Under current Florida Law, a person’s license to operate a motor vehicle will not be permanently revoked unless he or she is convicted of a DUI for a fourth time or commits manslaughter while driving under the influence. (For extended information on DUIs and specific conviction laws please see http://www.hsmv,state.fl.us/ddl/dlfaqson2a.html#1 and/or http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/ddl/duilaws.html )
Our group feels that these laws should be revised to a “Zero Tolerance” standard of dealing with individuals convicted of driving under the influence. We feel that an individual’s driver’s license should be revoked for a minimum period of one year, without the opportunity to apply for a hardship license after the first offence and permanently revoked upon a second conviction. We realize that changes to laws like these would require changes throughout the judicial and social systems. We will address some of these issues individually, but, as a group, we adhere to the above statement.
To help prevent Driving Under the Influence:
I’m not sure how everyone feels about the bar scene and who should be held accountable for drunk drivers -- either the bar or the customer. Personally, I look at the bars to be responsible for the well-being of a customer. The bar should pick up the responsibility to call a cab and pay for the cab ride. I know bars also need to make money but not at the extent of losing a customer forever. I’m sure others have different feelings about the responsibility, but why risk the chance of a drunk driver killing a loved one? (Eddie Lopez)
To address offenders who can no longer transport themselves:
I think that the state, county and/or city governments should have to provide more public transportation. They could try running a 24 hour bus system. Another idea I had was that they could consider having violators buy bicycles and bring in the receipt to reduce their fines. This way, no matter what they have shown, they’ve proven that they do have some other way to get around without driving. (Nicki Callihan)
To prepare for the influx of prisoners:
Under the law revisions that we are suggesting, changes in the judicial system would also need to be made. Though our revisions do not specifically address it, there would be more people in the jails because of the harsher laws. Even if they are only in for a short time after being convicted, we would need more space to put them. This problem could be addressed in one of several ways. The first and most obvious way would be to build more jails. I think that a better plan would be to determine the average number of convictions for an existing jail’s area and set out a part of it for the influx of inmates. (Garrett Sheumaker)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
This is timely, with the whole Paris Hilton scandal...(and, yes, of course, she should go to jail...the rich and powerful should not be able to simply buy their way out of the law)
There is no doubt in my mind, having seen the ravaging, detrimental effects on a victim's family, that DUI offenders should undergo stricter sentencing. Your group has certainly offered some solutions (I thought the bike idea was especially interesting...a little unrealistic due to the vast distances we've grown accustomed to but practical if used in the immediate, local vicinity). However, what are taxpayers actually willing to pay for? Adequate -- even specific -- public transport for those who have their licenses revoked? More jails for repeat offenders? Many of us tend to think somewhat "selfishly" rather than think about what's better for the common good. It's a tough call, I think.
In reference to the bartender's responsibility, in some areas of the country, it is the law that a bartender must make certain that inebriated customers have an alternate means of getting home (and they must take their keys from them). Perhaps that ought to be a mandated standard for every establishment that serves alcohol to its patrons.
I think that DUI is a very serious topic considering these days so many drunk drvers are killing innocent people everyday so i think you punish them with full throtle no tolerence once so ever i think if your drunk bring a driving buddy with you that is sober!
I worked in law enforcement for 17 1/2 years and during this time I saw a lot of DUI deaths and injuries. Most of the time the drunk driver survived the crash, and the innocent driver died in the crash. I also saw a lot of repeat offenders, which to say the least pissed me off. However, I know that the laws are there on books, but there are defense attorneys that specialize on helping the offender get around the established laws. But, that is why they make the big bucks, huh.
The idea of increased penalties is a good one, however every new idea has it's consequences. If you make a law that the first offense results in jail time, or the revocation of the drivers license, then this place a hardship on the offenders family. I believe that a inexpensive monitor on the offender, that will read when the offender is drinking, that sends a warning to a central location, and the offender, this would stop some of the offenders. Also when a person offends the second time, and is convicted that should spend at least one year in the county jail. An subsequent conviction should result in a five year sentence. This also bring on problems of housing these offenders.
