My DUI Solution: Please pick apart.

Recognizing that alcoholism is an addiction, and that such addictions are difficult to beat, I am not comfortable with putting people in prison for something that is based at least in part on an uncontrollable urge. Thus, I offer this solution to the problem of drunk driving, which is a danger to society at large.

On first offense, where there is neither property damage nor personal damage, the defendant must complete 300 hours of therapy within 180 days, at least 168 of which must be in-patient, residential treatment, completed within 45 days. Additionally, 300 hours of community service must be completed within 180 days, and pay all court costs and fines. AA is not acceptable therapy, as it has a success rate of 5%. (Yes, I am basically asking that the individual go to some sort of therapy on a nearly daily basis. Yes, it will be expensive. However, it is not nearly as expensive as spending one's next 5 years in prison for vehicular manslaughter and the rest of one's life living with the knowledge that one killed.)

The driver's license is changed to the same format as an under 21 license for 12 months, thus making alcohol impossible to purchase for 12 months. Anyone providing alcohol to the person would be subject to the same penalties as for providing alcohol to a minor.

On first offense, if there is property or personal damage, the restrictions of non-damage first offense are added to the second offense system.

On second offense, or first with damage, an additional 336 hours of residential treatment, and an additional 262 hours of out-patient therapy completed within 270 days. Additionally, an additional 450 hours of community service must be completed within 270 days, property damage must be compensated if any, as well as court costs and fines.

If there has been no property or personal damage, the license plates on all vehicles the defendant has access to must be changed to DUI plates, to let others know that this is a person who has not been able to call a designated driver in the past, and at any erratic driving patterns, DUI enforcement should be called. Everyone on the road, therefore, is likely to keep an eye on the defendant.

The license is changed permanently to the under 21 format, and anyone providing alcohol to the person will be charged with the same violation as providing alcohol to a minor.

If, at that point, there is a third offense, the license is revoked, the defendant must report to a 6 month, inpatient, minimum security DUI and behavioral modification program that combines both prison and treatment. No license will ever be issued again, the person must register workplace and home addresses, and live with adequate access to public transportation for the remainder of his/her life. A DUI3 must be reported to his or her credit, so that it shows up if s/he decides to try to buy a car.

to prohibit selling alcohol to an over 21 adult.

Um, did you mean to post this in the Lounge? just curious.

I don't think it's serious enough for GD...

no, I tell a lie.

I'm afraid to go in there much.....

And yes, it would take a huge legal change, which would show our commitment as a community to the use of alcohol responsibly. But we need something.

People with revoked liscenses drive all the time, they never get caught.

not really, but it would probably work.

That violates the Bill of Rights. No cruel and unusual punishment.

Besides, <begin sarcasm> have you seen the tax breaks one gets for being blind? And you get all of your audio books for free, and there are a lot of cool gadgets for the computer, too. </sarcasm>

groups like that behind it.

I take issue with your basic premise.

It's not an addiction, and I don't care how many people maintain it is. There's a concept in the law called "irresistible impulse," but it's no excuse to commit bad acts and I would argue that it doesn't hold here.

It's voluntary, that's what getting drunk is. Dressing it up and calling it a "disease" or an "addiction" is a great way for rehab centers to thrive financially, but I maintain that the drunk makes a choice, and that choice is to pick up the glass or the bottle.

Too many people for too long have been excused and their offenses mitigated because of this ill-conceived notion that the actors aren't really responsible for their acts.

They are. And, I for one, am just tired of it.

My belief, after years of seeing the damage done by drunks behind the wheel, is that they be given hard jail time for the first offense.

a disease.

A diabetic can make the choice to consume sugar and black out while driving. Also deserves hard time.

A diabetic cannot do a thing about how his pancreas works. It's beyond his control, and he is forced to take insulin in order to live.

By contrast, a drunk chooses to drink. He won't die if he doesn't drink.

Yes, diabetics screw up their insulin and their sugar intake, but if you think they deserve hard time for making an error in medicating themselves, you've completely missed the point I tried - and obviously failed with you - to make.

substance, don't screw around with it.

Alcoholism IS a disease. There is a reason why some people can handle drinking and some can't, just like some can handle sugar and some can't.

A drunk drinks. He wants to, he does it freely and voluntarily, and he is then responsible for the consequences.

