An editorial in yesterday’s Olympian discusses a proposal to elevate multiple drunk driving convictions from a gross misdemeanor to a class C felony. HB 1451, introduced by Rep. John Ahern (R-Spokane), would make a third such conviction punishable by as much as 17 months in jail; under current law the maximum penalty is a $1000 fine and 90 days.
213 peopled died as a result of drunk driving accidents in 2004. That this was the lowest number of such fatalities since 1961 does not lessen the tragedy.
But while I’m certainly not going to argue against getting repeat drunk driving offenders off the roads, I was struck by the cost of the Ahern proposal:
Locking DUI defendants up in prison is a costly proposition. According to officials with the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission, approximately one-third of those people arrested for DUI are repeat offenders. Putting three-time offenders behind bars for up to 17 months would force the state of Washington to build another 1,000-bed prison. That would cost about $225 million over a two-year budget cycle.
And that figure doesn’t include the $60-plus million per biennium to house the extra prisoners.
That’s more than $350 million of state expenditures over the next 6 years — all to lock up a thousand or so drunk drivers — and I can’t help but wonder if maybe the problem couldn’t be addressed at less financial and personal expense? That’s not the bleeding heart liberal in me talking, it’s the calculating utilitarian. Certainly there are incorrigible drunks who will never stop drinking and driving, and they need to be locked up to protect the public. But there are others who might be stopped if proper resources were made available for treatment, education and technology. For example, repeat offenders could be required to have their cars installed with devices that require the driver to pass a breathalyzer before engaging the ignition. Such technology is expensive… but a helluva lot cheaper than incarceration.
So while I agree with the Olympian that the bill deserves “additional consideration and refinement,” I hope that lawmakers make a proper cost-benefit analysis, and consider all the options, before passing expensive legislation on what is undoubtedly a very emotional issue. It may be that a little prevention is more effective and less costly than the cure.
How much is 231 innocent lives worth?
Treatment programs for problem drinkers is fine and worthwhile, but the majority of DUI deaths are caused by social drinkers who are neither alcoholics nor candidates for treatment by the standard measures. The real cause of most DUI deaths is not problem drinking but bad judgment or cavalier attitude, and alcoholism treatment programs do nothing for that.
Many people think they have a “right” to drive. They also feel they have a right to drink. Ergo, suggesting they shouldn’t drive after they’ve had a few drinks is an infringement on their personal rights to which they are likely to take offense. Our society plays into this by tolerating drinking and driving. Our laws say, in effect, it’s okay as long as your BAL is below .08. Taverns have parking lots. All the messages we send say, “driving after having a few drinks is okay, as long as you don’t have too many.” This is the grayest of gray lines. Who ever goes to a tavern, has a few, then asks himself/herself, “I wonder if I’ve had too many?”
What to do about DUIs? Suspending their licenses accomplishes little because they drive anyway. They can get around interlock devices by driving someone else’s car.
Let’s stop coddling the SOBs who are killing us. First DUI offense – you lose your license, and if you’re caught driving under suspension you do a mandatory 1 year term in a state penitentiary. Second offense – automatic jail time and your car is confiscated. Third offense – revoked for life, prison time, and if you violate the revocation you go back to prison for serious time.
Funding treatment programs is fine and something we should do, but I don’t think
I forgot to mention, when a DUI driver causes a death, let’s stop treating it as an accident and prosecute it as a murder. Vehicular homicide carries a typical sentence of what? two years? Bullshit. If somebody drives drunk and kills another person, they should go away for 20 years to life.
You’ll never find a republican who thinks investing in prison – no matter how much it costs – is a good idea. Talk about spending $1.00 per taxpayer for the arts and they’ll scream bloody murder. Talk about spending $1000 per person for a prison cell? WOW! What a great idea!
I agree that turning repeat drunk drivers into non-productive wards of the state isn’t the best public policy.
