1 year in jail, not prison, and a couple years probation. She violated the probation and STILL no prison.
I’d give her name just to she could be publicly harassed, but that’s probably against HA policy.
Spiritk9 on April 1, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I’m a bit squeamish about life sentences when it is based on a yes-no test subject to human/machine error and differences in human physiology. On the other hand, getting more than one DWUI indicates some degree of sociopathy. Alcoholics can drink at home so they have a choice.
a capella on April 1, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Gosh I am so sorry
I agree with your sentence proposals.
blatantblue on April 1, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Ill have to agree. Increased punishment for each new incident plus mandatory AA. Dont get me wrong this should have never reached 11.
Greed on April 1, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Eventually you won’t be able to hold your drink. After the first one take the thumb.
thomasaur on April 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Unreal what those types of sub-human filth get away with.
F*cking mind blowing. f*cking mind blowing
up is down in america
blatantblue on April 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Definitely life behind bars if a life has been taken in an accident. But penalities really need to fit the person’s history or record.
In the case of this guy, I do think he needs psychiatric help and if that requires a mental health committment or jail, so be it.
tru2tx on April 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM
I think if you’re an illegal alien you can have an unlimited number of DUIs, that appears to be the rule here in California, anyhow.
NTWR on April 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM
True, but with cars becoming safer all the time, DWI perps will hurt others a lot more often than they hurt themselves.
Take away his right to drive forever.
jgapinoy on April 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM
He should have saw some real time in jail after his second offense, and it should have increased with every incident.
DFCtomm on April 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM
I do not post here often, but I have to say this.
I voted never, and this is the reason. Intoxication is not something you can measure, although you can measure amount of substance in the system. One person can take several grams of cocain and be pretty high, another person could take milligrams and be totally wasted, or take the same dose as the first person and be dead on the spot. people need to be responsible for their ACTIONS, and driving after drinking is not the action people need to be held accountable for. The action should be an accident, and then throw the book at them. If you kill someone, you get exactly 1 time, and your in jail for life, or a good portion of it.
What is it worth to save just one life? According to all of you who think simply driving after having MORE than two drinks is a crime worthy of going to prison for, apparently it is freedom itself. By supporting these retarded laws, you are only giving liberal fascist an open door to building more and more laws that ban more and more private matters. I know for a fact that I can drink, or used to be able to drink, (I more or less stopped drinking) 5 shots of Jack Daniels and drive perfectly fine, all within an hour. At that point I would be at around .23 blood alcohol.
The laws in most states used to be .20 alcohol, then .16, .12, .10 now .08 and who knows, maybe less. Do you see a patern emerging from this? Smoking is banned in public places, even among people who could care less. See a pattern? Fatty foods are banned, even from people who want it. See a pattern? I do. Anyone who voted for any number of DWI DUI are part of the problem of creeping fascism in the United States today and you should rethink your positions.
astonerii on April 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM
TWO, if you are too stupid to get that DWI is ILLEGAL after the first one, too bad.
That is unless you were stopped at a sobriety checkpoint which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (I know the strawman argument that the SCOTUS has ruled sobriety checkpoints don’t violate the Constitution but we ALL know few can actually READ the Constitution)
nelsonknows on April 1, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Academic studies show, someone who was arrested for DUI 1,2 or 3 times, hasn’t only driven DUI 1, 2 or 3 times.
It is FAR more than that. Often times they result in accidents but not necessarily injury/death.
A man was recently sentenced to 60 years in TX for his 10th DUI.
A 10th DUI in WA state will get you 1 year MAXIMUM.
Guess who writes the laws?
Drunks.
artist on April 1, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Instead of counting the number of DWI’s, the punishment should be based on the level of BAC. The DWI laws will eventually be lowered to the point that looking at a beer will result in a DWI.
My brother got popped for a DWI in Jan after he hit three other cars. He swears that he was sober (passed the field sobriety test, but refused the breathylzer). That may or may not be true, but I know there were hundreds of other times he was driving drunk and wasn’t caught. He’s still drinking, and if he ever gets around to installing the ignition interlock on his car, he’ll probably just have his six year old start the car.
