<p>Mini, you may be right but I am still skeptical that 90% of people who are initially arrested for a DUI only have to attend an alcohol education course. The part about no fines or penalties is hard to believe.</p>
<p>Again, it is easy for you to get the first data in your state. The number of arrests v. the number of convictions.</p>
<p>*I just don’t think these two very different profiles should be treated the same. *</p>
<p>Id agree that 2nd and 3rd DUIs should be treated much more harshly than the first.
But that is only comparative.
I still think there should be mandatory minimum jail time for the 1st DUI.</p>
<p>Mini, the only thing I’d caution is that, as I understand it, some counties report cases pled down to a lesser charge, even a misdemeanor, as convictions, so it could look as if some states are sending a high number of people to jail, when in fact they’re getting probation or community service.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are mixing up drinking and DUI here. An occasional drinker, binge drinker, or alcoholic who refrains from DUI is not a danger to others in terms of DUI. An occasional drinker, binge drinker, or alcoholic who does DUI is a danger to others in terms of DUI.</p>
<p>No matter how little or how much you drink, if you refrain from driving until you are completely sober, you won’t subject others to added DUI risks, and you won’t bear the added risk of a DUI arrest.</p>
<p>ucb, I think there is a difference between the occasional and hardcore/binge drinker. The former is unlikely to cause injuries or fatalities on the road, while the latter is very dangerous to other drivers. Sure an alcoholic may never drink and drive, but it is much more likely he/she will get behind the wheel when impaired than the occasional drinker who doesn’t abuse alcohol. </p>
<p>The police have limited resources so it makes sense for them to allocate them logically. Focusing on reducing the number of repeat DUI offenses would be a reasonable way to proceed.</p>
<p>^So, when the occasional drinker drives impaired, there is a magic bubble around him/her that protects all other people on the road from his/her driving?</p>
<p>Yes, a hardcore drinker/alcoholic who drives drunk poses more danger OVER TIME than someone who drives drunk once or twice, but EACH TIME anyone drives drunk, that person is a threat on the road, whatever kind of drinker he/she is. The person killed by a drunk driver is just as dead whether that was the drunk driver’s first time ever driving drunk or the one thousandth.</p>
<p>How do you think habitual drunk drivers start out? Driving drunk once, twice – just the occasional incident. I’m for doing whatever we can to straighten them out before they become habitual. As I said in post #155:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A judge shouldn’t be charged with making the types of subjective judgments that are likely to lead to a young man who has parents who are professionals, have a good reputation in the community, and who can afford a high-priced attorney getting treated more leniently than the young man who comes to court in jeans and T-shirt, is the son of a single mother, and who is assigned an overworked assistant PD.</p>
<p>What’s the best way to prevent someone from becoming a habitual drunk driver? One way would be to get them off the road the first time they offend. That would be an argument for stricter drunk driving penalties, not more lenient.</p>
<p>^Agreed. Three families in my state just buried their children (a driver and two passengers) because the driver was drunk. Two other families are sitting in the hospital with their seriously injured children because of this same wreck. Everyone interviewed talks about how they, including the driver, were all “good kids”. I don’t know whether the driver was a first-time drunk driver or a recidivist. Regardless, there are three dead young people (ages 23, 20, and 16) and two girls (both 17) who will never be the same.</p>
<p>In our area a few weeks ago young twin brothers were in a deadly one car auto accident. The twin driving was apparently drunk, his brother was killed while passenger in front seat. The one twin was just buried and the other twin likely will end up getting sentenced to prison on top of losing his brother if the state gets around to charging him with DUI manslaughter. Drinking and driving is never excusable.</p>
<p>Anyone remember this thread?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/602142-my-husband-gone-i-need-scream-crabbylady-support-thread-merger-threads.html?highlight=alaska+pediatrician[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/602142-my-husband-gone-i-need-scream-crabbylady-support-thread-merger-threads.html?highlight=alaska+pediatrician</a></p>
<p>I don’t think crabbylady ever reported back what kind of sentence the snowmobile driver got.</p>
<p>The California DUI law is ineffective. It only catches a tiny fraction of drunkers on the road. The reality is most people never get caught regardless how much they drink. The speed limit law is also a joke. People drive 10 miles over the speed limit and nobody get stopped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The police get invloved at the stop and arrest stage. Their mandate is to arrest drivers who are DUI, which for adults is BAC 0.08% or higher. Are you suggesting that they should only arrest repeat offenders? If so, how does one become a repeat offender if you never get arrested until you have been arrested and convicted or arrested and plea bargained before? </p>