But, if someone who is diabetic knows that his blood sugar is unstable and drives a car in the face of that medical fact, yeah, I'd hold him just as responsible as someone who knows that drinking and driving is dangerous.

A couple of years ago, a diabetic man in suburban Maryland, outside Washington, DC, who had a history of not taking his insulin and causing accidents when driving, and who had had his license suspended because of it, chose to drive one sunny Saturday morning. He went into either insulin shock or diabetic coma, and hit another car.

In that car was a father, who was also a minister, and his three teenage sons. They were all killed.

The driver is in the slammer now, which is just where he should be. He chose something, just as a drunk chooses to drink, and he did harm.

It's about choice. Drunks choose. The aforementioned diabetic chose. They both deserve hard time.

when they should know that are not fit to be driving - too tired, not medicated enough, drunk, gabbing on the cell phone while reading the paper and trying to run the car with the KERRY sticker off the road.

Cars are huge ass lethal weapons, and should be treated as such.

If you can't be responsible with it, then you shouldn't have it.

That's what my mom taught my about my toys and my priveleges when I was a kid, and I think it's a damned good idea.

If you can't respect it, then you don't get it. If you abuse it, you get equally fucked back.

It's TOTALLY a choice to be asshole. And SHOULD be punished.

There are physiological changes however, that lead to something that looks like physical addiction in the chemistries of those who drink compulsively. (Or use any drug that can lead to physical dependence, for that matter.) The brain produces lower levels of endorphins, leading to physical symptoms upon withdrawal of the drug. For those with a physical dependence, however they acquired it, mitigating the symptoms with continued dosage of the substance is frequently less painful and therefore more likely to happen than living through the days or weeks it takes for the brain and body to get back to something resembling equilibrium.

However, yes, the decision to pick up the drink instead of living through the detoxification process is an individual choice. I'd prefer that each person had a social, financial and emotional life that allowed him or her to not have to resort to self-medication, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon....

I just don't think that jail time does any good for things like this. The kids I worked with who came out of jail were usually just better trained, harder and less reachable criminals, less likely to get caught the next time and less likely to care. Jail is only a threat to middle class people who have something to lose, like a job, a home or a family. It's not a threat to the rich, for whom nothing is going to change when they get out; they'll be able to go back to whatever life they had with no real worries. For many of our poorer members of society, jail is a more secure and comfortable environment than they had on the outside; you can't get evicted from jail, and you don't run the risk of coming home to the lights being off.

I believe that prisons are there to punish. And people who drive drunk, even kids, are using a huge and dangerous instrument to put others at risk.

Would I be any more lenient with someone who brandished a loaded gun while running around in a crowd? No, I would not. They're both endangering others, and, in my experience in the legal game, I saw up close what drunks do when they get behind the wheel of something that weighs over a ton, is made out of metal, and goes really fast.

I also believe society changes when drastic measures are taken, and I think that the attitude towards drunks would, indeed, change if the punishment fit the crime. Prisons are about punishment, not rehabilitation, and I don't think it takes a whole lot of education or rehabilitation for someone to know that you don't drive when you're drinking.

My issue is that I've seen far too many people - kids and adults - come out of the system in worse shape than when they went in, more likely to harm others, less likely to care.

That's not a good world for anyone. From a rather selfish perspective, it harms me, and others like me, when we have to pay for more prisons, more social services to take care of the children of prisoners who would otherwise starve or freeze on the streets, and more enforcement to watch over parolees and probationers, because it increases our tax burden. I'd much rather that people in trouble with the law be able to meet their financial and familial obligations instead of making others do so for them. (I'm also a fan of house arrest for this reason, as long as the crime was neither violent nor domestic in nature.)

Punishment is fine - that's the community service aspect. Most people are not interested in wiping up geriatric feces or picking up trash or pulling noxious weeds as a hobby. I think the place we're missing each other when it comes to education and rehabilitation is that "you don't drive when you're drinking and you don't drink when you're driving" is too narrow. Most of those I've had in my office for public intoxication offfenses don't recognize that their behavior affects others. (Amazing, huh? The mind boggles...) That's where the education comes in - getting the message through that one lives in a society, not on a one-person island.

I think far too many people are in prison for victimless crimes, and I also think all drugs should be decriminalized and legalized. That would empty out a hell of a lot of prison cells, and cut our expenses as taxpayers, not to mention probably improve the nation's economy when herb and coke are available OTC.

