A DUI charge is very serious. Driving under the influence is a severe crime in
every state. The consequences of a conviction are life-altering. If you don't
seek professional DUI lawyers to protect your rights, You may face: Jail
time Job loss Loss of driver's license Insurance coverage
complications Impoundment of vehicle Ignition interlock device Probation Community service If you have been charged with a DUI
you should seek legal help at once from DUI Lawyers
i would like to see a more reasonable scaling of the punishment relative to the
particular offense. there's a big difference between someone pulled over for
expired tags who blew .08 on the money, and someone pulled over for swerving
around and blew a .15, and yet their punishments are potentially the same, i
suppose depending on the state and how much money they have for a good
What an obsurd and angry thing to say. I got a DUI 2 years ago at the age of 24
even though I never even drank, much less drink and drive. I did one day though
and my life has been ruined ever since. I took the charge seriously and was
willing to do whatever it took to redeem myself but, to this day, it is never
enough. I live in Florida & new laws keep being passed to prevent me from
obtaining my license. I have already paid over $10,000, I have no money left and
now the state wants more (new insurance & interlock laws.) I went from being a
productive member of society to living out of my car. My college dreams are on
hold. People are sick of helping me. I didn't hurt anybody but myself, I will
never understand why I am being treated as if I had hurt someone. I will never
drink and drive again, I have nothing to call my own, I can't even drive my son
to a park. Doesn't seem fair if you ask me.
Yes it can be too strict. These laws cause problems for people who do not commit
any harm to themselves or others. BAC is a sad cry but not an accurate
measurement of impairment, .08 is too low of a level, taking in other factors.
Can we forget that while trying to find that 1 real drunk driver, we can destroy
the lives of the other 99 who did not actually cause anyone any harm? If you
look at our DUI laws they are clearly neo-prohibitionist in essence and that
cannot be defined. In some states operating a vehicle is nothing more than being
in a car with the engine on...I knew someone convicted of a DUI sitting in a car
because he has his engine on to keep warm in the back seat! This is how crazy
the system has become and making the laws stricter won't fix the underlying.
These people need alcohol treatment as well as more case by case analysis and
statues that do not grasp the individual cases but form a blanket of punishment
for any the prosecutor's whim. Here come the MADDites yells and screams
I like the idea of having as many neighborhood pubs as there are LDS churches,
that way people could just walk to the pub and would not have to drive.
The most severe penalty that can be handed out is the death penalty, and we see
how well that prevents capital crimes from happening.
Christians who drink grape juice instead of wine won't have that problem
Isn't it ironic that the same culture which promotes alcohol use in
entertainment and advertising and controls it's distribution through the state
turns about and penalizes those who may have even one sip too much and is then
ready to crucify those individuals?I've often thought it is silly that one
must go through all the legal rigamarole to obtain medications which are at
least or more dangerous than alcohol, yet to get booze all you need is a few
bucks - no prescription or ID required. Thanks to MADD and other fanatic
groups, the penalties for driving under the influence of ANY drugs or alcohol
are far disproportionate to many offenses that which are equally odious.
Much of the arrests that are made are people that are not placing others at
risk, they are out having a few moderate drinks and get caught in the system.
All of this while that terribly intoxicates are slipping through the cracks,
placing others at risk. The current laws are not dealuing with the problems of
intoxicated drivers, rather is a tool for revenue collections.If we truly
want to deal with the problem, then their needs to be methods that provide
transportation at a reasonable costs for those that choose the use the night
life. Police sitting at bars looking for anyone driving tying up their time,
rather than dealing with the seriously impaired is nothing more than a sin tax
on people that have a few drinks at a night club. I go to dance at the clubs and
have not drank for years as a recovered alcoholic, yet I am pulled over
periodically for nothing mopre than being at a night club. That is not a reason
to pull people over!
Will Christians be arrested after taking wine at the sacrament?You
said no drunk driving law is to tough.
