<p>Bad publicity getting your name and photo on the front page of your hometown newspaper or on the local evening news on TV can hurt more than $10,000 for fines, court costs, attorney fees, insurance rate increase, etc. for a DUI arrest. It is interesting who is fair game to be decided a ‘public figure’ by news editors and lucky enough to get their mug plastered all over the news after getting a DUI arrest.</p>
<p>“Assuming you’re referring to a vehicle breathalyzer) I doubt that very much - it couldn’t be that difficult to defeat these devices.”</p>
<p>Oh, there are people who don’t wear their seatbelts either. And most people - 95% of the time - don’t need 'em. But we require them anyway, even though it is “killing flies with a cannon”. Anyway, ain’t gonna happen: we like our jails and prisons and punishments too much to allow something that could actually work.</p>
<p>
That’s quite a cynical statement. Do you think there’s some kind of conspiracy or something? The statement doesn’t even make sense.</p>
<p>No, except I mean yes. In our community, when the crime rate goes up, the sheriff says he needs more resources. When the crime rate goes down, the sheriff says he needs more resources. In both cases, he gets them.</p>
<p>Voters here voted down an $87 million new jail. The County Commissioners went ahead and built a $45 million new jail, without a vote. But no funds are appropriated for running it, so it has sat empty for two years. And sheriff won’t allow any of HIS funds to be uesd to open it. It costs $600,000 a year to keep it closed.</p>
<p>NHTSA recommended seatbelts for all buses - included schoolbuses - 50 years ago. (As well as windows that won’t pop out on collision.) 70% of deaths in bus accidents are from people being ejected out windows. There is no move to require seatbelts or non-popout windows. </p>
<p>Cynical doesn’t even begin to describe…</p>
<p>Interesting discussion. With time to reflect on it (it’s been 4 months now) I don’t necessarily disagree with the law requiring jail time for 1st time DUI offenders, but I do think the 10 day minimum (which could have been 30 days if not for the leniency of the prosecutor) was too much. My son was absolutely changed by having to spend those days in jail and I think it’s going to prevent him from making bad decisions with alcohol for years to come. However, I think that this could have been easily accomplished with 2 or 3 days.</p>
<p>I’d probably agree with you, except for the knowledge I have that the first conviction is almost never the first-time DUI offense. It might be true in your son’s case (I won’t judge), but it is very, very rare.</p>
<p>But “rational” and “corrections” policies do not belong in the same sentence:</p>
<p><a href=“Over 3,000 US prisoners serving life without parole for non-violent crimes | US crime | The Guardian”>Over 3,000 US prisoners serving life without parole for non-violent crimes | US crime | The Guardian;
<p>“except for the knowledge I have that the first conviction is almost never the first-time DUI offense.”</p>
<p>Using this standard you would probably have to arrest 40 to 50 million people a year and throw them in jail. If you have your way, you better start building a few thousand prisons around the country.</p>
<p>NCdad, ten days in jail is crazy. Do you think your son could not have learned his lesson without prison time? A hefty fine, community service and a suspended license wouldn’t have done it?</p>
<p>“Using this standard you would probably have to arrest 40 to 50 million people a year and throw them in jail. If you have your way, you better start building a few thousand prisons around the country.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t follow. In the case of virtually all crimes, we only arrest, prosecute, convict, and jail a small portion of those who actually commit crimes. The law acts as a deterrent, and states a society’s commitment to particular laws and norms. (And it usually works, too.) Not working? The easiest fix is not arrest more people, but to indicate society’s disapproval by increasing sentences for those who are convicted. </p>
<p>But I did come up with a rational alternative that would radically reduce the number of those arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned (as well as reducing the number of DUI accidents, fatalities, etc.) We won’t do it, though.</p>
<p>The problem with your theory is that the law isn’t acting as a deterrent for the repeat offender. All the law is doing is wasting a ton of resources criminalizing a bunch of people who are not alcohol abusers or need to be incarcerated.</p>
<p>The reason why your idea won’t work is because the public doesn’t support it. You would have to ram it down their throats. Whether you like it or not, millions of people drink and drive. You can shoot people convicted of DUI’s and it won’t change this reality.</p>
<p>Absolutely–all I’m saying is that I think the sentence was effective. It’s very possible that a lesser sentence (probation and community service, plus the 1-year license suspension and $4,000 fine he received in addition to the jail).</p>
<p>" Whether you like it or not, millions of people drink and drive. You can shoot people convicted of DUI’s and it won’t change this reality."</p>
<p>Social policy can change behavior, and does all the time. A combination of better enforcement, stiffer penalties, higher drinking age, and better engineering has resulted in much, much, much lower numbers of drunk driving deaths per mile driven than 20 years ago. The reality is changed by social policy. The question is how to balance society’s interest with those of the individual, and we do that effectively now, and can likely be even more effective in the future.</p>
<p>And it can be done without shooting people. (and, I’m suggesting, even without arresting or imprisoning many of them.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just going to say I don’t believe 20% of the adult population drives under the influence every year when nearly half the population doesn’t even drink.</p>
<p>40% of designated drivers drink! I think I’m going to start staying at home more!</p>
<p>[Buzzkill:</a> Almost 40 percent of designated drivers drink - NBC News.com](<a href=“http://www.nbcnews.com/health/buzzkill-almost-40-percent-designated-drivers-drink-6C10260432]Buzzkill:”>Buzzkill: Almost 40 percent of designated drivers drink)</p>
<p>Let’s ask the posters. Who has never driven a car after having ANY alcohol (wine, beer or liquor) at a restaurant, party, wedding, anniversary, gathering of friends or any other type of celebration?</p>
<p>Not me. I’ve seen enough tragedies. I’d suggest everyone else take the 5th…and I don’t mean the bottled fifth.</p>
<p>@Lizard</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>NCDad, for most normal kids, a one year suspension of drivers license, community service, probation and a $4,000 fine would scare the living daylights out of them. Prison time is not necessary. Your son was the victim of a political agenda that makes no sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are you moving the goalposts from driving beyond the legal limit to any alcohol the day of an event?</p>
<p>Because many posters seem to have a zero tolerance policy on this issue. Also, because anyone who drinks before driving is in danger of being stopped at a random checkpoint and possibly arrested for a DUI. You may think you’re in good condition to drive but a cop may have other ideas.</p>
<p>Couldn’t you say the same thing about posters that are against cocaine use and there’s always the chance of a cop planting drugs in their car in order to boost their arrest record?</p>