That said, I still maintain that people who do things that endanger others, or who actually harm or kill others, should do hard time. Rehabilitation is for when they're released, after serving their time. And I don't favor parole for anyone, ever.

And I'm a leftie. I've just seen too much damage done by self-obsessed kids and adults who need to learn a lot their parents should have taught them, and perhaps these rather Draconian solutions that I now believe in would be the beginning of parents doing their job and kids having some respect for the power of alcohol, the power of automobiles.

But, hasn't this been a remarkable and rewarding thread? Thank you for your contributions. It's been a pleasure.

Like anything done repetitiously will eventually become engrained into your routine. Habits are harder to break than addiction. Since alchohol is not an addictive substance, the treatment needs no be handled much differently than rehab, but does require the will of the person who is trying to break the habit to succeed. Simply put, if someone doesn't WANT to quit. They can't.

I do like the idea of the DUI licence plates. Those could be very effective actually. Public scorn and shame is actually very effective deterrant.

not weaving, not speeding, not endangering a soul gets stopped for something unrelated (a broken tail light or expired tags or whatever) or is involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, but the cops detect a faint whiff of the wine the person had with dinner

and you think they should go to prison?

And if one has a restriction on it, such as an age limit, then they both do.

I admire your creativity, but the fact is that people under the influence of alcohol sometimes kill other people. Personally if someone killed one of my boys or my wife, I would want to see this person placed in such a place that a second such offense is not possible. I'm sure that many who have actually experienced such an unimaginable tragedy feel the same way.

I am not, in general, in favor of criminal sanctions for drug abuse, but on the other hand, we need to be cognizant of the fact that vehicular homicide is still homicide. The person who commits such murder demonstrates depraved indifference to society, whether or not his judgment has been impaired owing to some mental disease state.

The prison system as constructed in the United States is cruel and unusual, but it does have the effect of removing predatory people from the population. While I am all for prison reform, and all for rehabilitation, I don't think that the abuse of alcohol (or similar drugs that happen to be illegal) can be tolerated on the roadways. Criminality is still involved.

That just seems obvious. If I kill someone with my car, my chainsaw or my gun, the means of doing so does not change the fact that someone is dead, and that case should be treated as a homicide, not as a logging crime, a traffic crime or a gun crime. It's not the means, it's the death.

My issue is getting those off the road before they kill people, and getting them into a behavioral modification program to (please forgive the word) re-educate and rehabilitate before their actions cause death.

I could be reading this wrong but some are just dumbasses that drank too much. Doesn't mean they are an alcoholic, so I'm not sure making them go through therapy is necessary. (though they have to pay a price some how)

I was disabled by a drunk driver in '85. I'm thinking making people who drive drunk do a couple hundred hours in a rehab hospital having to help drunk driver victims walk, eat, anything they can no longer do because some asshole drank too much and had to drive home. Also some time in a morgue with bodies of dead drunk driving victims.

Let them see it first hand what they are capable of.

that excessive consumption of a mind-altering chemical (and there are times I'd class Benedryl in here) and the operation of heavy machinery are incompatible are incapable of recognizing that their actions have a greater impact on the community at large and are in need of education in being a good community member.

I'm not saying that someone who is drunk is an alcoholic. I am saying that that person does not consider that his or her actions have an impact on others, and that is not healthy. That's why I want therapy tailored to the behavior, including things like discussions with people who have been affected by other drunk drivers, morgue visits, empathy development, and training in the ability to think ahead.

God forbid me defend a drunk driver, but I don't think it's cut and dry to assign the same type punishments for all offenders. For those who don't see how this behaviour could hurt others.. then by all means they need therapy.

Therapy for someone who just overdid it at a party is a waste and won't do anything if they don't have a real problem to correct. They most likely will learn the lesson from the arrest, fines and any the community service I talked about. Looking at a dead mangled body will work for most people.

Those who are habitual or obviously have a problem should get some kind of behavior help - I agree.

Either way we agree it's an issue to be taken seriously.


on edit: I didn't bring up taking away their license and all that because those who are truly assholes will either just drive anyway or use someone else's car. in those cases they can rot in jail for all I care so they don't fuck up someone's legs like what happened to me

Which means we need real lawyers willing to really work on these types of issues, and pre-trial assessments, and all that stuff that gets dropped out of the legal system because there's not enough money in it.

