Posted: 11/7/2007 8:42:28 PM EDT
Link
I think it's absolutely insane how lightly we treat OWI in this state. Especially the highlighted topics in red. The power of the alcohol lobby. 
|
|
Wanna really get drunks attention? Make the first DUI a $5000 min fine, loss of license for 2 yrs and 6 months jail. 2nd $15000 fine, no license for 10 yrs and 364 days jail. 3rd $50000 fine, banned from driving for life and 5 yrs prison. Beyond 3, $250,000 fine and 15 yrs prison. Kill someone driving drunk, no matter if its the first or not, charged with at least 2nd deg homicide. No more falling under vehicular homicide. Driving drunk is no different than randomly shooting into a crowd. |
Fucked up as it is, I've actually seen that, and no-one got hurt.  I don't like all the license removal crap. I don't drink, but I'm not far from losing my license to speeding. It would be nice to see different attitudes to speeding and drunk driving, maybe more harsh on OWI, and less harsh on speeding. Speeding is routine for everyone, it just depends on luck who gets ticketed to death. Keep the fines, save the points for accidents. That's my opinion. I see this crap on the news, Village idiots thinking they are saving the world by volunteering to hold a speed gun in their front yard... I'll bet they exceed the speed limit too. This country needs integrity. Those people are the kind of people in jails who shank each other to death. |
|
I agree it needs to be a criminal offense the first time. I don't agree that it should be a felony the first time. Example: a high school kid is out at his graduation party and his girlfriend takes off with another guy. He having 4 or 5 beers in his system does not think (what high school kid does when it involves his girlfriend) and jumps in his car to follow them. He gets pulled over and gets a OWI as a result. This kid is now screwed for life because of a bad desicion he made in the heat of a moment. I think that if the person getting a OWI has a very high blood alcohol level and is totally sloshed then by all means throw the book at him but to screw someone for having a drink or two is not right IMHO. Lets say the goverment decides to set up two diferent blood alcohol levels one where you get a civil offense like now and if you are over a certain level then you get a criminal offense. Or even one is a misdemeanor and the other is a felony. |
|
I agree also on the no felony for 1st offense. Anyone ANYONE can screw up and make a one time mistake. It is pursuant violations that should be considered felony status. As for speeding, it seems mundane, but check out NHTSA stats on speed in relation to effect on motor vehicle crashes. Speed has a huge impact !!! Slow down, drive sober, be safe. That way you won't make involuntary donations to the state of Wisconsin or its various municipalities!!!! 
|
|
I heard in MN you get whiskey plates...like these plates that start with DW so that everyone around you knows you're a drunk driver, kind of like a public shaming. and the police can pull you over at any time without needing a specific reason. I don't know if it's true, just heard about it briefly in my AOD class. But yeah, WI is way too lax on drunk drivers...shoot, my town is getting a drive thru liquor store added on to one of our gas stations being built right now. |
|
im all for making it a fealony, the second time... who here has not driven after having one beer? im not using the proverbial "one beer" here, but with the states legal limit, and wide margin of error range that the brethalizers have... you loose your right to own a firearm because you had a beer and drove home from outback? i dont fucking think so. make it a fealony to be REALLY DRUNK and driving, and a criminal slap on the head for the one beer and driving home type. punnishment should fit the crime. |
I don't think first offense should be a felony. I also don't think first offense should be the equivalent of a speeding ticket.  A bit of information: One beer will not get anyone drunk. Well, not if it's a regular-size beer.  Here is a BAC calculator. Go ahead and calculate how many drinks it really takes to get to a .08.  Intoximeters are very accurate. They do round down very, very slightly. If you're ever arrested and are worried the Intoximeter is way off, just take the Intoximeter test and ask for a blood test as well. (They'll match very closely.) Portable Breath Testers, the ones used on the street, are not accurate enough to be admissible in court (per state law). But they are surprisingly accurate as well. |
yeah, but you can "walk" to and into a liquor store, whereas the drive thru requires "driving"...and I live in a college town(whitewater) where 10k of the 12k pop. are students and on any given night i'd say that 2-3k of the population are drunk or drinking, even more on a thursday...and the drive thru place is not within walking distance to most of them, they'd have to drive there. |
+10 on this, the intoximeters used by the police are highly accurate. Also anyone terlling you that they were convicted of OWI for only having one or two 12 oz beers is lying. Lying to you and to themself, and just lying period. |
