Posted: 4/28/2011 9:49:46 AM EDT
|
AB 108
If you are convicted of an OWI offense you get charged the testing (blood, breath, urine) cost too... I think its a good one. |
|
Quoted:
I'm ok with it but I think it sets a bad precedent as it makes the ticket even more about revenue and less about safety. Next up, "use fee" for the radar equipment when you get a speeding ticket. I think that's a really poor comparison, the taxpayers should not have to pay for some drunken idiots blood testing and other crap. They should pay for it. The flip side is charge them for a crime without gathering proper proof? |
|
Quoted:
I'm ok with it but I think it sets a bad precedent as it makes the ticket even more about revenue and less about safety. Next up, "use fee" for the radar equipment when you get a speeding ticket. I disagree. Not a valid comparison. It simply adds to the accountability factor. If you are convicted, you are responsible for some of the tax dollars spent on your stupidity. Better to spend the offenders' money then yours and mine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm ok with it but I think it sets a bad precedent as it makes the ticket even more about revenue and less about safety. Next up, "use fee" for the radar equipment when you get a speeding ticket. I disagree. Not a valid comparison. It simply adds to the accountability factor. If you are convicted, you are responsible for some of the tax dollars spent on your stupidity. Better to spend the offenders' money then yours and mine. I agree with you. 
It's similar to if you take out a telephone pole, of course you should be responsible for replacing it. Same with drunk driving or any other similar situation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm ok with it but I think it sets a bad precedent as it makes the ticket even more about revenue and less about safety. Next up, "use fee" for the radar equipment when you get a speeding ticket. I disagree. Not a valid comparison. It simply adds to the accountability factor. If you are convicted, you are responsible for some of the tax dollars spent on your stupidity. Better to spend the offenders' money then yours and mine. yep I agree |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm ok with it but I think it sets a bad precedent as it makes the ticket even more about revenue and less about safety. Next up, "use fee" for the radar equipment when you get a speeding ticket. I disagree. Not a valid comparison. It simply adds to the accountability factor. If you are convicted, you are responsible for some of the tax dollars spent on your stupidity. Better to spend the offenders' money then yours and mine. If that is not a valid comparison what is, do murders get charged for forensics? Is there not already a fine? Why not increase that? Why does something else have to be invented to add on? For the record, having been hit by a drunk driver before I am not on their side. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm ok with it but I think it sets a bad precedent as it makes the ticket even more about revenue and less about safety. Next up, "use fee" for the radar equipment when you get a speeding ticket. I disagree. Not a valid comparison. It simply adds to the accountability factor. If you are convicted, you are responsible for some of the tax dollars spent on your stupidity. Better to spend the offenders' money then yours and mine. If that is not a valid comparison what is, do murders get charged for forensics? Is there not already a fine? Why not increase that? Why does something else have to be invented to add on? For the record, having been hit by a drunk driver before I am not on their side. Do you seriously think the "fine" will cover the costs of everything involved? Multiple officers, hours of their labor, gas, and then you still have not even gotten to the point of testing, medical staff's time, hospital equipment, etc... It's expensive. |
|
I'm torn. I'm all for discouraging drunk driving and have no sympathy for drunk drivers. But testing, etc., is just part of the cost of a fair justice system. So count me on the side of "give them jail instead of paying the costs of their own conviction."