I believe that the cost could be offset by the offender working. Most people convicted of DUI have some sort of work skill or they could be trained a skill, which is needed by society, such as road construction, or home building. The state could charge a individual a certain amount to help build a house, and the earnings could help pay for the cost of incarcerating the offender. As you can see I have a lot to say about this particular topic, but I will stop here. This was a good discussion.
Shirley
The reason why drunk drivers usually survive car wrecks is because their bodies are more flexible due to the liquor's effect. On the other hand, the sober person tends to become much more stiff and tense in this kind of situation, and so their body brakes when the collision takes place. I think we should all get drunk when we drive so that our bodies can handle the crash… ha ha ha! Just kidding.
Here is a new technology that Volvo has invented: http://www.strangenewproducts.com/2005/08/volvos-multi-lock-system-prevents.html
Volvo's Multi-lock System Prevents Drunk Driving
With Saab already developing an in-car breathalyzer, Volvo released details for its own version.
With Volvo's experimental multi-lock system, in order to start the engine, the driver must first blow into the built-in breathalyzer lock. If the breathalyzer records a negative reading, AND if the seatbelt is fastened, the car will start.
I honestly believe that this breathalyzer device should be forcefully placed in the DUI offender’s vehicle. Of course, the DUI offender must agree to it and pay for it as part of the fines. If they don’t, then their license should be permanently revoked until they agree to it. If they are caught driving under the influence in another vehicle then they should get serious jail time and fines.
The problem with drinking and driving is when you take someone's life you can't get it back and you can't undo yours. It's not about drinking and driving it's about the lives we affect. Many have had a beer or two and made it home safe without affecting anyone. We never thing about the ones we could hurt, taking their love ones life or changing your life in a horrible way and disappointing your love ones. Just because drinking is legal. I don't drink but I have drank before and thought I did a good job driving while intoxicated. Now that I don't drink I realize the chance a person take while driving under the influence alcohol. I remember driving one night and looking in my rearview mirror and seeing this vehicle swerving left and right. I have to admit I was a little scared and wanted to get as far away as I could from this person who seems intoxicated. It's illegal to do drugs and many people have suffered because of alcohol and continue to suffer without anyone knowing. Yes take their license. Trinell
The problem with drinking and driving is when you take someone's life you can't get it back and you can't undo yours. It's not about drinking and driving it's about the lives we affect. Many have had a beer or two and made it home safe without affecting anyone. We never thing about the ones we could hurt, taking their love ones life or changing your life in a horrible way and disappointing your love ones. Just because drinking is legal. I don't drink but I have drank before and thought I did a good job driving while intoxicated. Now that I don't drink I realize the chance a person take while driving under the influence alcohol. I remember driving one night and looking in my rearview mirror and seeing this vehicle swerving left and right. I have to admit I was a little scared and wanted to get as far away as I could from this person who seems intoxicated. It's illegal to do drugs and many people have suffered because of alcohol and continue to suffer without anyone knowing. Yes take their license. Trinell
In my opinion, the DUI law is too lenient, just like our other laws. It should definitely be a lot harsher to stop offenders from driving drunk the first and second time. The law should be so tight and rigid so that offenders will think twice before getting drunk and on the road. I don’t think the bars or clubs should be held accountable in anyway. If such establishments are held accountable for their customers’ actions, when will the customers learn to take responsibility for their own actions? Are they not adults? They should be liable for all their actions no matter what the situation, no excuses. If you can’t drink responsibly then don’t. It’s simple as that. I think a drunk driver’s car should be surrendered to the government for auction upon a DUI. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission will take away properties from a person who breaks the law on the water. For ex. if you were fishing without a license or kept too many fish or out of season catch, they can fine you and take away your boat, fishing rods, and any other equipments or property you have with you while breaking the law.
Reading Khimc's comment, I kind of like the idea of the vehicles being impounded to the goverment to go up for auction. Never had that go through my mind. To add to that idea,I would still keep the offender responsible for the car note balance even after the vehicle has sold, just another way to increase the penalty fees and make drinking and driving less interesting. I mean who would want to pay for a $50,000 lexus you no longer own? That could put many of people in financial situations especially when they can drive again and has to get another vehicle. Good suggestion about the auction!!