Goldy writes: “For example, repeat offenders could be required to have their cars installed with devices that require the driver to pass a breathalyzer before engaging the ignition. Such technology is expensive… but a helluva lot cheaper than incarceration.”
Even better: under current law, when ignition interlocks are ordered by the court, the driver pays the expense of installation and maintenance. We could expand that program.
Re: the comment above about evading interlocks by driving other’s cars: I don’t know what the law says about that, but I’m sure the State Patrol either has or could come up with data on how often that is a problem with the current population of interlock users.
What’s best is what works at the lowest cost. Prison is a deterrent… but the deterrent value is discounted based on the probability of getting caught, convicted, and sentenced… and in differing degrees by different populations. Here, keeping repeat DUI’ers off the roads in the first place, with interlocks, could be a low-cost direct solution to the problem, if it can be shown to work.
What about (dem) justice Bobbi Bridge? Would you lock her up , and/or where was the outrage on the left over her pretty much skating on this..
Lush @ 4
Despite the fact that your first sentence makes no sense…
Yes, I think it is far more important to put a repeat drunk driver in jail than it is to subject the public to “art” like Andres Serrano’s.
Public safety IS a primary responsibility of the government. “Enlightenment” in the form of art for art’s sake is not. Screaming bloody murder over $4.3 MILLION DOLLARS for art at a sewage plant (see Ron Sims, Larry Philips editorial: http://www.nwnews.com/editions.....orial1.htm ) is absolutely necessary. Where else are we going to get money for Ron to save the whales??
If we can’t drive drunk, how will we find our cars in the morning?
Just kidding.
How about exporting them to Canada, they have the best medical system in place to help them get well. We can sent the Canadains their SSI to pay for their treatment. Without their US Pasports the Drunks couldn’t return to repeat the crime.
Lucy @ 8
No, Lucy, you’re not kidding. You should also consider yourself lucky that there aren’t penalties for blogging drunk.
DUI’s are felonies in Canada. Canada does not allow felons into their country. That is why they ask you if you have any DUI’s when you go there, unless you are Bush or Cheney of course.
People who talk on cell phones while driving are no better than drunk drivers.
Im not even going to justify driving drunk so think about that comment before you pounce.(nor have I ever had a DWI)
Something to ponder, exept for a very few of us we have all been behind the wheel at a time or two in no condition to drive. The only difference is we didnt get caught or kill someone (luck?who knows). Presidents have been cited, senators have killed secretarys while drunk, these people have went on to become very productive members of society (we wont argue politics in this case). Now I am not saying to stop enforcing the DWI laws, all I am saying is perhaps it is time to stop take a deep breath and tell MADD to back off a bit. We dropped the state DWI standard several years ago from .015 to .010…good move! A few years ago that standard was dropped to .007, bad move, this was a money grab plain and simple.
My thoughts on this are it might be time to reinstate the .010 standard, stop concentrating on the first time DWI so hard (class C felony, give me a break). Im not saying let the culprit go but dont ruin his life. Now for repeat offenders it makes sence to step up the penalty a good bit.
Now as far as accidents with deaths involved where the person AT FAULT was legally intoxicated, manslaughter charges should be filed same as they would be for doing any other stupid shit (accidentaly mistaking a person for a deer while hunting for example). As much as people like to say driving drunk is like spraying bullets into a crowd, it isnt, it is a matter of poor choice, very poor in many cases.
One poster poked fun at 2 years served for a DWI death and called for 20 years. Think about this, would that person be any less rehabilitated after 2 years? (the courts have already ruled that prison cannot be used for punishment)
Now that I have thoroughly pissed everyone off, be aware, I have never been picked up, charged, or convicted of a drinking driving offence, but I have been constantly harrased by the drunk patrol on my way home from work at 2:00am (a wierd shift Boeing had me on for quite some time) to the point of getting pulled oner by the SAME cop 3 times in one week, at that point I called his supervisor (another joke but later).
