1. Legislating While Drunk?

Posted by: Easycure on March 6, 2006 10:27 AM

2. I think its appropiate in the upper right hand corner of the link there's an ad for "Lost".

Posted by: A Watchdog on March 6, 2006 10:30 AM

3. Amazing that this is even referred to as getting tough on drunk driving. I'm shocked that it takes FIVE to get a felony. How about the second or third one???? Don't these people realize that so many auto accidents involve booze?? Do they not CARE about our safety on the roads? (apparently not, if it takes FIVE DUI's to get a felony)

Posted by: Misty on March 6, 2006 10:40 AM

4. Repeat DUI should come with a mandatory death sentence.

Posted by: H Moul on March 6, 2006 10:47 AM

5. I wouldn't have a problem with the law reading third DUI in five years with a BAC over 1.5, and then raise the DUI BAC threashold back to 1.0.

That addresses the problem, chronically smashed alcoholics on the roads while protecting those folks that have three or four drinks in an evening from a DUI.

And no, I've never been cited, I just think we should focus on the problem, which seems to me to be people at least two times the limit causing accidents.

Posted by: Dan on March 6, 2006 10:52 AM

6. The Washington State Trial Lawyers Association (huge Democrat Party contributors) isn't going to like the legislature jailing one of their cash cows (chronic DUI offenders) for extended periods.

Just like habitual car thieves...what is it...seven CONVICTIONS before mandatory imprisonment? Gotta keep them legal fees rolling in, folks. And we wouldn't want to send some poor, misguided gang punk to the joint without giving him a chance to reform, would we?

Posted by: Saltherring on March 6, 2006 11:21 AM

7. On behalf of drunks and libertarians everywhere, I am opposed to DWI being considered a crime, much as I am opposed to cigarette smoking in a building being a crime, driving without a seatbelt being a crime, etc. I agree that DWI is the among the most selfish and foolish of risks that a person can take. But risk-taking should not be a crime. Manslaughter and destruction of property are a crime, and being drunk at the time is not an excuse for committing those crimes. If a person commits repeated acts of manslaughter and destruction of property, then that person needs to be dealt with severely, regardless of circumstance. DWI laws are to drinking what hate crime is to assault... unnecessary.

Posted by: huckleberry on March 6, 2006 11:35 AM

8. Huckleberry,

I'm not sure the victims of those repeated acts of manslaughter would appreciate your position. The point of DWI laws is not to protect the drinker from himself, but to protect the rest of us. Behavior that directly threatens the safety and lives of others is appropriately subject to legal sanction. In privacy law this is known as the "doctrine of least harm."

Posted by: Patrick on March 6, 2006 11:59 AM

9. huck,

Drive drunk is no different than firing a gun down the street.

The punishment should be the same.

Posted by: JCM on March 6, 2006 12:03 PM

10. "Legislating While Democrat"

Posted by: Legast on March 6, 2006 12:18 PM

11. Actually, there are already statutes that, if applied in the cases of DUI, would make it a felony on the first instance. I was on a jury last summer that convicted a 17 year old of a felony for driving without de-fogging his windows.

I personally felt that was not appropriate and a serious misdemeanor would have sufficed. In any case, this same felony called "gross negligence" could be applied in every DUI case. Certainly, driving while under the influence of alcohol is as grossly negligent as driving without completely defogging your windows.

If prosecutors were not so busy chasing the latest fad (such as domestic violence, on which the Seattle police as well as prosecutors spend over 1/3 of their budget), they could use their brains and apply something like "gross negligence" in DUI cases.

So, really, the legislature doesn't need to pass yet another law in this area.

Posted by: BananaLand on March 6, 2006 12:48 PM

12. Bananaland,
you don't think the police should portect a
person from a violent spouse ? Nice.

Posted by: smeethow on March 6, 2006 01:19 PM

13. Smeethow:
With the process as it is structured now, No! In the domestic violence cases, in every instance, the police are required to arrest someone, even if no one wants to press charges. Bystanders see a couple severely arguing, call the police, one of them MUST be arrested. I call that overkill and a waste of budget.

Posted by: katomar on March 6, 2006 01:47 PM

14. Patrick, you are advocating a preemptive strike against possible threats to your future security, right? And you are on board with the Bush administration's use of that policy with respect to Saddam Hussein, too, right?

Saddam has no constitutional right to be protected from the U.S. government, and defense of America is the NUMBER ONE job of the POTUS. So I grant Bush the right to do what he did.

But the U.S. constitution does protect U.S. citizens against abuses of their civil liberties. Punishing a person for putting himself and others in a position of extreme danger is a very tricky thing. As BananaLand pointed out, there are plenty of objective criteria on the books for prosecuting people who are operating a car improperly.

Look, I agree that a person weaving and bumping into things like Bobbe Bridges did is criminal, and they ought to be locked up. But it strikes me as unreasonable search and seizure to bust somebody without them doing something. Drive the car with the headlights out, the windows fogged up, or weaving and bumping into things. MY threshold is not large, but I am concerned about charging people with crimes without them having actually harmed anybody.

JCM made some relatively uninteresting comparison to shooting a gun down the street. Running into a lamppost while drunk is like shooting the gun down the street. They should both be illegal acts that resulted from irresponsible behavior. But getting behind the wheel of a car with a blood alcohol level of .08001 strikes me as similar to (legally) just possessing a gun while on a city street. The potential for mischief in both cases is the same.

I want irresponsible people taken off the streets as much as, or more than, the next guy. But I insist on the offenses being obectively measured, not just having the threat for being more dangerous. It is a dangerous precedent.

Posted by: huckleberry on March 6, 2006 03:07 PM

15. JCM,

What is the penalty for shooting a gun down the street? What is the penalty for killing someone with your car while driving drunk? Should they be the same penalty?

Huck

Posted by: huckleberry on March 6, 2006 03:09 PM

16. Patrick,

DWI is not manslaughter. DWI is operating a motor vehicle on a public street while intoxicated. DWI is stupid and dangerous, but does not in and of itself harm anyone.

Posted by: huckleberry on March 6, 2006 03:13 PM

17. Huckleberry just made this post a lot more interesting!

Posted by: Reporterward on March 6, 2006 05:29 PM

18. FIVE? wow--pretty generous; do they have a big voting block? this will end with the first legislator's spouse, mistress or kid killed by a drunk with the gory blanket over the mess on nightly news; boom--fastest bill passage in the West without 'emergency' clause;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on March 6, 2006 09:17 PM

19. In Oklahoma DUI is a misdemeanor on the first offense. Second offense in 10 years is automatically a felony. Jail time for the first couple of felony convictions is 5 days for the 1st, 10 days for the 2nd. This is the minimum time although time in a treatment center can negate that. This is all dependent on the severity of the offense and the jury. So 5 times in seven years is a lot more genorous to me.
Part of the reason Oklahoma went to this was the y would give someone a fine maybe a couple days in county lockup and suspend their license for a period. Well, these people would just turn around and go driving again without a license and DUI. After a few people got killed because of this they decided more needed to be done. They are now contemplating seizure of the vehicle.
Regards,
anomdragon

Posted by: anomdragon on March 7, 2006 12:14 PM

20. I have 1 ? question for these Dems. What is their excuse for taking this weak kneed stance!!!! (And Ido mean excuse because I belive that is allthey are capable of!!!

Posted by: Laurie on March 7, 2006 12:46 PM