Thanks for being rational about this, Nini.... Your input is very valuable to me, not in the least because you have a very good reason to be of the "lock 'em up" variety.

My condolences, and I wish I had a time machine....

your excessively punitive penalties might be appropriate for repeat offenders.

I think first offenses are treated far too harshly in most parts fo the country.

I also think statutory blood alcohol levels are far too low.

You are aware that 600 hours of alcohol programs and community service in 180 days would require most people to quit one or more of their jobs or to abdicate their responsibilities to their families? Many states currently require 8 hours of "treatment" and 24 hours of community service. Loss of driving privileges in this country is a very severe penalty in and of itself.

I don't believe every person who gets behind the wheel while drunk is an alcoholic. I do believe that every person who gets behind the wheel while drunk has a lowered capacity for understanding the consequences of his/her actions, a lack of understanding of the social contract and the requirements of being a good citizen, and likely a lack of concern for others in general.

Yes, I do realize how heavy this is. It's an hour a day of treatment after the first week of residential, and equals out to about two hours a day of community service. It serves a dual purpose - since community service can also serve as job training, it's a way to train someone who has no other skills for a better life, and it serves to put roadblocks in the habitual party concept of life that may lead people to drive drunk. If a person is spending 9 hours a day at work, three at therapy or service, and four with the family, there's not much time for hitting the bars, is there? 8/24 is not doing the trick, so upping the requirements - without resort to prison - might.

The issue is that loss of driving privileges don't work. People continue to drive without a license.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

And I'll leave the forfeiture of assets to the DEA. They do a very good job at it. :sarcasm:

Further, I consider your response insulting and derogatory. You obviously have no experience with those returning from prison, nor with understanding how it affects others in their lives. It does damage to far more than just the one person who was incarcerated.

Alternately, DWI is not like smoking; it's not a personal choice that some people dislike; it's playing with a 2000+ pound loaded weapon. It's not something that can and should be treated lightly.

My concern is harm reduction. Putting people in prison does not work. When they re-enter society, they are less able to fend for themselves and their families legally because they are less able to get an appropriate job; many positions have a prison record as an automatic disqualifier. This causes recidivism; when one can't work, one will steal. If it does not cause recidivism, it tends to increase the number of people who must appeal to the social services systems, and that is at least as humiliating.

Behavior modification does work, and it prevents the break-up of families. Mom/Dad doesn't have to go to jail 200 miles away and s/he's no longer out driving while intoxicated. Any issues s/he has that are unrelated to the specific incident can be resolved (in theory).

I don't think you want to think about; I think you just want to spout off one-liners and crass remarks.

I think you are moralizing excessively about first-time DUI that does not involve injury.

No one should drive while impaired. Period. But some people do and will. Judging from your posts, you don't understand who the people are who are charged with DUI or how many of them there are. You don't have to be noticeably innebriated or falling down drunk to be over the legal limit. Many, perhaps most, DUI citations result from stops that are unrelated to driving impairment, that is, people who pose no danger to others due to intoxication. Those getting DUIs represent a complete cross section of the population--all adult age groups, income levels, education levels, professions . . . If every person driving over the legal limit were magically caught this weekend, there would be MILLIONS of people in your punishment program. As it is, tens of thousands are caught on a typical weekend. Most of those people neither need nor would benefit from your proposal. Most of them have never committed any other kind of offense. By definition, they have never been DUI before. Many of them would have their lives needlessly ruined under your proposal.

Remember, we are talking about first-time, no injuries.

If a drunk driver kills or seriously injures someone, they should be charged accordingly. If a person becomes a repeat offender, they should be charged accordingly.

I think your proposal is ridiculous, frankly.

And you have made your opinion quite clear without offering any constructive criticism, only insults.