The punishments for habitual offenders with high BAC need to be increased, but the people that really did only have one glass of wine with dinner should not be made to pay the price as well.
rw on April 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Not life in prison, but there should definitely be some extremely serious consequences, say 10 year jail terms, after 4 or 5 convictions. A little bit of jail time from the 2nd offense.
joe_doufu on April 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM
In related news, Ed Morrisey wants to know how many stolen candibars should it take before we sentence a person to death.
Ugh, seriously, let Allah run stories and you just keep pimping your podcasts.
thphilli on April 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM
12 DWI’s…big deal. Just fine him $100 and buy the man a beer.
TheJoker on April 1, 2009 at 6:37 PM
This does have some appeal. More humane than a forehead brand?
a capella on April 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Captain Oldsmobile never seemed to be hindered by such pesky laws even after Mary Jo succumbed to Chappy’s recklessness and negligence. Protected son Patrick seems to be carrying on the legacy.
viking01 on April 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM
ronsfi on April 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Clueless.
Type less.
artist on April 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM
thphilli on April 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Or you could disappear into irrelevancy.
This is a serious topic.
Are you a serial offender?
artist on April 1, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Good point.
NTWR on April 1, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Mandatory time in prison after the first one. We need attempted vehicular manslaughter as an option for the courts. I don’t know why it takes 8 – 10 convictions to get a drunk serious jail time.
Vashta.Nerada on April 1, 2009 at 6:42 PM
MADD, recommends an ignition test device (breathalyzer to start) be put on drunks cars after 1 conviction, IIRC. And they have some stats about how many deaths are caused by people already convicted of 1 DUI. Their plan seems more likely to stop the drunk from driving than a simple license revocation.
AnotherOpinion on April 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM
I lost a 10 year old cousin to a drunk driver. Cousin was walking home from school, never knew what hit her. The whole family was submerged into a horrible dark place of grief and disbelief for a long, long time. My aunt and uncle couldn’t take it, their marriage fell apart a little while after.
The driver was the son of a family friend. The parents of this kid were so horrified and ashamed of what had happened, they could barely look my family in the eyes. They were never the same again.
That drunk driver ruined a whole lot of lives and killed a 10 year old girl.
I hate drunk driving as much as I hate child molestation. It’s the epitome of evil when a person will put the health and safety of another human being behind their desire to have one more for the road.
koz on April 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM
A young lady that I used to work with (and when I say young, I mean 23) had received two DUI convictions and lost her driver’s license before she turned 21 (and was able to legally purchase alcohol). This kid was a sweetheart, meant well and really wanted to straighten up. Problem is, she didn’t actually have any kind of role model in her life to help her. Her dad and stepmom moved to Texas; she and her older sister “didn’t get along with” the stepmom – that is to say, they didn’t like house rules – so they came back up here to live with their grandma, who imposed no rules whatever. Thus, the two DWI’s before my friend was of legal age, as well as her older sister’s constant in-and-out hospitalization for drug use. Ultimately, about 2 years ago, the sister died of a drug overdose – an ugly, lonely death that, I thought, would have straightened my friend out. No such luck. She continued to abuse alcohol, even after she got her driver’s license back, and added prescription pain pills to the mix, resulting in an emergency hospitalization and several trips to detox. My friend has two kids. One will be two next week; the other is three months old. I’m writing this because I think a long, long jail sentence would have been the best thing that could have happened to her. She’s in the hospital now, as I write, in a coma and not expected to live. Another alcohol/pain pill binge, only this time it went too far.
I wish she had gone to jail after the second DWI.
uncivilized on April 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
viking01 on April 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM
How do you know that?
a capella on April 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM
I’m not sure that’s entirely correct. It doesn’t seem to me that driving is a right, but a privilege, granted by your state in the form of a drivers license. The state is under no obligation to grant you a license to drive, and can lock you up for driving without one.
