How many is enough? 8th DUI?

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Stoning someone over having their 8th DUI is a direct violation of his 8th Amendment rights that prohibit "Cruel and unusual punishment"!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Stoning someone over having their 8th DUI is a direct violation of his 8th Amendment rights that prohibit "Cruel and unusual punishment"!

When he finally murders someone with his car, will you still go to bat for him? Every time he gets drunk and gets behind the wheel, he absolutely knows that there is a high risk of harming, or killing, someone. Every. Time. Yet he continues to do it.

There is zero difference between what he has done, and will likely keep doing, and someone just randomly shooting a gun in different directions. It's a person's right to own, and practice shooting, with a gun. But, there is a responsibility to our fellow citizens to practice our rights safely and with as little possibility of harm as we can muster. It's called a "social contract", and this guy has torn it up and used it for toilet paper. He has ceased to be a benefit to society, and has become a liability.

/TOA

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Oh man that was a great laugh. I mean you're sarcastic first post in the thread not the others.

The whole pre-crime argument was an interesting one to say the lest. I've never thought about it that way before. Its like the argument against drugs that I hear some people use.

I.E -
"What if while high they do this or that?"

It could almost fit within the perimeters of a thought crime. I won't go so far as to say it is though.

However being intoxicated and getting behind the wheel of a 2 ton machine that can go over 60 is irresponsible. You're really making me rethink Drunk driving.

Anyways now on to the meat of the OP, personally if he is an alcoholic rehab would help but my uncle was a alcoholic and has been to rehab more time than I can remember so a good lot rehab does most of the time. People with addictive personalties rarely get their stuff together and move past it, I should know I have one, my whole family does. However sticking him in a cell wouldn't solve anything really besides keeping him off the road and perhaps preventing a possible accident. Where in prison he could possibly end up joining a gang and possibly getting into even more crime all at the expense of tax payers.

Or stick him in Rehab, where he could get better and away from the alcohol and become a functioning member of society. But then he could have a relapse thats horrible where he goes on a binge which leads to an accident. Or he could still have the relapse but because of the rehab he learns to take a cab?

Maybe the town can just pitch in and get this man a segway to drive around drunk. Entertaining for everyone!

I'm not defending the guy. It's absolutely irresponsible and he's definitely putting himself and others at risk. I'm not saying we should ignore it - I'm just trying to point out that the system is flawed. Why do we have repeat repeat repeat offenders? Because our legal system is about punishment and atonement, not about rehabilitation. If we approached these situations differently, with a goal of truly helping drug/alcohol offenders, he might not be racking up his 8th DUI today.

@ The Old American:

I have a lot of respect for your posts and opinions. I agree mostly with what you are saying.

This guy just got caught for his 8th DUI, I'm sure for every time he's been pulled over there are 20+ times he's driven drunk without incident. If he were to injure or kill someone he should be charged with manslaughter, reckless endangerment, DUI, whatever else he is guilty of at that time. However, if we as a society can recognize this problem and treat it early on - rather than punishing it - I think we will see a lot less of these types of offense.

My great grandfather was an alcoholic. He too got behind the wheel while heavily inebriated many times, and got caught for it many times. He never hurt anyone, thank Jebus. He too was eventually banned from driving for a few years (not for life) but continued to do so. Now, you should know that my Great Gramps was truly great. He was a lapidarist, rock hound, co-founder of the Utah Gem and Minerological Society, life long steel worker, great dad and great grandfather - well known to this day in his county by most older people who've lived there for awhile, but he was a drunk. Every time he got caught he'd spend a night in jail, go home with a fine and a suspension. He never did long jail time but had plenty of overnighters/over weekenders. So this went on through much of his middle aged years. Toward the last part of his life he got sober, didn't drink for the last almost 20 years. It wasn't the fines and the jail time that inspired him to take better care of himself and the people around him, but an intervention by family members, professional help, and ongoing support from family, friends, and substance abuse professionals.

