<p>This article supports (but wildly understates the consequences of a DUI) my long-standing argument that American culture is WAY too harsh on crime. Today, kids that get MIPs at age 16 can’t get jobs at age 30, people demand life sentences for all but the most minor financial crimes, (here’s an article on that: [U.S</a>. commission reviews white-collar sentences | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-financial-crime-sentences-idUSBRE98G1D020130917]U.S”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-financial-crime-sentences-idUSBRE98G1D020130917)), and with the exception of maybe smoking weed (largely because of state by state efforts to legalize) nearly all misdemeanors no matter how small cause someone to be prevented from ever getting a good job. </p>
<p>Furthermore, there is a significant social class issue in that generally teens from poor families get the worst treatment because wealthy families can hire better attorneys and sometimes this can make a huge difference. </p>
<p>My solution is to expunge records sooner and to handle more cases in juvenile courts. Also, the federal sentencing guidelines should be scrapped as they encourage prosecutors to wait for a fraud to get worse in hope of getting a longer sentence. I don’t mind long sentences for very serious fraud (i.e. Madoff) but prosecutors routinely ask for decades in prison for much less serious crimes.</p>
<p>Couldn’t agree more. Someone who may have had a few drinks with dinner is convicted of a DUI and loses his license for a year and can pay $10,000 in fines and legal fees. As you said, one mistake may prevent you from ever getting a job. </p>
<p>The pendulum has swung too far in favor of long prison sentences for crimes which are not always clearly defined. For example, there have been well-known cases of people being convicted of insider trading, which under certain circumstances can be entirely legal, and receiving sentences of 20 years or more. At some point, the punishment bears no relationship to the severity of the crime and is just an excuse to exact malicious vengeance to satisfy some populist agenda.</p>
<p>Someone who may have had a few drinks with dinner could also kill people. </p>
<p>Personally, I believe in a zero tolerance policy for drunk driving, which is an epidemic in this country and a serious public safety issue. A slap on the wrist for DUI sends the message that it’s not that serious. When someone chooses to jeopardize the lives of other people, there should be far-reaching consequences. </p>
<p>golfer does make a valid point that social class is a predictor of one’s treatment in the justice system. And throwing people in jail for possession of small amounts of pot is ridiculous, and a sad waste of resources.</p>
<p>I don’t condone drunk driving, but someone who is not an alcoholic, has no record of impaired driving and may have failed a breathalyzer by the slimmest of margins, should not have their life turned upside down and have to deal with the consequences of this incident for the rest of his/her lives. </p>
<p>We are far from that period of time where this offense was considered a slap on the wrist. In fact, many lawyers will tell you that DUI’s and tax cheating may be the only crimes where you are guilty until proven innocent. There was a case recently in the Bay area where police were using malfunctioning breathalyzers and arrested hundreds of people with incorrect scores. There have also been other cases where police officers have improperly charged hundreds of drivers with DUI’s to meet certain goals or quotas. </p>
<p>MADD, a well-intentioned organization, has lobbied very effectively to give police officers almost total discretion to charge someone with a DUI, regardless of mitigating factors. Besides having many drivers being improperly charged with DUI’s, it is arguable on how wise it is to impose the identical punishment for every first-time DUI. Since no two DUI’s are identical, there should be much more discretion in tailoring the punishment to fit the particular circumstances of each DUI.</p>
<p>If it isn’t obvious you are impaired, why would you be getting pulled over in the first place to take a breathalyzer?</p>
<p>I had two drinks last night with dinner, which is one more than I usually have & I was pretty loopy.
But my H doesn’t drink so I always have a designated driver.