...so we're gonna give a drunk 4 chances to kill someone..wow.."Florida, the land of opportunity no matter how f'd up you are".
1st offense- 1 year suspension
2nd offense- 5 year suspension with 3-5 years of probation.
Wow! A topic that we all feel strongly about. I see several valid viewpoints here and wonder if any of them will ever come to be. I don't know if I can agree with the zero tolerance. I certainly don't want to be out on the road with one of these impared drivers (I admit to having been one in the past, but I came to my senses and would never risk such a thing again) but I have to say that everyone makes mistakes. I believe that a very stiff fine is in order and perhaps loss of licence for 6 months. If the lesson isn't learned by then, permanant revocation of the licence and confiscation of the car by the state sound like an excellent idea.
Although the bar I frequented in Zap, ND in the 1980s had a policy of giving free sodas to the designated driver of a group. And I agree that they should provide transportation to those too impared to drive (in my opinion the 3 most profitible businesses are alcohol, guns and drugs - either legal or illegal those sectors of the business world are quite lucretive.
I believe that people who drive under the influence should receive a fine of 500 dollars. Any time someone gets caught a second time, they should go to the slammer.
Wow! Rough topic. Like Mark, I too did a stupid move that was a wake up call. I know a few people that have gotten busted for DUI. They had to attend DUI classes and have a monitor on their car at their cost. They have to blow into it every 30 minutes. If alcohol is detected or they don't blow, the car shuts down. I also know a few people who haven't gotten busted. I believe that if you kill someone or even injure them, go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not collect $200. Like mentioned, jails would be even more over crowded & their families would probably be on assistance. Either way, tax payers money is used. Unfoturnately, money makes the world go round. Are people willing to spend it? I don't think there's an answer to "make everyone happy". Sorry but I don't know what the solution is.
I just discussed this with my friend, whose 16 year old cousin was killed by a drunk driver. She said that maybe the first time offenders should go work in the hospital morgue, so they can see first hand what their stupid actions could have caused. I think that forcing them to accompany an officer, whose job is to tell the news to the next of kin, would also be a good idea. Maybe these punishments would cause that first time offender to think about what could happen if he or she were to do this again. Just a thought.....
I agree that DUI penalties should be harsher. Four chances are four times too many for drunk drivers to put innocent lives in their hands. If they can't be responsible enough to stay put while drinking or get a designated driver, then they don't deserve the privilege of driving. A drunk driver killed my cousin while he was on his way to work. The driver, who was in a truck, had a few cuts and bruises. Jeff, who was in a car, ended up with the steering wheel through his chest. If that man had had his license revoked to begin with, he probably wouldn't have been on the road, and my cousin would still be alive.
I am the legal assistant to the top DUI defense attorney in Polk County. With that being said, I believe that not all people deserve to have the worst imposed on them even though I do see it happen from time to time. Believe it or not but some people do make mistakes.
I don't think it should be the bar's responsibility to call the cab, they are supposed to be responsible adults, who should know when they have had enough. Public transportation would only costs the taxpayers more money.
I agree that DUI's should be on a zero tolerance policy. If someone gets a DUI once, then that should be enough. Why wait until someone innocent victim loses their life at the hands of some Drunk driver. If someone wants to get drunk, then it is their business; but leave it off the street and away from the innocent. If someone goes out to drink, then they should at least be responsible enough to get a designated driver. This is just the way I feel. I think that if we threaten them with something like immediate license revoking, then maybe these people will get the hint,DON'T DRIVE WHILE DRUNK!
I agree the DUI law is very leniant. It should not take four times of being convicted to have one license revoked. The idea of a "zero tolerance" policy is wonderful but the ways to which to back it up I found to be unrealistic. Taxpayers are not going to pay to have a public transportation system that runs 24 hours a day or the building of new jails. Instead make those convicted pay a monetary settlement and do community service. Our society prides itself on using every second possible to make money so take away the two things people hold most dear their time and money. Then not only will they be to tired to go out and drink but will not have the money to spend on drinking.