Not that I'd be terribly upset if this passes, but it's not philosophically consistent... |
|
Quoted:
If that is not a valid comparison what is, do murders get charged for forensics? Is there not already a fine? Why not increase that? Why does something else have to be invented to add on? For the record, having been hit by a drunk driver before I am not on their side. Murderer convictions are not a valid comparison as murderers can easily incur costs to taxpayers exceeding $100K and that does not even include prison to the cost of forensics is just a slice of the costs. We can never even dream of recovering these costs from murderers. Drunk drivers do not getting jail for their first conviction which makes monetary sense for taxpayers. Jail costs far more than a simple medical test and jail can cost some people their jobs so they will be less able to pay the fines in a timely manner. Think of paying for your test as just a little more deterence factor. There are already fees tacked on to offenses so this is just another fee that taxpayers are not responsible for. |
|
Quoted:
Murderer convictions are not a valid comparison as murderers can easily incur costs to taxpayers exceeding $100K and that does not even include prison to the cost of forensics is just a slice of the costs. We can never even dream of recovering these costs from murderers. Drunk drivers do not getting jail for their first conviction which makes monetary sense for taxpayers. Jail costs far more than a simple medical test and jail can cost some people their jobs so they will be less able to pay the fines in a timely manner. Think of paying for your test as just a little more deterence factor. There are already fees tacked on to offenses so this is just another fee that taxpayers are not responsible for. I could go either way on the idea. But, the above argument sounds more like, "Who can we get money out of?" |
|
Quoted:
I could go either way on the idea. But, the above argument sounds more like, "Who can we get money out of?" So what if it is.... Better to get money out of them than the taxpayers. You are not going to get any money out of someone who has no income..... . Consider it a "sin" tax on drunk driving. The ultimate goal is to stop drunk driving. Drinking and especially drinking and driving is a lifestyle choice. I propose that most first time drunk driving offenders are not alcoholics but simply social drinkers who got caught after drinking and driving many times over and over and never being caught before. Over 30,000 drivers are convicted of DWI or PAC each year in WI. Even if the cost of testing is only $100 per person, that is a potential cost to the taxpayers of $3MM per year. Let the drunks pay it.... |
|
So if it's about the money, make it about the money. Why not charge the convicted of everything we can attach a dollar sign too? Cost money to haul their ass down to the station to book them, 51 cents a mile. Police get paid by the hour, $25 an hour while they're in custody. BUT....but it only makes sense to charge DUI conviction, because you know, they can pay. Let the taxpayers pay the burden of all the other criminals..speeders, deer poachers, unlicensed builders, rapist, and noise violations but fuck drunk drivers.
Just to be clear once more, I have no love for drunk drivers but I also have no love for bullshit fees that will eventually get attached to everything. When you make crime about squeezing money out of the criminals, everyone will start to look like Benjamin Franklin. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fees are bullshit. What is bullshit is people being dumb as stumps and getting multiple drunk driving convictions. If you can afford to play you can afford to pay...... 
Fees are still bullshit. There's already fines, up the fines to cover the additional expenses. Why does everything these days need separate fee's and surcharges? |
|
Quoted:
I'm torn. I'm all for discouraging drunk driving and have no sympathy for drunk drivers. But testing, etc., is just part of the cost of a fair justice system. So count me on the side of "give them jail instead of paying the costs of their own conviction." Not that I'd be terribly upset if this passes, but it's not philosophically consistent... I am definitely against any new laws being put on the books, we already have enough laws and regulations. But if they're going to keep passing laws, at least ones like these serve a purpose or provide a small value. |
|
I think the bottom line is drunk drivers should have already been paying for their testing (actually they should be in jail and paying for their tests). This new law just makes that a reality. I see the point about adding fees instead of just upping the cost of the ticket. No need for more fees which just results in more paperwork and probably more cost somewhere down the line.
Assuming though that some drunk driving tickets get reduced if you fight it in court like you would any other ticket (not sure if you can in this case), but if that's true then at least they will get the cost of the test covered 100% instead of it possibly being reduced by reducing the ticket. |
|
Quoted:
I'm torn. I'm all for discouraging drunk driving and have no sympathy for drunk drivers. But testing, etc., is just part of the cost of a fair justice system. So count me on the side of "give them jail instead of paying the costs of their own conviction." Not that I'd be terribly upset if this passes, but it's not philosophically consistent... This is why I love you. Proposal: Make those convicted of a crime pay for ALL the related costs. Related proposal: Make the DA responsible civilly and personally for the costs incurred by the court and the defense if conviction is NOT secured at trial. That would make the justice system a bit more fair, wouldn't it? * Ducks, because Neoinarien's head just exploded* |
|
I could go either way on the idea. But, the above argument sounds more like, "Who can we get money out of?"
The answer is; both. The taxpayer, and the convicted, will still both pay. That's the problem here. Making the convicted pay is ok, but it's not like there will be a tax break for the WI taxpayer. The money saved, will just be wasted elsewhere. |