I know not every alcoholic or drug user will see the same results, but I also know that if DUI is seen to be a pattern (2nd offense), at that point counselling, monitoring, and perhaps even in-patient care for awhile should be in order. This "nip it in the bud" approach has been demonstrated to be fairly effective, and MUCH more effective than simply imposing a fine or jail time. What does a drunk do after a day/weekend/month in jail? He gets a drink or 7. So obviously this approach is flawed.

I know someone who's probably the worst alcoholic I've ever known. He has to drink heavily daily or he gets the shakes. He's had two DUIs so far, he's about 30 years old now. He was forced to take a government program after his second offense, but it was like 30 minute sessions once a week for two months. He drank the entire time, continued to drink after the fact, drinks heavily to this day.. So we need to take these offenses more seriously earlier on and prescribe effective treatment, not some 30 minute rap session with a group of substance abusers. I think taking the individual out of the situation where they are free to do as they please as soon as the 2nd offense would be appropriate. I'm not talking about hard jail time, I'm talking about in patient facilities where the person is still allowed to be free, to be an individual, to have visitors and perhaps even leave the premises when accompanied by authorized people (friends and family). I'm talking about classes where the offender would meet and hear the testimony of families who lost someone to a drunk driver. I really, really think this approach would see much more success in rehabilitating these individuals. This is what worked for my great grandad, and believe me my family had worried for a long time that he would never stop.

So no, I don't think people should be forgiven for causing harm to others if they are making bad decisions along these lines, but I also think that we would have to worry about this much less if our goal was rehabilitation and not punishment.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Perhaps if we started taking drug and alcohol offenders out of the regular, for profit system, and instead created in patient facilities to treat drug use (like the mental facilities they have for convicts with emotional or psychological problems), instead of treating them like garbage, we'd be taking a step in the right direction toward reducing the problem.

Those already exist. A lack of facilities to treat people isn't the issue. Ignoring the cost of entering one, they don't work unless the person going through treatment wants to sober up, whether they are alcoholics or drug addicts. Someone who doesn't want to be sober isn't going to waste the money on entering a treatment facility that they won't get anything out of, and even someone who does want to clean up their act might not have the money for it. AA meetings will only get you so far without a thorough detox and complete change of behavior, and someone who doesn't want to change, won't.

You're right, they do exist. The problem is the government programs are a joke. My wife went through a court ordered drinking program (She is a light drinker, she was young and stupid and attempted to drive home drunk one night, got pulled over and as she always is was 100% honest about how often she drank at the time. Apparently 3 drinks a week is considered alcoholism.) So yeah, 30-60 minute sessions once a week, group therapy, for a PRE-ASSIGNED amount of time. So after she paid for X amount of sessions she had a counsellor signature and was free to go. They didn't address whether or not she was 'recovered.'

Same with another person I know, although he truly does have a problem. 30 minute sessions for a pre-determined amount of time. As if the courts know on a case by case basis how many hours the offender will have to spend in a group therapy session with other alcoholics. They must have a chart somewhere..

So yeah, they have these programs but in their current form they are a joke. They are more about extracting dollars from the offender than they are rehabilitation or actually addressing the problem. I truly believe the current system for drug and alcohol abuse is a racket and not at all focused on correcting the problem.

My band's sound man has 6 DUIs on his record, if I'm counting correctly..
They just finally took away his license, but he simply went out and got a "hardship" license (I need to drive to get to work. I have to work, don't I?). So that doesn't accomplish much.

The only conclusion I can draw from watching his legal exploits through the years is that DUI laws aren't there to protect us, rather they exist just to make money. Money for the lawyers, mostly, and the state. They obviously don't get drunks off the roads. People still get killed by drunk drivers all the time. They need to either step up on enforcing the laws, and make sure these drunks are actually not driving, or just scrap them completely and stop the charade.

I'm anti-driving drunk, but I'm also pro-freedom. In the end, I'd rather take the risk of drunk drivers than live in the type of society that would be required to ensure that there were none. I'll trade security for more liberty every time, and deal with the outcome.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
The problem is the government programs are a joke.