I think that the public transportation systems in most places need to be upgraded. That being said, revoking licences for a first offence is a fairly steep consequence, especially if no one is hurt (if someone is injured or dead, the least of the diver's worries will be his or her licence being revoked). A $700 fine for the first offence and if a second occurs, talk of licence suspension would be reasonable. In the event of third and fourth offences, this person should be forced to seek help.
D.U.I. is here to stay. Too many law makers, sports entertainers, movie stars, and the average Joe does it. Unfortunately it is socially acceptable. Not drinking alchol but driving drunk. I am not drunk, I can hold my liquior! Hic! Hic! Laws governing DUI needs to be revised to zero tolorance. Too many inocent people die eaach year because of drunk drivers.The responsibility belong to the driver and so too does the consequences.
I just wanted to chime in on this discussion a little more. I have read all of the responses and some I agree with and some I just don't understand the authors points. One of which is Cassie's entry. I understand that she works for the top DUI attorney in Polk County, however let me pose this question, have you ever went out on a scene where their was a dead? Let me tell you a story, of one DUI case I worked. This case took place on highway 60 just south of Mulberry. There were four young adults coming from college on their way home to Tampa. They were coming from some college in south Florida. They were hit from the rear and pushed into a train guard rail. A female passenger in the back seat died instantly, as the result of the impact. When she was cut from the vehicle, her body was obviously crushed by the impact, because her body was all twisted in a odd shape. The driver BA (blood alcohol ) was later determined to be .24, three time the legal limit. The driver survived the crash, and the others had serious injuries, but they survived. I remember thinking how pretty she was, and what a senseless lost of life. Then I wondered as a parent, how her mother and father will deal with the fact that their is dead, when notified by a FHP (Florida Highway Patrol) officer that their daughter was killed by a drunk driver.
I will bet they were not thinking about the cost of the punishment of the drunk driver. They just wanted justice to be served. Don't get me wrong I think there is a need for a defense attorney, but I think if there is overwhelming evidence the attorney should let their morales be their guides in recommended to their clients to take the appropriate punishment.
Cassie, I am also a bit confused by your response. You say that one should not be punished harshly for committing such an offense, because people make mistakes. However, you don't support bartender responsibility or public transportation, because these "offenders" are responsible adults, who should know when to say when. Isn't that a contradiction of views? If they are responsible adults who make that "mistake" (as you call it), then they should be responsible enough to except what they are given for punishment. There is no way around it; the mistake they made could have taken an innocent life. I personally think that is inexcusable!
Kenneth, I sense hard feelings towards criminal defense lawyers. Why so? The state has lawyers that represent them so I think the people should as well.
Travis, a fine of $500? Did you know that the average DUI defense costs anywhere from $5,000-$10,000? (including court costs) You want to lower the fines?
Kenneth, in regards to you response to my comment, about a year ago, I was in Tally when a few of us were in a car following some friends, our friends in front of us got hit by an oncoming vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was drunk. Two people in the car died on impact, yes we saw it happen. So yes I have seen what happens when you get behind the wheel impaired. I see pictures everyday and hear statements everyday at work. So I see constant reminders probably more than anyone in the class on why people shouldn't get behind the wheel impaired.
Kelly, in response to your comment, I said "some" people do make mistakes. And that not "all" people deserve to have the worst imposed on them.
Well Cassie;
I see that I touched a nerve, sorry :), but in your comments dated on May 28th, you clearly say that people make mistakes and that they don't always need to have the worst imposed on them. I was just saying that I disagree with the comment. I beleive that if a person makes a decision to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, after he of she has been drinking, then he or she must be prepared to, "pay the piper".
Also if the drive drunk and cause a death he or she should pay society back with their freedom, for about 10-20 years. Also I was saying don't let the job cloud who you are. Do the job to the best of your ability, but remember the people who walk through your doors are almost certainly GUILTY of DUI. So don't feel sorry for them, most are repeat offenders, and will go home as soon as they leave your office and get another drink.
Oh! Cassie;
No I have nothing against criminal defense lawyers. One of the men I most respected was a criminal defense lawyer, he died on highway 60 west in 2004. His name was Jack Edmond.