It's true -- no current DUI law is too strict. But they all punish and attempt
to incentivize the wrong people.Tougher punishments are like
rearranging the chairs on the listing deck of the Titanic. No drunk ever
worries much about the punishment BEFORE he drives drunk. It's only AFTER the
fact that the punishment looms large.By then, innocent victims have
been maimed or killed and are left, largely alone, to face a life of disability
and want.What is needed are changes to the law that provide
incentives to enablers and promoters to PREVENT DUI, not just knee-jerk changes
that more severely punish the poor mopes that are too feeble-minded or
weak-kneed to resist "hospitality industry" enticements.Frankly,
that industry has more resources, personnel, and multi-jurisdictional experience
-- and is thus in a better position to know what works -- than most of us.Venal and corrupt as they are, industry executives are not stupid.
Given proper incentives, like liberalized dram shop laws, they will implement
procedures and safeguards that will PREVENT, not just PUNISH carnage.
I find it ironic that the same people who say "comprehensive sex ed" is needed
don't think that drinking and driving is bad and stricter laws aren't needed and
won't do anything if implemented.I think we all know that
"comprehensive sex ed" won't stop anyone who wants to have sex no matter
what.Drink - don't drive...have you heard the "I was just buzzed"
commercials on the radio? They are spot on!You want to drink -- do
it in your home.
You are wrong. This is a liberal/conservative one. That's not to say that only
one side is against drunk driving, but it is true that if the penalty were left
up to the liberals the punishments would be very weak and we'd have more drunk
driving. If it were left 100% up to the conservatives, there would be higher
fines, stricter punishment, more jail time, less offenders, and less fatalities
because the drunks couldn't drive while they were in jail. Anyone who disagrees
with that is nuts.
You are wrong. We don't ban cars because of drunks and we don't ban guns
because of careless gun owners. We should have the same penalty for drunk
drivers as we have for people who leave guns where children can get them.
Anyone who makes a conscious decision to put other people's lives at risk,
should be stopped with everything we can use to stop them.
To Robert: I have never been to Norway, but I have been to many other European
countries. I find that there are neighborhood pubs all over town. Walking home
after a night of drinking is probably Much easier there than here. Also, public
transporatation is much better in Europe. I doubt that most posters on
this site would think that vastly increasing the amount of neighborhood pubs
would be a good way to curb drunken driving.
Can anyone come up with a reason to keep allowing drunk driving? One DUI -
could be a big mistake. But, two DUIs? Three DUIs? Ten DUIs? At what point
does Society take the hint that the driver needs to be stopped? The penalty
definitely needs to increase dramatically after each successive act.
One possibility would be to have a sensor in a car that made it so someone
with alcohol on their breath could not start the viehcle. Not a fool-proof
system, but it would reduce drunken driving.
People in Utah can be fairly detached about this, for there are not many
deaths from Drunk Drivers there. Here in Michigan we have many deaths. Just a
few months ago four teenages who were stpped at a light were killed by some
drunk lady who ran her van into them. The only reason I know about this is
because it made headlines becaue more than one person died. Claims that
drunk driving is not a major issue are based on downright stupid assumptions.
It is not just ability to control your driving, but also judgement that is
reduced by drunk driving. Drunk drivers do downright stupid things.
However, we should also raise the driving age to at least 18. 16 and 17 year
olds do not have the full mental capacity to be good drivers, and should be kept
off the roads for all peoples goods.
This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. Don't try to make it one!Simple rule. The first time and every time a driver get convicted of DUI; the
car is now owned by the state. Sell it and lets make some money. If you can't
control you drining enough to act responsibly, loose the car! If you don't have
a car, you can't drive drunk. After the second, if not the first conviction, you
should spend some REAL time in jail, oh and loose the car too. Pretty soon, you
can't drive drunk as you have no car available to drive!However, if
one gets tipsy, and/or you decide you shouldn't drive, take a nap in you car,
and a cop arrests you for DUI, that seems a little unfair. It IS the law ,at
least in NM where we have a huge DUI problem. Why should you be
arrested/convected of DUI if you weren't driving. I have never done that, but it
does seem wrong.