It was a HUGE issue in local elections in November, and I've been on both sides of the issue for a very long time. My county plea-bargains out something like 60% of 1st time, no damage offenses. I am not saying that plea bargains cannot continue to be used; I'd estimate from local statistics (since there are few repeat offenders locally) that the process of getting caught, getting booked, getting a lawyer and doing the fines, plea bargain and keeping out of court is enough to prevent most re-occurrence. However, the local stats show that the 40% who do not plea-bargain don't feel that they did anything wrong at all. 25% of those come back from trial as innocent. So 30% (of all 1st time, no damage offenders, 75% of those that go to trial) however, did something wrong and feel they were entitled to do it. That's 21,000 cases in Boulder County a year. (The DA who went up against Beauprez in November got smacked because he allowed 70% of his DUI cases to go to plea-bargain, and thus was called "soft on crime." We did a lot of research on similar issues in Boulder county, because our DA was up for re-election, but we ended up not needing it.)

There's something wrong with the system and the culture when 21,000 people a year of 291,000 in the county (right at 7%, rounding) feel it's okay to drive while legally drunk. I know that it's not the obviously drunk that are getting caught as 1st, no prop. It's those who don't realize how risky their behavior is and how easily they can harm others.

However, look at your own statement - if every person was caught, it would be millions. That means that millions of people every day think it is perfectly acceptable to get behind the wheel of very heavy machinery and drive while impaired. It doesn't take someone being falling down or completely inebriated to be a danger - just increasing reaction time can be enough to be a danger to others. That's where I have an issue: people who do consider it acceptable to drink somewhat and drive don't realize how dangerous they can be. It is a basic lack of consideration for others and willful consent to put one's own desire to not come back for the car in the morning above the safety and public welfare of others. It's really no different than complaining about driving while talking on the phone or doing other activities.

What do you see as ruinous in this program? Specifics? How would you re-work it? Are you saying that the first time offender gets a pass? I'm willing to entertain the concept that people can screw up once and be forgiven for it; twice is being irresponsible and displaying self-interest above concern for community.

I hope now we can have a civil conversation that leads to constructive comments.

you say, "That means that millions of people every day think it is perfectly acceptable to get behind the wheel of very heavy machinery and drive while impaired."

I disagree. It means millions of people get home just fine and no one gets hurt, nothing gets damaged. Millions are not "impaired" in any reasonable sense of the word. They may have a blood alcohol level over an arbitrary, statistical limit (one that is clinically lower than it ought to be in my opinion), but they are able to drive safely. Criminalizing this behavior is as wrong as penalizing minor drug crimes.

The plea bargain for a first offense in Colorado is usually 24 hours of community service, an 8-hour alcohol program, suspended privileges for 3 months (on top of an additional suspension of 3 months by the DMV), and up to a $1000 fine. This is the LEAST a first-time offender faces.

This is not punitive enough for you? Families that are already stressed each month to barely make ends meet, with both parents working, sometimes multiple jobs each, are faced with an average of $5000 additional expense, very possibly the loss of one or more incomes, hundreds of dollars in added transportation expenses, frequently much longer times spent using public transportation to get around (and therefore less time to spend parenting). Even your own Boulder stats (Boulder is a demographically atypical county BTW) show that the recividism rate for DUI is low.

Drunk driving is hugely wrong. No one should do it. But I think current penalties for first-time offenders who don't hurt anyone are already plenty stiff and I don't think we need your draconian solution to make them more effective.

All kinds of drivers are a menace: chronic speeders, people who drive needlessly gas-guzzling vehicles, people who are just plain shitty drivers, cell phone talkers, chronically aggressive drivers, eaters, readers, makeup appliers, people who drive unsafe vehicles . . . I see every one of these every time I drive on the freeway. Singling out one category of hazardous driver for special punishment is arbitrary and doesn't solve the root problem.

...Who were driving down a highway with their son and his wife. A woman was applying her make-up in her rear view mirror - on the way to church, no less - and she lost control of her car, jumped the median, and went through their front windshield. She decapitated one of our friends, and crushed the other...

I think, statistically, we could handle a lot of this, if we simply had a quality mass transit system in this country, and I'm surprised its getting so little mention on this whole thread. I've been to Europe, and there are many areas where to have a car, is even an encumbrance, because there are so many alternatives. Like trams, undergrounds, real bus systems, rail systems, water taxis, and it goes on and on...

If this country would invest in our infrastructure, as much as first world countries do, I'll guarantee, that it would statistically reduce the incidents of DUI's, simply because people would have other means of transportation.

It is virtually impossible to be a productive member of most communities in the US without an automobile.

I can drive downtown from my house in 20 minutes during rush hour.