Holy crap, it says I can do 6 beers in an hour and still be well under the legal limit. Having been hit by a drunk driver I never drink and drive but that's crazy. -JTP |
I am pretty sure you can get OWI with a 0.04 if i'm not mistaken, I think it's up to officer discretion...glenn maybe you could confirm or deny? I don't know if that's true, just another thing I heard in AOD class also, during my internship I encountered a functional drunk...he was like .14 I wanna say, almost twice the legal limit, walked fine, stood up straight, no slurred speech, ABCs fine, stand on one leg fine...BAC through the roof. called a functional drunk...apart from the fact that he was drunk driving, he was funny as hell |
So is that a yes in your book? |
was he drunk? yes. was he impaired? hard to tell, just because he could talk fine and walk fine didn't, to me anyways, mean he didn't have slowed reaction times or have impaired judgement or vision. I don't know, hard to say...so that's why I say letter of the law, over .08, he got nailed for it. we probably never would have pulled him over, except his wife called him in. |
If you're arrested for OWI (impaired driving), you'll be then requested to take a blood/breath/urine test. If that test result shows over .08 (or over .02 for 4th offense and up), you'll also receive a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration (PAC) ticket. Per state law, you can only be convicted of OWI or PAC, not both. But the penalties, AFAIK, are exactly the same. Refusal to submit to a PAC test results in revocation of your license and is more severe than taking the requested test and failing it. If your PAC comes back below .08, you can still be convicted of the OWI violation, if it can be proven you were impaired at whatever alcohol level you were at. (I know I'd be impaired at a .05. What can I say, I'm a lightweight.) However, it's very unusual for someone to come back below .10 (or especially .08 now). There are enough people significantly over the limit, and the midnight officers I know arrest enough of them that borderline PAC usually has some sort of additional story. As a hypothetical example, a .02 who couldn't stand up. The THC and narcotics probably would contribute to that. Officers, at least around here, do not try to turn .06 arrests into an OWI. And they wouldn't be permitted to go down that path without evidence of impairment. Lots of bigger fish to catch. Finally, a .14 who doesn't show glaring evidence of being "drunk" isn't a surprise. Alcoholics get practiced at hiding telltale signs. But the reaction time slows down, and the judgment gets poor. Motor control is impaired, though they've learned to compensate in some ways. But a proper field sobriety test will reveal all 
|
Feh... lightweight. I'm up to 96 oz in an hour and still have plenty of wiggle room. I was 20 years old in Chicago and didn't remember driving home one night. That was 24 years ago and the end of my drinking while driving. Or is this driving while drinking? |
I stayed an a Holiday Inn Express last night AND I have played a Cop on TV. You can perform some of the field sobriety tests and still be impared. The "bouncing eyeball" test can not be passed though... (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus or HGN Test) It is possible to get a false fail due to certain physical conditions, but I don't think that it is possible to get a false pass if the test is properly administered. I don't personally feel that DUI should be a Felony until at least the 3rd time. I do support more severe penalties though. I also support graduated penalties based on BAC. Someone who gets pulled over with a .30 BAC should receive a stronger penalty than someone who has a .08 BAC. |
|
State by state statistics on drunk driving don't vary that much. Making it more of a criminal problem isn't going to stop it. I'd like to see a break down of what BAC people were at when they caused a fatality, I would be willing to bet every cent I have that a small percentage of them were between .08 and .10, and I'd stretch that to .12-15 maybe. Like it or not, WI has a huge drinking culture and as a state lead per capita alcohol consumption in just about every category. I'm all for teaching responsibility, making the penalties stiffer is treating the symptom, not the cause. MADD has lowered the bar on what is considered drunk driving. There is no way I am significantly impaired at .08. I'm not saying the alcohol doesn't have an effect either. |
Now they want to make it .05. They will not be happy untill it is .00
|
Me too. A quick search only turned up this, see .pdf pages 130 and 133. If I can find better info I'll post it.
IMO there's a noticeable difference in impairment between .10 and .15. Whether or not I agree with them, I can respect people arguing that .08 is low enough, or that the difference between .08 and .10 isn't that great. But, IMO, above .10 the impairment starts to become significant--and very readily detectable.
How would you propose treating the cause? (I'm seriously interested.)