It WOULD be wonderful -- and we CAN have a specific law that would, if not
guarantee no more DUIs, at least greatly reduce the carnage it produces.We just have to incentivize the industry to reduce, rather than sustain
the carnage. If it costs THEM -- instead of just the innocent victims --
whenever drunk drivers hurt someone, we can be supremely confident THEY will
find ways to reduce the slaughter.Liability laws today immunize the
"hospitality industry" from responsibility for the carnage enabled and promoted
by that industry. It's because the politicians are in the pockets of that
industry.If we made a big enough show of support, the politicians
could be shamed into representing US, instead of their major contributors.Liberalizing dram shop laws would require only a 10-words-or-less change
to two or three Utah laws.There would be weeping, wailing, and
gnashing of teeth by the industry, to be sure, but in the end they, like many,
many. many of their victims, would be left without a leg to stand on.
Death to texting while driving as well!!!
I'm glad you feel that way too. You are certainly in the minute minority as far
as your party is concerned.
OOPS! I meant to say "won't stop." Sorry.
It would be wonderful if we had specific laws in place that would guarantee no
more DUIs would occur. It would be heaven if we could all leave our homes,
knowing for sure we will all get to where we are going safe, but that's not
possible.The fact is, all the DUI laws in the world would stop
certain people from getting blasted with booze, then getting behind the wheel of
a car. If you were to commit premediated murder and get caught,
there's a pretty good chance you will either spend the rest of your life in
prison, or you will face the death penalty. Laws don't get much stricter than
that. But nevertheless, murders are still committed every day.
There IS an answer to the problem!The answer is to incentivize the
enablers and promoters. Let the free-market, entrepenueurial juices flow!Enablers like bar owners could insist drinking patrons show proof of a
taxi or non-drinking buddy ride home. Distributors could enforce the rule by
refusing to sell to high-risk establishments. Distillers and brewers could
divert a tiny percentage of their billions in blood money profits to a fund used
to police the rules and rehab the drunks.Or, better yet -- let THEM,
the enablers and promoters, come up with their own foolproof, yet cost-effective
ways of protecting the innocent from the carnage that enriches them.They're smarter about this than I am, being much closer to the problem.At any rate -- the solution is clear and simple. It only requires us
liberalize dram shop laws to incentivize the industry to do the right thing.It would also be politically easy if it weren't for the dirty money
injected into politics by the "hospitality industry."
In Norway, anyone caught driving with any alcohol in the blood receives a six
month jail sentence and revocation of their driver's license for life.To many people this may seem over the top, but Norwegians live with it and
find other ways to get around when they have drunk alcohol. They take a bus, a
taxi, or just walk. And the low number of highway deaths in that country is
proof of the wisdom of the laws.There is no reason why we can't
impose the same restrictions.
I am a liberal and I am in favor of the strictest possible DUI penalties. One
violation, no license -- ever. You will pay a ruinous fine, you will never be
insured, and you will never drive again. And if we catch you, you will really
wish we hadn't.
While I agree that even one drunken driving accident is to many may I suggest
that prevention is a far better way to reduce this risk then the threat of
punishment if they get caught.
Stricter laws do not equal less drunken drivers. Better public transportation
would be a much better solution to the problem. If people have more options of
getting around, especially at night, that would help to reduce the problem.
Having DUI laws does not stop drunks from getting behind the wheel of whatever
vehicle they can find keys to. There is an answer to the problem since people
will NEVER quit the alchol. Taking away a license does not work either. But
now we have impaired individuals driving while trying to either text or dial
cell phones. What the answer is, I'm not sure anyone knows. Until it is
found, more people will suffer the consequences of bad decisions on the part of
drivers who made them.