Public transportation takes 90 minutes for the same trip.

If I commute to the other large business area in this city, driving takes about 45 minutes at rush hour. Public transportation takes 135 minutes each way.

DUI is likely to go the way of the dinosaur anyway.

Why did you have my "go all the way" post removed?

EOM

takes more drunks off the road than a MADD meeting ever will...

:(

I wish they would put their actions where their political lobbying power is. It seems like logical extension of their activities, but then again, it involves real work and community service, so it's unlikely that they will. (As it stands, I am no fan of MADD. They're all about longer sentences, more punitive action, could give a rat's ass about rehabilitation and harm reduction.)

<begin smartass> Of course, I can see what it might be like: Intoxicated party in the back seat, Mom in the front of the minivan, the cold silences, the sniffs of approbation, the exasperated sighs.... My mother would be a deterrent to anyone. </smartass>

they just want their kids back (good luck) and seem to think legislation will cure everything (again, god luck)

I think your need to re-state your premise.

PS: Not everyone who get hauled in for DUI is even drunk. I got handcuffed and taken in for failing the "field sobriety test" not because I was drunk (.018 level, less than 1/4 of the limit), but because I have MS and cannot walk a straight line stepping heel-to-toe. Yes, I advised the cop that I couldn't do that, and why.

Further: I wasn't even driving. My car had broken, and I was walking home.

Yes, I have had a family member killed by a drunk driver.

But come on. Not everyone who just happens to have one too many before driving (that does happen) needs to be humiliated.

Redstone

At level one, there is no humiliation unless there's damage to others. Of course, there is a trial involved, since we still have innocent until proven guilty, and in cases where a field sobriety test (which are going away, as portable puffs are becoming cheaper) is failed for reasons similar to yours, medical records at hearing or trial should result in an innocent verdict.

For the record, my father was in a position similar to yours - he was pulled over because he had a blown tail light, had just had surgery for bone spurs in his feet, and had been at my grandmother's, putting out beer for the slugs. He was perfectly sober, but staggered/limped, smelled like beer, and was driving an incomplete vehicle. Yes, he was taken in. However, at his trial, he was found innocent. That should have been your case. I'm not talking about pre-trial punishment. That is illegal.

if you get drunk and get behind the wheel, you are putting people's LIVES in jeopardy and you should be punished harshly. like jail for a long, long time. you get no reprieve for that.

that is a great idea but not everyone is carded. What about older drinkers who are not asked for ID to purchase booze?

When it's a choice between carding everyone (and making a lot of people's nights :-) ) or potentially getting fined for selling to minors, it's an easy choice.

Why is it so difficult to require liquor stores and bars to card everyone? The sign on the door says that you must have proof of age to purchase; the difference is that instead of applying the rules selectively, they're applied to everyone.

At clubs, the question is moot because ID is checked at the door. If you're inside, you're clear.

But hey I am 51 and I haven't been carded in so long I can't even tell ya.

your night!!

My friends tend to do it because they love the grins as much as because it protects them.

Who can resist being thought to look under 30, after all?

but no one can ever think I look under 30. Unless they are blind.

Plus a HUGE fucking fine and jail time equivalent to what a charge for attempted murder of 100 people would be.

Get caught a second time, which means you are not only driving drunk but also driving without a license, and, in my ideal world, the cop would execute you on the spot and get you out of society. Obviously, this is not practical, and highly unconstitutional. Nor is putting a person in prison for their entire life practical - that's too damned expensive, and there's no reason that an asshole sociopath who refuses to agree with the social contract should be supported for the rest of his/her life. So, I say take 'em out to the Sahara desert and let 'em fend for themselves.

Every once in a while, I find myself thinking that the Khmer Rouge had a good idea with that summary execution bit...............

and American Idol.

I have no interest in further enriching Wackenhut and the other private prison enterprises because prison doesn't work, especially for short (under 15 years) sentences. The only people for whom prison is a threat and something to be avoided are the middle class, people who will lose their homes and families and livelihoods if they have to go. For people who don't have anything, prison is often a relief. Food, clothing, shelter and rudimentary healthcare are often better in prison than on the outside; and in prison, one has some opportunity to gain skills. For the rich, for whom a paycheck doesn't matter, prison may be unpleasant, but it's temporary. Once out, their lives await. It's only those who have something to lose that risk anything with prison. So coming up with a consequence that is equally applicable to all is not easy, and prison most definitely isn't.