Effects of Alcohol at Specific BAC Levels Effects of alcohol intoxication are greatly influenced by individual variations. Some people may become intoxicated at a much lower BAC level than indicated. 0.02 — 0.03 BAC: No loss of coordination, slight euphoria and loss of shyness. Depressant effects are not apparent. Mildly relaxed and maybe a little lightheaded. 0.04 — 0.06 BAC: Feeling of well-being, relaxation, lower inhibitions, sensation of warmth. Euphoria. Some minor impairment of reasoning and memory, lowering of caution. Your behavior may become exaggerated and emotions intensified (Good emotions are better, bad emotions are worse) 0.07 — 0.09 BAC: Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. Euphoria. Judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired. You will probably believe that you are functioning better than you really are. 0.10 — 0.125 BAC: impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will be impaired. Euphoria. 0.13 — 0.15 BAC: Gross motor impairment and lack of physical control. Blurred vision and major loss of balance. Euphoria is reduced and dysphoria* is beginning to appear. Judgment and perception are severely impaired. ( * —Dysphoria: An emotional state of anxiety, depression, or unease.) 0.16 — 0.19 BAC: Dysphoria predominates, nausea may appear. The drinker has the appearance of a "sloppy drunk." 0.20 BAC: Feeling dazed/confused or otherwise disoriented. May need help to stand/walk. If you injure yourself you may not feel the pain. Some people have nausea and vomiting at this level. The gag reflex is impaired and you can choke if you do vomit. Blackouts are likely at this level so you may not remember what has happened. 0.25 BAC: All mental, physical and sensory functions are severely impaired. Increased risk of asphyxiation from choking on vomit and of seriously injuring yourself by falls or other accidents. __________________________________________________________________ Regarding .08 versus .10, I don't care that much. But here's the rationale behind the .08 laws: CDC and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services—an independent, nonfederal panel of community health experts—published systematic reviews of the literature for eight community-based interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. The reviews revealed strong evidence of effectiveness for 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws, minimum legal drinking age laws, sobriety checkpoints, and mass media campaigns (under certain conditions). They also found sufficient evidence of effectiveness for lower BAC laws specific to young or inexperienced drivers (zero tolerance laws), school-based education programs to reduce riding with a drinking driver, and intervention training programs for alcohol servers. They found insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend the use of designated driver programs. [G: yeah, because the designated drivers are usually drunk!] The systematic review of the effectiveness of 0.08% BAC laws for drivers was helpful in establishing a 0.08% standard nationwide. The review revealed that state laws that lowered the illegal BAC for drivers from 0.10% to 0.08% reduced alcohol-related fatalities by a median of 7 percent, translating to 500 lives saved annually. |
Something I read a year or 2 ago in a newspaper from one of the talking heads at MADD. .08 wasn't low enough and people were still dying and they wanted to make it .05. blah blah blah............ |
...and I can't pass one of those stone cold sober at noon on a Wednesday morning with three pots of coffee in me and nothing to drink since Saturday... No, I will still NOT tell you what's in my trunk!  OWI needs some signifigant overhauls in WI, and this comes from someone who will not hesitate to drive home after two beers with dinner. There IS a difference between that and "drinking and driving". If, God forbid, I am on the road and impared, I hope the lesson learned is a hard one, without endagering anyone else. |
From my quick look at the stats, it looks like between 4 & 6% of OWI fatalities involved folks from .08 to .10, which is about the same as fatalities where the BAC was between .01 and .079. When you go above .10, that's where fatalities happen in signifigant #s. |
You have resting Nystagmus, you can't walk a straight line, and you can't balance on one foot for ~30 seconds?
What overhaul do you mean? Also, you shouldn't be hesitant to drive after two beers (unless your a multiple offense OWI convict so your PAC is .02...) |
I'm GTG for the first one (had to look it up), the last two...
1st time criminal offense, 3 strikes you're out (and a felon) with NO time limit, add on penalties for an injury accident, etc.
Point is that I am far from an absolutistit when it comes to imbibing. |
Tell that to the family of the people who have died from drunk drivers on the road, first offense or not. Drunk driving is drunk driving. It is black and white. |
I agree. They use the same logic for rapists and child molesters too. "It was a mistake, etc.." Seriously, people need to stop complaining. If you get caught drunk driving, first time or not... you need to be locked up. If you can't handle that, then don't drink. it's simple. |
|
one factor contributing to the problem is that alcohol is so widely accepted and promoted in Wisconsin. Not being from here I have a few observations about this. Ever since I moved to WI, all I have heard is the bravado and bragging of the "we drink, it's what we do" mentality. Having enjoyed living in and traveling in a few places around this country, I find that WI does not drink any more or any less than any other place in the country. But for some reason, it's glorified here like it's some special skill. It's very strange to see as an outsider. I see people caving into drinking because they think it is expected of them at social functions. I've got extended family here that talks like they had discovered it themselves. I see it out socially, at work and everywhere else. I know I am speaking very generally, but it was the first thing I noticed immediatley when I came here. It appears to me that there IS this culture that is accepted (even promoted) and that a lot of drinking is expected in order to claim "Yes, I am from WI". I've got no problem with this and like it here, but there's times I say to myself....."Yeah, okay, enough already. I get it....you drink" It's truly strange. And by the way, per capita, (how they come up with these numbers, I'll never figure out) the biggest drinkers every year? New Hampshire. |