Ivan @ 12: Worse, actually, you’d see if you watched MythBusters last night. Their driving was more impaired when they were talking on a cell phone than when they had blood alcohol levels of .075! (The only caveat is that in a pinch you can put down a cell phone; you can’t just stop being drunk.)
On my last post I errored, the state standard is presently .008 but it is still a money grab.
Chuck, what is it with you and false “facts”?
“We dropped the state DWI standard several years ago from .015 to .010…good move! A few years ago that standard was dropped to .007, bad move”
The legal limit is .08, not .007. 007 is James Bond.
And at just under .08, you’re still an awful (read: dangerous) driver. You think it should be okay for people to drive with a BAC of .08, .09, .099? Nuts to that.
David@17
Guess what David, if the officer feels you are too anebriated to be behind the wheel at less than the state level you still get charged…
David@16
What is it with you and your failed ability to read the post where I corrected myself?
That’s “inebriated,” champ. Yes, you’re right; but if your BAC is well below the limit, a DUI charge won’t stick.
Chuckie @ 19: you must have posted your correction a couple of seconds before mine. Anyway, you were still off by a factor of 10, so quit your whining.
David@21
If you really want to go technical so are the state signs
David@17
Actually at more than .008 but less than .010, your judgement and reaction time arent really impaired unless you are doing something stupid like 100 mph.(I was involved in testing this when training for security with ABATE.
At the risk of interfering with this oh-so-enlightening pissing match… Chuck, .008 is not the same as .08. .010 is not the same as .10. Your correction was incorrect.
RR @ 2
It’s prosecuted under a couple of different terms; vehicular homicde, manslaughter or worse depending on the surrounding circumstances. What they’re talking about is the punishment for BEING CAUGHT driving drunk…not death due to driving drunk.
crap…the coffee hasen’t kicked in yet…my bad on the comment above, i see your point. forget i said anything.
Another TJ@24
As I already eliquently pointed out so are many of the states signs (but you got the idea…Im actually impressed)
I won’t respond to any specific posts above. I just want to make these 2 points:
1) The law, social norm, and individual behavior should conform to this simple rule: Zero drinking if you will be driving; zero driving if you’ve been drinking.
2) Give people 1 big-time warning upon the 1st DUI, and if they don’t get the message, remove them from society (clang) for the 2nd one, so they can’t hurt anyone.
chuck @ 13
okay…let me try this again (stil not caffinated enough).
can you back up a comment you made, please? (the courts have already ruled that prison cannot be used for punishment)
Thats got to be one of the dumbest things out of a courtroom…next to todays SC ruling on property rights. If Prisions are not for punishment, then WHAT THE HELL are they for? I’ve personally made the joke that their nothing but a county Bed&Breakfasts…but please!
If the prisions WERE more akin to punishment, maybe folks wouldn’t do the dumb shit that would land their asses there in the first place. Bastaeds get free cable TV, free computer access, work out facilities, clean sheets hot food…BS!
If our prisions were more like the notorious prisions in Mexcio, I guarentee folks would self rehabiliate. The stories are as bad as one can imagine…my brother spent 9 months for a bar fight…he still has nightmares or the rats!
Roger Rabbit@28
Cute idea, problem is if you do that, probably half the working population has a cool one on the way home from work (myself excluded), that combined with the mass unemployment from closure of all of the bars, add in double, even possibly quadruple prison space, you would ruin the economy (what little economy this state has)
DamnageD@29
Hey dont jump me, it was actually a statement made by a supreem court justice upon ordering Washington State to release prisoners due to overcrowding. Part of his ruling was it is inhumane to use prison as a form of punishment, it is a chance for rehabilitation (not verbatum)
I will try to find the case but if recollection seves it was in the 1980s.
I personally dont agree with it myself.
I’m not jumping you Chuck, I’m just wonder if you had something to link to on that…if not, big deal.
ya know, this makes me think…
Prisions for rehabilitation is like Zoos for freedom!
DamnageD@33
Cant dissagree with you there!