All prison does for the middle class is damage their ability to contribute to the community when they get out. It's harder to get a job, save money, have a secure life if you've been to prison. So why should we as a society be interested in anything that ultimately increases the number of people who are unable to fend for themselves? It just means that we're going to be stuck with more people either a) in need of social services for emergencies, b) more people permanently homeless, or c) people dying literally in the streets and rioting for food. I just don't see that those three options improve society as a whole. I think it puts a greater burden on the law abiding taxpayer, who must first pay for prisons, then pay for services relating to those who cannot make a life for themselves on the outside.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2986107

Check out what the driver got.........

Multiple offender: So, would no longer have access to alcohol, would have public plating (so possibly would have been pulled over before getting to the store), would not be getting a misdemeanor because of property damage, would be under registration regarding public transportation.

Where are we missing each other here? Under above system, s/he would not have had access to either a car or booze, and would not have been able to destroy anyone's property.

Sure, at this point, considering the current system, I really think s/he needs to be brought up on charges of criminal mischief, B & E (since there was a lot of breaking and a lot of entering), vandalism, public intoxication, DUI, Failure to control... preferably stacked rather than concurrent because this person is a menace to others.

I'm not lenient here - there's been property damage, and FY is going to be very lucky if her insurance rates don't go up. (I also think Drinky-winky there should be liable for any increase in insurance rates she suffers and for her deductible, but that's for her courts to decide.) However, if Drinky had been caught and zer case managed the first time, this would have been less likely to happen.

It can't be done.

People will always find ways around whatever kind of rules are laid down. That's why I've had such a fine career, that's why the prisons are jammed, that's why my colleagues and I have never lacked for clients, that's why our insurance rates are so high, it goes on and on and on.

FY will have a civil case against this drunk driver. But, what if he's not insured? FY is fucked. That's it, and you're very right - if the insurance company doesn't cancel, that would surprise me.

I do not believe in the soft and gentle approach. I believe in slamming these people hard the first time and letting them put their lives back together as best they can when they get out of prison. It would be comparable to what their victims, or potential victims, would have to do.

I'm sick of seeing the children of the thoughtless get hurt, and the victims of the thoughtless get hurt and the rest of us pay for it. The kids didn't ask for dumbasses for parents, and the victims sure as hell don't ask for it. Thus, I'm trying to come up with solutions that catch these problems while we still have a chance to grab them - early intervention instead of late.

Yes, I'm well aware that there is a minority of people who will always play around the rules. So far, they've stayed a minority; I'd like to see them become an even smaller minority by catching them early.

And who said anything about soft and gentle? The word therapy? It's not. Believe me, therapy can be as brutal as any physical punishment you can think of because our own worst enemies are the ones we look at in the mirror, and facing that person is pretty much a hell.

I got a doctorate in clinical psychology, because I thought that was where I wanted to be. Then I went to law school because it appealed to a whole different side of the world in which I lived, and because I thought I could do more good in the law. I've never regretted either decision.

Compared to the horrors that are wreaked by those who don't care to honor the rules - whatever the rules might be - therapy is a day at the beach. Yes, I do understand the depths of human pain, and my sympathy is always with people who suffer and who endure. But, none of that is any excuse for permanent destruction caused by their pain.

Granted, we're not talking her about sociopaths, character disorders, or serious pathologies that really shouldn't be walking the streets or driving on the roads. We're talking about regular people.

Regular people do the most harm. The sociopaths get the headlines, but the regular people are the most dangerous. That's been my experience. Careless, as opposed to contrived, wins in terms of numbers, every time.

It's about education and priorities. Get the drug laws cleaned up - they're absurd in light of the liquor laws, and how many people do you know caused a vehicular homicide because they were smoking reefer? - and open up those resources for incarceration and education.

After more than thirty years in this profession, I see things so much differently than I once did. I lament my loss of innocence and trust, but I do appreciate how clearly I can see with the scales of trust and hope dropped from my eyes.

I will say that the training process for shrinks has changed quite a bit in the past 30 years (even in the 10 since I started my master's program and now....) We've learned a lot about how the brain works so we aren't relying on theory as much anymore. (Yay! Death to freudian fraud!) But I digress...