"The liberals would have us believe that nothing is ever anyone's fault"Strawman much? I could just as easily say that conservatives believe
that women should wear burkas anytime they are in public. Its OK, I understand
that as a conservative with the simple minded there is no way to define yourself
without logical fallacies. (wow that is fun)
To Common, Anon:Why is it that I am expected to meekly and happily
run the risk that you'll drink, then drive? Why should I pay for your "right to
party?"Would it be OK for me to walk through your living room
twirling my hogleg pistol? I susptect you'd object, and rightly so. Why should
you be required to pay for my "right to twirl?"You shouldn't.And I shouldn't be required to shoulder the entire burden of you
drinking irresponsibly and driving when you're impaired.That's why,
even though I'm just as committed to my hogleg twirling as you are to your
drinking, I don't object to restrictions on twirling, and I fully expect to pay
the consequences of my negligence. I'm sure we both expect hogleg twirling
promoters to ante up their fair share, as well.So, unless you
suggest partying occupies some favored, protected position in our society, you
should have the same expectations for your hobby as I do for mine.
It's not the drunks fault they get drunk though. They are predisposed to
getting drunk. They were born that way. The liberals would have us believe
that nothing is ever anyone's fault(except Bush's) and that the rest of society
should take an equal share of responsibility for someone else's dumb decisions
Rail against DUI! | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 23, 2009 said "It's an easy fix --
liberalize dram shop laws and apply them to brewers, distillers, and
distributors".That is plain silly, not everyone who drinks will
drive while drunk. That is akin to saying that because someone texts while
driving we need to punish the cell phone companies.
No law is too strict? Capital punishment?
RE: Rail against DUI! | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 23, 2009 "DUI is the readily
predictable consequence of an unnecessary and indefensible vice."So
when I have a drink, it's easy to predict that I'm going to get a DUI, even
though I don't drink?"And, of course, they are aided and
abetted in this pillaging of innocents by the best politicians "hospitality
industry" money can buy."Why is there a shortage of liquor licenses
if the politicians have been bought off by the "hospitality industry"?Are you really that paranoid, or have you just skipped your morning coffee and
Hear, hear!The big difference between DUI and ALL other activities
cited by these smarmy defenders of drunks is this -- DUI is the readily
predictable consequence of an unnecessary and indefensible vice.That
puts it in a COMPLETELY separate category from those other offenses committed
during the careless pursuit of necessary or desirable everyday activities.Innocent vitims of DUI are asked to involuntarily subsidize what selfish
losers have come to regard as their "right to party."And, of course,
they are aided and abetted in this pillaging of innocents by the best
politicians "hospitality industry" money can buy.Sadly, because of
that money, the carnage will continue until there is enough outrage to tackle
the real problem -- the enablers and promoters in the "hospitality industry."If we properly incentivize these feckless, but intelligent businessmen,
THEY will come up with ways to stop the slaughter of innocents. It's an easy fix -- liberalize dram shop laws and apply them to brewers,
distillers, and distributors.But, it won't happen until politicians
think more of their contituents than they do of their contributors.
"If our laws were stricter, we would have much less drunken driving"This is simply not true and shows a lack of actual thought on the writers
The average drinking driver wants exactly the same thing everybody else who
drives does--to get where they're going safely and conveniently. The fact that
they are SLIGHTLY worse at it than the average sober driver seems to drive our
society nuts! There are plenty of bigger problems to worry about
than making our draconian DUI laws even more unreasonable.
One drunk driver is too many. One child finding dads' gun in the house is not.
One distracted driver is not. Several cigarette smokers per day...not. However
many die from secondhand smoke...it is not too many. We rail agains the drunk
drivers, and we should, but they're not the only ones making poor decisions with
Death to drunk drivers! No, death is too good! We need to torture them slowly
and brutally, with medieval implements of pain, and then throw them out in the
gutter. In the rain.
Should simple assault be prosecuted the same as first degree murder? There are
vast differences in DUI circumstances.