I've never heard of a government-ran treatment program. In my experience, the judges generally have favorites when it comes to service providers that are based on how much success they've gotten from sending people to that service provider. Once they find one that they believe works, they send any new people that they hold hearings on to that service provider. From there it's up to the person attending treatment to do the work necessary to improve themselves and sober up. Those service providers are not government run, but the judges often have ways to help the person pay for treatment or get the cost completely covered by the county. If you're referring to AA meetings, those aren't government ran either. Both of which completely contradict your claim that they're just extorting money out of people for nothing. A lot of people attending treatment aren't paying for it on their own and if anything the service providers are extorting the county.

The reason there are usually set time frames for treatment is not that the Judge has some secret chart somewhere, it's because that is how long the treatment facility has scheduled that particular treatment to last. I've seen some that are six-week in-patient, some that are 12-week out-patient, and some where the six-week in-patient wasn't enough and the service provider recommends continued in-patient treatment. Then there are combinations of in-patient followed by out-patient, out-patient accompanied by AA/NA meetings, out-patient that doesn't work so the person is ordered to go to in-patient before being sent back to out-patient and AA/NA, etc.

There is also, in my experience, a drug and alcohol assessment done prior to any treatment to ensure the person is getting the appropriate treatment. They don't just assign treatment plans willy-nilly, it's based upon the results of an assessment. Of course every state, and even county, is different and what's required at mine probably doesn't match up completely with yours. And as I said before, no treatment works unless the person attending treatment wants it to work so if someone you know was ordered to attend treatment and didn't want to attend or think they needed it then no, they probably didn't get anything out of it. Treatment isn't an insta-cure for drug and alcohol problems, it takes work on the part of the patient which was the point of my last post.

And before feathers get ruffled, I'm not in any way implying that your wife has or has had an alcohol problem. I don't know her and wouldn't take it upon myself to claim one way or the other. Just want to be clear on that.

reply to post by The Old American



That is when you lock him up for 20 yrs for vehicular manslaughter and suspend his license for life.

reply to post by The Old American

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by xenthuin
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I know I have a rather unpopular view on this subject and I'm ready to get flamed, but...

I honestly don't think DUI should be a crime on its own. I know it is dangerous and kills many people every year.

However, if no people or property are harmed then I have a very difficult time separating a DUI arrest from pre-crime. The individual is arrested for having the POTENTIAL to commit a real crime.

Secondly, the people you most need to worry about probably have no regard for the law anyway, so DUI laws don't really address the root problem.

I believe that we can take this approach with substance abuse. But only if we can then, when (not if) the inevitable occurs, we don't bother with prosecution. Instant bullet and burial. That will be the ultimate "yes, you can do what you want with your body, but there are consequences if you screw up".

While I'd love to agree with this outright, I must resist. My reason is that such a system could be far too easy to abuse and would set a precedent for crimes punished without due process. It would make 2 injustices out of 1: the (in my view) non-crime of DUI, and the lack of a proper trial. Unfortunately that means more money wasted on trials.

As I mentioned further up in this thread, I'm all for harsher punishments for law breakers... I have a myriad of views on the subject of punishments, but I don't want to derail the thread.

I'm not saying I know the answers... Just wanted to provide a little different perspective.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Fortunately these stories are the exception not the rule. We live in a world where people still have free will and roam.

Not sure what you think the solution is (short of cutting off his hands) but sticking people in jail/prison doesn't seem to be the end-all answer either.

It happens.

Parents kill their children too.
Not often. But it happens.
Just like this drunk who drives even though he's not supposed to.

There is no solution and luckily it's not an epidemic.

I think you better be careful what you silently wish for because the gubberment can be a LOT more 'in our face' than they already are.
You want a RFID chip inserted in you?
Do you want the government to have the ability to mandate castration (to pedophiles and murdering parents??)

Keep complaining and they will make things worse for us all in the guise of 'protection and safety'.



Like I said......it's an imperfect world. Don't like it? Get yourself a houseboat and sail the globe

reply to post by FlawlessLegend


Not true.

You have to get your GDL to be able to have a drink and still be able to drive here in Canada, being 21 has nothing to do with it.

The drinking age is also 18 in some provinces.

Cheers

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by The Old American

 

That is when you lock him up for 20 yrs for vehicular manslaughter and suspend his license for life.

It's a little late then, isn't it? "Meh, we'll do something about him when someone dies."

/TOA