No it is not beat up on Kenneth blog. Regarding your comment to Cassie to “…don’t let the job cloud who you are.” To back her up somewhat, it’s hard not to let the job cloud who you are. After working for a detox for 4 years, my tolerance for drug users is minimum at best. I also had a grandfather who died of liver cancer due to drinking. On both occasions I saw what it did to family and loved ones and how more often than not, they didn’t care. Not everyone was like this, but since it was more often than not I became jaded and everyone was just snowing us for one reason or another.
You mentioned that most people walking in the door are almost certainly guilty (of DUI in this case). I’m not ganging up on you but do you feel the same way about any crime? I was kind of startled to here someone else saying what I’ve been thinking for a long time. It seems to me that anymore in this country you are guilty until proving innocent…unless you have a lot of money (see Paris blog). If I have taken your comment out of context, I apologize in advance.
Kenneth, my job doesn't cloud who I am. I'm not scared to tell you how I feel. Anyone who knows me knows I am honest and will be straight up. I think that you have a mind set thing to where people are guilty until proven innocent. By the way, people who walk through my doors are certainly INNOCENT until proven guilty ok?
Since this is a blog on DUI, I will side with Kenneth. If a person was not charged with DUI, why does he need an attorney? DUI is pretty much black and white…there is not a gray area to figure out if the person is drunk or not. So if a person is seeking help from an attorney, he must be guilty. That is what I think. In most crimes…DUI is a crime; I tend to think a person is guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.
Cassie, defense attorneys are not the most popular people. Don’t take it personally; everyone is entitled to their opinion. Many of my patients are attorneys. I like them all; I just don’t ask what kind of attorneys they are. My opinion on defense attorneys is that they let too many criminals get away or lessen their sentence. What about the victims and their families? Where is justice for them when the defense wins a case over state? Tell me how is that fair or justice being served?
I have to agree with you Khim. If a person is driving erratically, gets pulled over and the police officer performs the breathalyzer, which shows higher than the legal limit...where is the defense? It seems to me that they are guilty. And unless they can prove otherwise (in court) then they should be punished.
Cassie, I think it is very possible that people are innocent until proven guilty. With crimes like rape and murder, mistaken identity does happen. However, a charge of DUI requires a specific test, which has a specific result. If you ask me, that is pretty cut and dry.
Natasha and Cassie;
Look ladies, when I write in these blogs, it is just my opinions. The opinion of a person who has worked every case that you could think of in 17 1/2 years in law enforement. No, I don't think that everyone is guilty of the crime that are charged with. I know of many cases that officers and detectives made just to clear the cases, with very little evidence. So no not all are guilty. I also still believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
However, in the case of DUI, it is just this simply. You make the stop after observing a pattern of erratic driving. You do the roadside test, in which they fail. you do the Sobriety test, they blow more than a .08. You make the arrest.
THEN THE DEFENSE ATTRONEY COMES INTO THE PICTURE.
You get the picture!!!!!!
i THINK WHEN YOU GET A DUI FOR ANYTHING IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY BY THE LAW THEY SHOULD TAKE ACTION ON THAT PERSON BY REVIEWING THEIR DRINKING HABBITS EITHER BY HOUSE ARREST OR SOME OTHER FASHION!
Kelly and Kenneth....It was good to get your opinions...while it doesn't change my point of view it was interesting to hear another side of it. It was great talking to you!
Hey, no problem Cassie...you know what they say about opinions, right? =D I am sure that yours is somehow just as valid as I think mine is. Differing opinions are what make the world so interesting. If we all thought of everything the same way, we would be very bored!
Hey Cassie;
Well thanks for your comments Cassie, I'm glad to know that there are no hard feelings, and that we were just stating our opinions. May I make a suggestion to you? If you have a chance to do a ride-along with a police officer, then do it, then you will see the other side. Good luck to everyone in your future endeavors. Thanks Ms. Jennings for a interesting and informative class.
No problem. I only wish we could've had a little longer. Could've posted on more issues...
Post a Comment