With respect to the survey, people who are unable or unwilling to modify their behavior so as to cease being a danger to others need to be restrained by force. It is preferable that that restraint be applied by duly appointed authorities, rather than by somebody taking the offender out, or the offender killing somebody innocent.
mr.blacksheep on April 1, 2009 at 6:47 PM
I know for a fact that I can drink, or used to be able to drink, (I more or less stopped drinking) 5 shots of Jack Daniels and drive perfectly fine, all within an hour. astonerii on April 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM
You are delusional and dangerous.
artist on April 1, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Implant a device that kills them the second they turn the ignition key of a car! Seriously, the irresponsible assholes in society are dragging us down, soon they will outnumber us and we will be doomed. Shit, we are already there.
echosyst on April 1, 2009 at 6:49 PM
They should not be able to register a vehicle after a third conviction. Or ever get their license back.
dogsoldier on April 1, 2009 at 6:49 PM
My concept of life in prison means you die there. I know that’s not true, but it should be. That’s why I don’t go along with life imprisonment for drunk driving (assuming no fatalities). I do, however, go along with escalating prison sentences and no plea bargaining from the first conviction.
SKYFOX on April 1, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Ed, you should have put “Institutionalized” as an option. Life sentence is too harsh for someone who hasn’t killed anyone, but is obviously suffering from a dangerous mental illness.
Techie on April 1, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Here’s the problem with this:
In theory, it’s a great idea, and I know several people who have had to spring for one of these devices. (Yes, they have to pay for them, make an appointment to have them installed, and arrange for insurance beforehand.) However, this device only keeps them from driving vehicles that are registered to them – and the way repeat offenders get around it is to drive vehicles that are NOT registered to them. I know at least two people that I work with on a daily basis who have been driving for years with revoked licenses, simply by using their spouses’ / significant others’ / kids’ car.
uncivilized on April 1, 2009 at 6:56 PM
I can’t justify a life sentence, but I’m with Bishop. But I think that after the 11th “digit” goes, then we up the prison sentences.
Maybe it is my kraut heritage typing here, but they should also be required at all times to wear shirts that say drunk driver (after 3). Anyone caught giving a drunk keys to a car can share a cell with his drunk buddy.
There is one caveat, we need to make sure the legal limits are drunk, not just one beer.
Laura in Maryland on April 1, 2009 at 6:58 PM
There is one caveat, we need to make sure the legal limits are drunk, not just one beer.
Laura in Maryland on April 1, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Drunk is not the standard, it’s impaired.
1 drink can affect people differently. There are too many variables involved: height, weight, medical, medication, age etc…
If a guy is impaired and kills my daughter, I don’t care if he had 1 beer or 15.
artist on April 1, 2009 at 7:01 PM
This is more of an emotional issue for most people than a strictly law and order concern.
With the legal limits the way they are now in most states, I’d argue that someone who is not intoxicated could receive a DWI. MADD would like to make it illegal to drive after consuming any amount of alcohol, IMO. That includes the one glass of wine you had with your lunch.
Are people concerned about impaired drivers? Really? The example cited is extreme. Most people don’t live their lives like that and law certainly should not be made for everyone based on Mr. Mills behavior…although behavior seems to be exactly what people would like to legislate rather than improving public safety.
Asher on April 1, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Doesn’t matter as long as we continue to bogusly call the abuse of alcohol a disease when it doesn’t fit any classic pattern or a disease in any manner whatsoever. People will always scream they aren’t to blame, they simply have a disease, and the medical establishment has helped them out.
TheBlueSite on April 1, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Why single out drunk driving? Elderly drivers are also a major problem that no one has the guts to address. I encounter far more elderly drivers that have no business being on the road then I do drunk drivers.
lowandslow on April 1, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Anyone can screw up and get a single DUI..
After one you are either dense, a drunk, a fool or combination of all three..
This man should have been given 3 months on his 2nd.. and 1 year on his 3rd.. after that 5 years minimum..
Oh and the person enabling him to continue should be bitch slapped because there is no way this person functions without someone enabling him…
theblacksheepwasright on April 1, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I’m with you Ed. I say three strikes and your in prison, hopefully making sand out of boulders for a few years.
In the one million plus miles I have driven, I have been hit by other cars three times. All three of the reckless drivers were drunk. One hit 5 other cars in the same accident. He was very luck I did not act on my initial impulse which was to shoot the b@$tard.