Man I sure hope the Flag Amendment passes becuase I will have a feild day! I will go to protest marches and arrest anyone wearing a tee-shirt with a red stripe, a white star, or a patch of blue on it. I will take them to an improvised jail in a metal shipping box behind a warehouse and beat them with rubber hoses. Then after several days I will release them without filing any charges. That’ll teach those Liberal scum for thinking impure thoughts! ha ha ha ha ha
DamnageD@32
Not the decision I am lookin for, but this is interesting…
http://www.aclu.org/Prisons/Pr.....#038;c=121
What a bullshit proposal. That guy should be locked up for just suggesting the idea. Morons! Thanks.
If you want to burn the flag it should be done on private property. I have no problem with anyone burning the flag along as it is not in a public place. If you cant have a religous display on public land which is bought and paid for by private donations then you cant have a burning flag either.
There is no doubt in my mind that this should take effect. Drunk driving the first time, can maybe be considered a mistake. But third strike you’re out. If you haven’t killed anyone you’ve merely been lucky.
As for flag burning, it should be allowed anywhere a regular protest is allowed. Your comparison to a religious display is just silly. I assume you are referring to the 10 commandments and other displays that have been removed from public property, there is no similarity. Thos are permanent fixtures. A sane comparison, would be your right to carry a large cross and wave it in the air to show your religion. This is something you have every right to do, although you would probably look pretty silly. Although you probably wouldn’t look as stupid as somebody burning a flag, it is, and should be, their right to be there as well.
-> Trevor
The drunk driving laws, no matter how harsh, will only affect those with something to loose. If a person has money or a professional standing, they will usually obey the law because not to do so will cost them all that they had spent a lifetime building, by either lawsuit or loss of job, among other things.
But for individuals such has this
High-speed chase ends when car slams into grocery store
it does not matter. He already had a suspended license, he probablly has no assets to forfit even if you sue him, and habitual offenders like him can always, always get a car. The choices are lock him up for life(exspensive)or execute him (9th Amendment, unconstitutional). He will only stop until he is dead or disabled. Unfortunatly, innocent people may die before this occurs.
Html did not work. here is the link:
High-speed chase ends when car slams into grocery store
http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....3115c.html
Trevor- Your assumption is wrong. You follow the news dont you? I am talking about public displays of nativity scenes or other religous displays on public property that is funded by private donations. None of the displays are permenant. The government (mostly state and local) has ruled that these kinds of displays can only be permited only if a “broad spectrum” of other religons are also represented. This is a limitation on free speech. Plain and simple. I am also glad you brough up the cross analogy. Try to wave a burning cross in Virginia and see what happens to you.. In short trevor there is no such thing as free speech. This flag burning controversy is just a way for liberals to beat there chest and show how they are the defenders of free speech.. when in reality they are full of crap.
Rufus, You are still talking about setting up nativity scenes as a display, you are not carrying them you are not there with them, you are leaving them there. No one can light a flag on fire, and leave it there, that is not free speech. I’ll agree with you on that there is no such thing as free speech anymore, the current administration has made sure of that.
Regardless, forcing some one to respect the flag amounts to forced patriotism, this is a mockery of the true patriotism in the country. Patriotism cannot be forced, it simply weakens the reslove of those who truly care about our country. I have never burned a flag in my life, and I sincerely doubt that I ever will, but restricting the freedom that the flag represents, in an effort to protect the flag itself, is a travesty and nothing else.
43
Trevor a burning flag is not speech.. it is an expresion. You are arguing over freedom of expression. My analogy is that if a town wants to let a church group set up a nativity scene it should be allowed to do so just as long as it doesnt prohibit other religous displays. This my friend is freedom of expression. If you require the town to show other religous symbols as a condition to show a nativity scene that is not freedom of expression. If a town wanted to allow some one to display a torn ripped up flag on a flag pole in a public place should that be prohibited? No. As long as no tax money is being spent on it.
Also freedom of speech has had worse times. Remember the fairness doctrine was law back int the 70’s and early 80’s until Reagon took it out.