|
DavidK and Dipixel8: While I admire your zeal, I don't think you've thought the position through: As I suggested, making OWI a criminal offence (with real consequences) and having "add on" penalties for injury accidents or negligent homicide would take care of punishment. What I didn't explain, is that those are a solutions that don't start us down the slope to "pre crime" punishment. For instance; In a time and place long ago and far away, I left a party while intoxicated. Not being a complete dumbass, I pulled over at a rest stop to sleep it off. While this is something I'm not proud of, if I had been rousted by Law Enforcement at that point, I would have probably been charged with OWI. Based on that underage and stupid decision, that, while having the potential to cause substantial harm, did not; should I lose my right to own firearms and vote? That is exactly what you are suggesting. I have zero issue with jail time, loss of licence, and general stigmatization of Drunk Drivers, however; when we start charging folks with felonies based on what their irresponsible behavior could result in, rather than what actually occurred, I shudder to think what would happen to the folks in this HTF. Felonies for unsafe or irresponsible gun-handling. Felonies for NDs. Felonies for not anticipating where their ricochets go. Felonies for missing your intended target. Before you answer, remember that I've seen both of you shoot.   My point is that even if the spectre of a Felony conviction might deter some folks from OWI (or other "risky" behavior), it would only do so because the punishment would far outweigh the offense. Although our current drunk driving laws are an aberration, we already have too many offenses that result in felony charges. We as a free society must be very careful with how we write the criminal code, or before long we will all end up becoming criminals. |
I completely understand your position. But, the way our system is currently setup, first-time offenders basically get a slap on the wrist. This is the case with severe things such as rape, child molesting, domestic disturbances/abuse. I am not sure on the statistic but I know the percentage is high of criminal repeating the same offense. Should we let a rapist out of prison after two years because of "good behavior" ? Now, understanding your position I can easily see how you could be young, drinking at a party and then driving home and getting pulled over when you even though drunk were in no danger of hurting anyone... I can understand not giving him a felony. BUT, he shouldn't be drinking in the first place. There is NO need to go to parties, get drunk and then drive. It was his/her decision afterall to attend the party, consume enough alcohol illegally to get drunk, and then drive home or wherever the whole time knowing it is illegal and could possibly kill/hurt someone because of their state. I fail to see how they should be given a freebie. If you want to drink... drink at home, or if you do go to a party... spend the night. NO reason to even drink underage. If you are going to drink underage, do it legally and with a parent (at home)
|
|
FWIW Several years ago i was stopped (thankfully) by police and issued a few tickets: DUI- .28-(they were ready to send to hospital) i cant even get that number on the BAC calculator. reckless driving improper lane usage failure to use turn signal failure to stop for red light no proof of insurance (too drunk to find) 6 tickets in all. numerous courts fines - upwards around $1000 lawyers fees-- upwards around 1000 counseling once a month for 6 months-i had to pay for suspended license for 3 months Dui school-once a week for an hour- i had to pay for i Have never been behind a wheel after drinking since. I am a 1st and only time offender. I thank the Lord every time i think about that night. Me a felon??? i'm not criminal, i would rather think that i am not. Just a fellow who used poor judgment one night. |
I am that family. I lost my father to a drunk May of 2006. I hate drunks and drunk driving. Did before, much more so now. The prick got sentenced to 38 months in jail, he served 12, went to boot camp and got early release under supervision. Oh yeah he got his DL Back too. The fact is ANYONE can fuck up and get an OWI. The nature of alcohol is to relax inhibitions. The first time should be a criminal offense, not a felony (unless you are involved in an Injury accident). There should be jail, fines, and DL revocation. All following offenses should be felony in nature. Truthfully, if we wanted to bring drunk driving to a screaming halt, the vehicle should be seized, whether it is their car or not. That would stop drunk driving. Period. Also there are almost no consequences to driving on a suspended or revoked DL in this state. |
eh, I think comparing a drunk driver to a rapist is a bit harsh...a drunk driver hasn't necessarily killed anyone "yet". I would compare it to a guy walking down the street with a baseball bat...he hasn't assaulted anyone, yet, but he has a better chance of harming someone seriously than if he had no bat. and I certainly wouldn't want a felony for carrying a bat...even if I was a bit menacing looking. I don't know about the whole "slap on the wrist" first time though, glenn correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought I remembered during my internship everyone who got OWIs when we were gettin' em were getting $1,000.00+ in fines...which is hefty...one kid who was 19, a BAC of .04 had I think over 1500+ in fines. I don't consider that a slap on the wrist...and as far as statistics go, I know that most fatalities happen from first time offenders, but in the same token, most first time offenders will never become second time offenders. But, most repeat offenders don't get into fatal accidents. and, if a person does cause an injury or fatality because they were drunk driving, they don't get slapped on the wrist, they get manslaughter or some other form and are sent to jail w/ a criminal offense. |