<p>Or is your real gripe that the penalty for the first DUI offense is too heavy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, either the occasional or binge drinker can avoid DUI and its consequences by not driving after drinking or waiting until completely sober (BAC = 0.00%).</p>
<p>It is not about the amount you drink or the frequency you drink; it is about whether you drive afterward with the alcohol still in your system.</p>
<p>Since you mentioned in [post</a> #191](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1572436-good-article-consequencs-dui-13.html#post16578207]post”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1572436-good-article-consequencs-dui-13.html#post16578207) that you do drive after drinking, perhaps you should consider buying your own breathalyzer so that you can be more sure that you have waited long enough after drinking for your BAC to become 0.00% before driving.</p>
<p>People here are right to be upset with all the carnage on the roads but saying stuff like there should be zero tolerance of people who drink and drive is unrealistic. Your tilting at windmills. Millions of people drink and drive. How many people drive home from a restaurant after having a drink with their meal? You can complain all you want, but unless you reimpose prohibition or as Mini said, install breathalyzers in every car, you will probably end up arresting a lot of people who are not dangerous and you are still left with the hardcore alcoholics causing most of the mayhem on the road. It might make you feel good, but what have you really accomplished.</p>
<p>Yes, the police like any other organization with limited resources needs to employ them to get the biggest bang for the buck. You wouldn’t deploy most of your officers to a neighborhood with little crime if you had other neighborhoods where people where being mugged all the time. I am trying to think this through rationally rather than emotionally venting.</p>
<p>BTW, to respond to a couple of the posters who raised this issue: if you are drunk and driving a car, I am not suggesting we should not vigorously punish this driver. However, if there is a dispute about whether you’re impaired (close call), it is a first time offense and you are not an alcoholic or drug abuser, then this is a different matter. Spending a lot of time catching these people is counterproductive.</p>
<p>One of the jobs of judges is to determine the scope of punishment for defendants based on their background and the likelihood of them getting into trouble again. There is no reason to emasculate judges because the crime is a DUI.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When a police officer sees a car being driven erratically and makes a stop, or responds to the scene of a car crash, his/her time is spent dealing with it, regardless of whether the driver is DUI and whether a a driver who is DUI is first time caught or not. So the police officer is not spending any different amount of time “catching” such a driver in any case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While you do, many others realize the danger and do not. Have a designated non-drinking driver in your group, or get your own breathalyzer to ensure that you have sobered up to BAC = 0.00% before driving. Or take public transportation to the place where you will be drinking.</p>
<p>“Yes, the police like any other organization with limited resources needs to employ them to get the biggest bang for the buck.”</p>
<p>You don’t seem to understand how justice systems work. With the exception of certain crimes like murder, criminal justice systems (and police) don’t need to “catch” the vast majority of people who commit certain offenses. They just need to ensure that they catch enough of them to act as a deterrent, and to ensure that those they catch are sufficiently punished so as to act as a deterrent and message to others as well.</p>
<p>“ucb, I think there is a difference between the occasional and hardcore/binge drinker. The former is unlikely to cause injuries or fatalities on the road, while the latter is very dangerous to other drivers”</p>
<p>There is no evidence for this view. The question here would be number of accidents per mile driven under the influence. The heavy drinker may drink more, but might or might not have more incidents per mile while driving under the influence.</p>
<p>I screwed up plenty in high school and college. I smoke pot, partied, and got blotto drunk. The one thing I never did was get behind the wheel of a car impaired. The reason? Because my grandfather was killed by a drunk driver when my mother was in college, I knew drunk driving was something she just wouldn’t be able to forgive. Don’t drink, find a designated driver, stay wherever you’re drinking, take a long, long walk to sober up, call someone for a ride, drink within walking distance of home, drink at home, take a cab, take public transportation. There’s no excuse for driving impaired.</p>
<p>BTW, that should be past tense-smokeD!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Goldenpooch – I’m curious. How does a judge decide on “the likelihood of them getting into trouble again”? Also, what does “their background” include?</p>