That’s all it takes, if you are going to drink, hand the car keys to someone who isn’t.</p>
<p>EK: Maybe because you were a young man driving slowly in a residential neighborhood with an out of town car at 11 pm. My non-drinking son gets pulled over a lot when he drives his friends home. A lot of times he’s the designated driver, but he’s driving an older SUV with some bumps and scrapes and the cops (apparently) don’t have a lot to do, besides run plates and stop cars that don’t seem to belong.</p>
<p>If you’re under 21, sure I can get behind wiping it off your record after a certain point (both DDs and MIPs… I thought MIPs were already wiped off your record?). Beyond that, I have no tolerance for DD. Perhaps having a different level for when it comes off your record I can get behind (eg .08 you only have it only on your record for a few years but .12 or some other arbitrary number and it’s there forever). </p>
<p>I agree the US is way too hard on crime and it obviously isn’t very effective. Non-violent crimes (with few exceptions) shouldn’t get jail time IMO. IMO, possession of any drug should not be a crime. Period. But the prison system is very, very profitable to private companies and there will never be reform. Google “prison profits” and there are some very, very disturbing stories out there about why our prison population is exploding and why there will never be reform.</p>
<p>By the time a person has .08, they are already significantly impaired, which is why they got pulled over. Moreover, when people say that they got pulled over for drunk driving the only time they ever drove drunk they’re lying. So, we have a person who is in the habit of drinking and driving and they get caught. No pity. Throw the book at them; they’re potential murderers.</p>
<p>I say the pendulum hasn’t swung far enough. Drive drunk, lose your license forever. “Need” to drive? No you don’t, and if you think you do, you should have thought of that before you got behind the wheel drunk.</p>
<p>There is also the uniquely American custom of taking a say 19 year old murderer, locking him (or sometimes her) up for 20-25 years, then dragging him out and poisoning him to death.</p>
<p>There are many examples why a person might get pulled over that isn’t due to an obvious impairment(re posts 5 and 9). It could be as trivial as forgetting a turn signal- and a person does not have to be significantly impaired to forget that. </p>
<p>Once pulled over, then a cop may want a breathylizer performed.
I don’t think anyone really gets pulled over to take the test, as emkty says. I think they get pulled over first, and there could be many reasons for that; then if the cop sees evidence of impairment he may then want the test.</p>
<p>I got pulled over for forgetting a turn signal when I made a lane change once. I was driving a friend home after another close friend’s mother’s funeral, and I probably wasn’t at my best – it had been a long and taxing day. Anyway, the cop had me recite the alphabet backwards. I did, and I was fine to continue on my way. I realize this varies by state and probably somewhat by cop, but I think the usual protocol is backwards alphabet, then try walking in a straight line, and then breathalyzer – they don’t usually pull that out right away. I was in a friend’s car when she was pulled over once, too, and I don’t remember what sobriety test they did but she did not end up getting a breathalyzer either. I don’t think there’s a lot of pulling random cars over and giving them breathalyzer tests going on.</p>
<p>People who are not impaired might make mistakes, but people who are impaired will make more of them. If you make a mistake (like failing to make a turn signal) that causes the cop to think you might be impaired, and then you take a breathalyzer and you are impaired… no pity here. Drunk driver, lose your license.</p>
<p>I have sympathy for those unfairly targeted by cops and then busted for minor issues, for example, a black person in a white neighborhood, pulled over for Driving While Black, and then found to have a small amount of pot. But I’ve no sympathy for someone who drives drunk, no matter why they were apprehended. Don’t want to be busted for drunk driving? Don’t drive drunk. Want to claim that you are perfectly safe driving drunk? No you’re not. Want to claim that other unimpaired drivers are sometimes bad drivers? I don’t care; don’t drive drunk and you won’t get a DUI.</p>
<p>The degree of impairment for a 240 pound guy as opposed to a 120 pound woman at a .08 can be entirely different. The test is not always accurate; remember, you’re blowing into a handheld machine. It is possible that someone with a .08 reading is not impaired and will be arrested anyway. The police officer has almost total discretion on whether to charge you. Most police officers probably do it fairly, but there are some who lack a modicum of good judgement and ticket indiscriminately.</p>
<p>Hmm. What if a cop thought that the fact that you couldn’t recite the alphabet backwards was a sign of impairment and arrested you for drunk driving? Your statements seem a bit contradictory, don’t ya think?</p>
<p>Ok, so that was a bit flippant. But seriously, Cardinal Fang, your extreme black and white statements about DUI don’t seem to take into account the millions of factors that go into this complex issue.</p>
<p>.08 means impairment in virtually everyone - 240lbs or not. I wouldn’t mind a breathalyzer interlock on ALL cars that couldn’t be disabled. Then we could get rid of the crime of DUI all together. In terms of social costs, prison costs, etc., etc., it would likely be cheaper - for everyone. </p>
<p>In our state, almost all DUIs result simply in alcohol school. We are very, very lenient. I don’t know where the idea that those brought in for DUIs usually go to jail comes from.</p>
<p>What if a cop did say that my not being able to recite the alphabet backwards was a sign of impairment? He’d give me the breathalyzer, I’d pass, end of story. We’re talking about people who were suspected of having been drinking, and then tested positive for having been drinking.</p>
<p>It’s not complex. Don’t drink and drive. More people ought to have their driver’s licenses taken away. Elderly people who can no longer drive safely too.</p>
<p>That sounds like nonsense to me. Got a cite?</p>
<p>What is true is that the 240 pound guy had to drink a lot more to get to that .08. That dude had to have 5 drinks in an hour to get to .08. Are you telling me that someone, even a 240 pound guy, who has five drinks in an hour is not impaired?</p>