Zorro on April 1, 2009 at 7:06 PM
True enough, most people don’t go to this extreme – but even Mr. Mills had, at some point, his first DWI. And his second. And his third – seeing a pattern here? Somewhere between the first one and the eleventh, there should have some sort of progressive punishment in place. Not everyone lives their lives like this, but apparently there’s nothing in Minnesota law that keeps everyone from doing so.
uncivilized on April 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM
TheBlueSite on April 1, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Yup
artist on April 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Amen to that.
uncivilized on April 1, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Jeeze, how many mirrors you break at home/
I jest, in all seriousness that sucks
hope you sued the f*ckin pants off the drunk bastids
blatantblue on April 1, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Elderly drivers should be thrown in jail for life immediately after the first time they get caught driving old.
Proud Rino on April 1, 2009 at 7:09 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9378392/Stallworth-to-get-DUI-manslaughter-charge?MSNHPHMA
a capella on April 1, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Definitely he should serve some hard time, be forced to go on a alcohol rehab program and when released be on extended parole so if he abuses alcohol while under parole he gets returned to prison. Life sentence is extreme especially considering that some murders and thieves do not get life sentences.
docdave on April 1, 2009 at 7:10 PM
lowandslow on April 1, 2009 at 7:04 PM
It’s not this or that.
You are correct though, some elderly drivers need to have their license’s revoked.
Some states do mandate a driver’s test after a certain age.
And I agree with that.
artist on April 1, 2009 at 7:10 PM
I encounter more young drivers, teens and above, who drive recklessly then drunk or elderly drivers but I wouldn’t be so audacious as to say that they should be thrown in jail for life immediately after their first offense.
docdave on April 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM
I know what you mean! I sued one, the others were just drunken bums, not a dime to their names.
Zorro on April 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM
See? Where do we draw the line? There are some here that want to throw people in jail for life in the name of public safety yet when you point out other drivers besides drunk drivers that are just as much or even more of a risk to public safety nobody wants to talk about it. If after an elderly driver runs a sign or side swipe a few cars or backs into someone else should we lock them up?
lowandslow on April 1, 2009 at 7:25 PM
I think after 3 you should have to spend 60 days in a Rehab facility. if you sucessfully meet that and get another, then jail and a felony conviction
Yngmarine on April 1, 2009 at 7:29 PM
So the state issues you a license, therefore it is a privilege. Interesting logic you guys got there. Say, for instance, I needed a permit to build a shed in my own backyard… Oh that’s right I do! So it must be a privilege to do something on your own property.
If driving is not a right, despite you owning the car, and having a right to travel, then that means access to public property is just as much a privilege. If driving is a privilege then I would still need a license to drive on my own property in my own car.
I guess it must be a privilege to keep and bear arms too huh? At least in those progressive states.
Free Constitution on April 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM
For every one time he was caught, I’d bet there were at least 20 times he drove drunk without getting caught. Someone caught once might have driven drunk 100 times before, or got caught their first time.
Life sentence? No. 1 year for seriously injuring or killing someone? No.
With the new .08 limit, it could be quite easy to get a DWI while posing no more threat than someone on a cell phone or distracted by a conversation with a passenger. That doesn’t excuse it, but I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with lengthy prison sentences for someone who screwed up twice over the course of, say, 20 years.
That said, once someone gets more than a couple, enough jail time to make them reconsider their choices in life is warranted.
Hollowpoint on April 1, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Huh? Like who? There’s no background check for buying a car.
Hollowpoint on April 1, 2009 at 7:35 PM
I very much doubt that they’re registering the cars in the first place.
I’ve bought used cars from private parties that didn’t bother looking to see if I had a license (I did). They sign over the title, you sign the stub that the seller keeps indicating that they sold it, and off you go with the assumption that the buyer will register it.
Hollowpoint on April 1, 2009 at 7:41 PM
This is the dumbest statement ever. Would you feel different if the first person he kills is your spouse, child, parent? Lets stop him before he kills someone.
dalec on April 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Laws already exist to charge a person with vehicular homicide. You don’t need any carte blanc rules…. just enforce what you have here in MN. It’s the judges, Ed… you, of all people, should know that.