You're dead right - the drug laws are ludicrous. Even though I have very personal reasons for opposing the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana, I'm in favor of it as a harm reduction method. Should it become legal, I will become a hermit, but that's a personal issue, not a societal one.

Sure, careless is far more likely to harm than intentional: thus, educating the careless and punishing the intentional. The education doesn't have to be pleasant - rarely is - but it does not have to be intentionally punitive, either. The figurative whack upside the head with the cluebat is rarely comfortable, but usually effective.

And as an aside, I'm glad you found satisfaction in your career. I considered law for about 45 seconds before grad school, realized it would make me far to cynical far too quickly (not that this profession has been much better) and put my LSAT scores away.

It's been a great help, having the training as a psychologist (I'm not a shrink, since I don't have an M.D.) to go along with the legal thing. I believe it helps me gain different insights into behavior, and, I hope, allow me to make more informed and reasoned choices.

I think what you call "cynical" is just a different perspective from what you have, and, it's entirely possible, that in years to come, you'll be surprised at what your prior views and opinions had been. That is a wonderful blessing that comes with keeping an open mind and taking in all the experiences for all they're worth.

I didn't understand a lot of your last post above, but I'm sure you made some worthwhile points, and I wish you well.

The courts? The Secretary of State? The treatment provider?

Theoretically, I can see where you are going with this, but the program administration might be so costly and complex as to make the proposal infeasible...especially if the individual falls under the three strikes area of your proposal.

The cost of imprisonment is costly, of course, but handled solely through the courts. I'm not sure if the courts could or would desire to completely administer this type of program, and if it required a multiorg cooperation, that may impose other resource costs (not necessarily money).

I don't disagree that therapeutic intervention is a better option than imprisonment.

That is a poser.

I see it as a state by state program; locally, we already have a community observation and counseling program in place that incorporates the courts, probation and parole, counseling, job training, social services, etc. Someone got smart years ago and put it all together here, but I can see how in other places that may not have happened yet.

Of course, it will take funding, and figuring out personal responsibility versus state responsibility is going to be interesting in the Chinese manner.... That's going to be a problem everywhere.

Thanks.

There was not one smilie in my post. :)

One of the biggest killers of any potential program is program administration. If the states can't figure out a way to make that work smoothly, and with as minimal a burden on the system as possible, thinsg ususally wind up sitting in committee for eons.

:) <----- overdue smilie

I "accidentally" drove under the influence of a Rx drug in a situation that is highly unlikely to repeat. The cops caught me and actually let me go. I didn't even realize what I was doing until the cops stopped me.

On edit: I was horrified when I realized what I'd done. Now I see how easily this kind of thing can happen. I never drink before driving, not even a little drop, but somehow the number of pills I took + driving didn't enter my mind as "driving under the influence." It was partly the effect of the pills that didn't let my mind consider what I was doing.

I mean, I'm a FANATIC about not drinking and driving, but I still drove under the influence. I was very, very unhappy with myself.

I made a statement that I regret about politicat's DUI idea.

I disagree with part of the proposal, not with politicat (whom I admire) or the premise that drunk driving is wrong or that treatment is preferable to punishment.

I'm a bad, bad boy. Please forgive me.

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

in this thread is that one who drives after drinking is using a large piece of heavy machinery to endanger others. Therefore, they deserve severe penalties.

By this logic, everyone who commits a moving traffic offense is guilty of the same outrageous "crime" and should be punished just as severely.

1 MPH over the speed limit on the freeway? You are speeding. That is endangering others with heavy equipment. You should lose your license forever and go to jail.

Lane change without signaling? Mandatory prison. No, make that "blind them."

one-and-a-half glasses of wine with a two-hour dinner. Bummer! That's .081 dood! Off with your head!

I don't condone drunk driving. Repeat offenders should be removed from the road however it can be done. But frankly, I'm flabbergasted at the proposed penalties here for first-time offenders, very few of whom pose serious danger to anyone and very few of whom will ever repeat their crime under the current regime of penalties.

yet he continues to drink and drive. I personally believe putting him under the jail wouldn't be good enough. He has been through program after program and nothing stops him. The only thing that will is getting himself( and possibly someone else) killed. Some people never learn. He is currently out on bail for the last 2 times, one was 3 weeks ago.