blog advertising is good for you
Drive Drunk Twice, Become A Felon, Lose Your Vehicle
Posted May 13th, 2008 by James Rowen
Wisconsin needs to more assertively use its drunk driving laws to protect the innocent rather than enabling repeat offenders.
It has to treat repeat OWI offenders the same way it deals with people who discharge firearms in public without regard for other people's safety: Lock 'em up and don't give their gun back.
It's a three-step reform of OWI laws, tougher than what is proposed by some legislators:
1. Criminalize a first offense, making it a misdemeanor, and no longer a ticket. Treat that first offense seriously. And make it clear that when it comes to OWI, two strikes and you're out.
2. Turn a second offense into a felony and make vehicle confiscation mandatory. That's how you help a repeat offender see sobriety as desirable and also how you profoundly help deter others from a first or second offense.
3. Turn one or two vehicle confiscations every month or so into very public salvage yard crushings, then auction off the other seized vehicles and turn the proceeds over to law enforcement to help finance equipment purchases, or operating expenses of check points and other anti-OWN actions.
It's the least that the state can do to honor the memory of the three recent fatalities in Oconomowoc, allegedly by a thrice-convicted OWI offender who had been given undeserved several weeks of freedom by a Waukesha County Circuit Judge - - and no vehicle confiscation - - before the sentence for that third OWN was to begin.
A posted argument elsewhere is here.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
You're way off base.
I think that is the dumbest-ass thing I've ever heard. Are you even aware what happens to someone when they are over the legal limit (which by the way is only some assumption of what "drunk" means) and they are arrested.
Many lose their jobs, pay exorbitant attorney fees, pay for classes (which help no one). The whole OWI thing is OVERRATED. It's a money maker and helps very little. More and more research is showing VERY LITTLE if any difference in reaction time between being at the legal limit for drinking and driving and being tired and driving, or being emotionally upset and driving, and the like.
There's also more and more evidence to show alchohol doesn't affect everyone same. So the generalizations you speak of are foolish, vicious and uncalled for. It's sounds to me like you believe that in fact everyone who drove over the legal limit should be treated like they almost killed someone, NO MATTER THE FACTS. Much of the MANTRA concerning "drunk drivers" is propaganda.
Doing more stupid things THAT DON'T WORK won't help anything. Is a seriously drunk person a dangerous driver..? YES. But everyone who is arrested for "drunk driving" isn't necessarily even DRUNK, they are however "at or over the legal limit". This in and of itself does NOT NECESSARILY make them dangerous to ANYONE.
The LAST thing we need is more "tough on crime" crap. You want them to get "tough on crime", get all the rape cases processed and then investigated. Instead of some petty joe who driving home after a few beers.........
YOU are way off base
Drinking and driving claims many lives each year.
If you feel "just fine" when your blood alcohol content is above the "legal limit" for intoxication (.08 in Wisconsin) then obviously your tolerance has been built up to the point where you feel "normal" when legally you're intoxicated.
Maybe you should be evaluating your drinking habits rather than posting comments here?
Just a thought...
First of all you are making
First of all you are making assertions based on PROPAGANDA. I am speaking of this comment:
"If you feel "just fine" when your blood alcohol content is above the "legal limit" for intoxication (.08 in Wisconsin) then obviously your tolerance has been built up to the point where you feel "normal" when legally you're intoxicated."
Let's just ASSUME for a moment that your assertion here is true. Then, if in fact one can build "a tolerance" (for which I've never found a study), then in fact one would not be dangerous at the .08 level. It only stands to reason. The argument cannot be both. One is true or the other true, but not both. (Unless of course the .08 level is bogus or inaccurate, which BTW is my assertion)
For the record: NO, I am NOT a prohibitionist. On that note, my personal drinking choices are none of your damn business. And no, the fact that I do drink that "evil" known as alcohol doesn't concern me in the least. Further, I have known a myriad of decent and productive people who do the same. You would be hard pressed to convince me that the millions of people that do, are "bad" or "of ill-repute". That's just plain ol' stupid, has no basis in fact and allows the ill-informed to find "demons" where there are none.
You are probably right about
You are probably right about this, those charged need tougher constraints to don't repeat their mistake again. I am also thinking about urging them to drug treatment and make those charged to bring a solid proof for their sobriety before being allowed to drive any car. We don't lack solutions, we just lack initiative...
Post new comment