MNDavenotPC on April 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Firstly, don’t confuse what I think it should be with what I say that it is. I did not offer an opinion as to whether or not I think it should or should be a right or a privilege to drive your car, I’m just saying what it actually is.
Secondly, driving on your own property in your own car is not at all the same thing as driving on a public road. The people who pay for the road and use it in a responsible fashion have the “right” to be protected from irresponsible losers who might kill them. So the state builds roads and permits you to use them, provided you use them responsibly. Prove yourself a danger in a car, and they revoke your license (your road privileges). Demonstrate your complete disregard for public safety by repeatedly driving drunk, and your privilege of freedom is withdrawn. Don’t you think that makes sense?
You need a building permit to build something on “your own” property because the duly elected authorities have assumed that power. Presumably, that’s because they want to prevent you from building things that will endanger your neighbors, or will harm their property value.
You can’t just go ahead and build, say, a toxic-waste rendering plant on your lot in a residential area. If you think it’s your “right” to do that, then you have to agree that it’s your neighbor’s “right” to take you out of action before your toxic waste plant can harm his family. So, to prevent that type of anarchy, people tend to collectively appoint officials who (theoretically) will make regulations that provide for the safety and quality of life for all.
I don’t think this is rocket science, it’s the way civilization has advanced for hundreds of years, and seems to work pretty well. Get over it: you don’t have unfettered license to do whatever you want, regardless of how much you would like to have it.
mr.blacksheep on April 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM
sorry dog, the woman who recieved her 8th DUI after she totalled out my little brother’s two cars, was driving somebody else’s vehicle, on probation, no insurance, hit and run…
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on April 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I was permanently disabled by a drunk driver so this hits close to home. As easy as it would be to react by saying toss the drunken bum in jail until his maker takes him that punishment doesn’t fit the crime. I understand protecting the public from what will become vehicular manslaughter, but I also don’t want the government setting the precedent of locking people away to protect “public interest”. That is surely a slippery slope. After so many violations send him to a mental institution or prison for a lengthy term. Long enough to sober him up, straighten him out, or at least protect the public for a decent amount of time. But condemning a man to a life of imprisonment for a crime he may commit is not moral or logical.
chicagojedi on April 1, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Not an issue.
Driving will drunk is illegal.
Driving without a valid license is illegal.
Driving with a court order not to is illegal.
Doing illegal things is a crime.
Crimes can be punished.
Anyway the original question stems from our Constitution which is fast going away anyway.
lsheldon on April 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM
You the man.
lowandslow on April 1, 2009 at 8:02 PM
It’s a very good question, I think that it depends on how drunk. I know that there needs to be a hard limit somewhere, but if someone has been caught even once driving at say 1.5 the limit, they need their license revoked for a year. Twice for life. The third time give them ~1 year.
If a year in prison doesn’t straighten them up, and they drink and drive again (remember they shouldn’t even be driving at this point), throw the book at them. 10 years.
I personally am not a big fan of life sentences for two reasons: First its not practical to lock someone up for life, they have no chance of rehabilitation. I think in many cases death penalty is more useful. Second, It costs a fortune, thats problem more of a problem with the prison system (we baby prisoners too much, treat them like they aren’t criminals and have the rights of non-offenders).
I think that life imprisonment is far over used, the death penalty should be used in almost all murder cases, where a certain burden of proof is met. (as well as rape, treason, kidnapping, and couple other really serious crimes)
Canerican on April 1, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Yep, seconded.
Proud Rino on April 1, 2009 at 8:04 PM
I actually knew someone sort of like this. They did finally get sober… but had diabetes and died in their sleep…
As horrible as the possibilities are, I don’t think you can give a life sentence for a death that has yet to happen, even if likely.
Couldn’t there be a law made that puts a restraining order against alcohol use for someone like this? Then drug testing and automatic jail time for using. Does that seem extreme? I don’t think so.
And it may have the same effect, he may spend his life behind bars and lives would be saved.
petunia on April 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »