DWI conviction and CHL

[Jumping Frog]

"CHL's enviable criminal record"

I know what you meant, but saying it in this manner makes me cringe...

OK, I see your point. How would you phrase it?

"CHL's enviably low crime rate?"

[SewTexas]

let me put it this way.

if someone drinks and drives and risks my teenage drivers life....you'd better believe that I hope they are caught and charged to the maximum allowed! I don't care that you didn't get into an accident....that's just chance, and maybe your blessing and a wake up call. You risked your life and other peoples lives, learn that lesson and you will go along way toward being a happier adult.

oh and yes, the vast majority who have been arrested for drinking an driving have done it many, many times before without being caught....

[Abraham]

JF,

"CHL's enviably low crime rate" - sounds better...thanks for coming up with it.

Thing is, most of us CHL types have ZERO crime in our past....

[jmra]

JF,

"CHL's enviably low crime rate" - sounds better...thanks for coming up with it.

Thing is, most of us CHL types have ZERO crime in our past....

I must confess I got a speeding ticket July 4, 1986. I am so ashamed.

[talltex]

No one who gets into a car drunk (violating the law) intends to kill someone but dead is dead.
Let me play devil's advocate;
Two people leave a bar drunk. They both get in their cars and both run the same red light. The first car (by blind luck) narrowly misses a car, the second one does not killing a passenger in the car.
Both drunks pull over and are arrested when police arrive. How should each driver be charged?

The one who did not hit the vehicle is charged with DWI. The driver of the car that hit another vehicle and resulted in a death is charged with Intoxication Manslaughter. You cannot charge someone with a crime on the basis that they MIGHT have done it...this is still America, not a totalitarian state where you can be locked up and punished for something you did not actually do. At least I hope we are not headed there. I can't believe anyone on here really wants to give the government the authority to arrest and convict people for imaginary offenses...that's sort of the purpose of the Second Ammendment...a last resort to prevent governmental tyranny.

[gigag04]

JF,

"CHL's enviably low crime rate" - sounds better...thanks for coming up with it.

Thing is, most of us CHL types have ZERO crime in our past....

I must confess I got a speeding ticket July 4, 1986. I am so ashamed.

[KC5AV]

For every person arrested and convicted of DUI first offense that has a life-altering experience as a result, there are SO many more who simply don't change their habits. The court can't simply say, "Well, you might not ever do it again, so we will let you off this time" because there are so many who are repeat offenders that make a very good argument against leniency. It makes me a little bit ill when I read the arrest reports in the local paper, and see DUI, 3rd or more offense.

I'm a runner, and I'm dabbling in cycling. Every time I leave the house, I see empty beer cans, empty beer bottles, and empty bottles of stuff much stronger littering the side of the roads where I run and ride. I would shake my head at the sight, but I'm too busy watching for the next driver who might have had a little too much to drink, and who certainly isn't looking out for me.

[TexasGal]

Yes, judging from the refuse in our ditch every weekend, I know there are plenty of people driving around drinking. And I live on a relatively small road that leads to residential areas. These people share the road with me daily. I would love for anyone found to be driving intoxicated to have to pick up this stuff every week for 2 years rain or shine on the first offense. I'm tired of doing it.

[i8godzilla]

There is a line in this that was hammered into my head growing up:

[youtube][/youtube]

From getting my hand caught in the cookie jar to minor mischief, Dad insured that I understood it. (I miss you Dad!)

[talltex]

For every person arrested and convicted of DUI first offense that has a life-altering experience as a result, there are SO many more who simply don't change their habits. The court can't simply say, "Well, you might not ever do it again, so we will let you off this time" because there are so many who are repeat offenders that make a very good argument against leniency. It makes me a little bit ill when I read the arrest reports in the local paper, and see DUI, 3rd or more offense.

I'm not arguing the point that there are many repeat offenders, but the existing laws already address that issue. Some of the LEO's on here can correct me if I don't get it exactly right, but I think the punishments are as follows: first offense is 3-180 days jail, plus $2000 fine, plus 60 hours community service, plus alcohol counseling, plus $1,000 annual surcharge for your driver's license, plus high risk insurance group. A second offense includes mandatory 30 day jail time up to 1 year, plus $4,000 fine, plus alcohol counseling and community service, plus an interlock alcohol device on vehicle, plus a $1,500 annual surcharge on DL, along with insurance rating. A third offense is mandatory 2 year jail sentence, plus up to $10,000 fine, plus it becomes a state jail felony offense,plus a $2,000 DL surcharge, plus the other requirements previously listed. Those sentences assume that there was NO accident, NO injury or death related to the offense. if there is, those punishments are stacked on also...so the law does treat it very seriously. By the time someone gets to that "3rd or more" status, they are probably not going to make it out of the system for any length of time, although there are some that finally turn it around. My problem is not with the punishment for those serial offenders...but I do feel strongly that first time offenders...with no other criminal charges... need to be given a second chance. The penalties are still serious, and they will have a permanent conviction no matter what they do, but for alot of them it IS a life changing event. It was for me personally...it was 30+ years ago, in my mid 20's, and I've never been arrested before or since for anything. I've built a business, raised a fine family, served on the City Council, as an officer of the Economic Development Corporation, and on the School Board and a number of other civic and charitable organizations. I know several more men that I went to school with in this small country town, that have done exactly the same things. I'm pretty sure that none of us would have accomplished that if we had been sentenced to several years in prison on that first offense. Had that happened, we would have either become career criminals or lived our lives trying to survive in a minimum wage world, where no one wanted to employee us because we were a convicted felon who had been "in the pen".

[jmra]

No one who gets into a car drunk (violating the law) intends to kill someone but dead is dead.
Let me play devil's advocate;
Two people leave a bar drunk. They both get in their cars and both run the same red light. The first car (by blind luck) narrowly misses a car, the second one does not killing a passenger in the car.
Both drunks pull over and are arrested when police arrive. How should each driver be charged?

The one who did not hit the vehicle is charged with DWI. The driver of the car that hit another vehicle and resulted in a death is charged with Intoxication Manslaughter. You cannot charge someone with a crime on the basis that they MIGHT have done it...this is still America, not a totalitarian state where you can be locked up and punished for something you did not actually do. At least I hope we are not headed there. I can't believe anyone on here really wants to give the government the authority to arrest and convict people for imaginary offenses...that's sort of the purpose of the Second Ammendment...a last resort to prevent governmental tyranny.

Actually they both did exactly the same thing. The only difference is timing.

[03Lightningrocks]

There is a line in this that was hammered into my head growing up:

[youtube][/youtube]

From getting my hand caught in the cookie jar to minor mischief, Dad insured that I understood it. (I miss you Dad!)

I was going to post the exact same thing but you beat me to it. We watched that show every week as a kid and to this day, I think of that theme song every time I hear someone crying about the punishment they receive for breaking the law.

[gigag04]

LEOs don't deal with punishments other than testifying in court if the prosecutor's office pulls us in. I couldn't tell you what a standard plea deal entails. What was presented above seems plausible.

Driving to work is allowed via temporary driving hours on the suspended license. Otherwise, no you don't get to drive. If convicted (and usually even if not), you have demonstrated an inability to safely handle the responsibility of driving.

The penalties are getting stiffer for DWIs as it is easier to put together a good case. A few years ago, marginal cases and refusals were pled to obstructing a roadway, a different MB, but useless for enhancing subsequent DWIs. I don't really want to bring up the topic, but I will tell you that I use blood warrants all the time, and I get convictions on all of my cases. I don't accept refusals from anyone I arrest for DWI. I am hesitant to chime in much about this from an LEO perspective, but I tend to work alot of DWIs so I "get" how they work, and the damage they do.

[talltex]

No one who gets into a car drunk (violating the law) intends to kill someone but dead is dead.
Let me play devil's advocate;
Two people leave a bar drunk. They both get in their cars and both run the same red light. The first car (by blind luck) narrowly misses a car, the second one does not killing a passenger in the car.
Both drunks pull over and are arrested when police arrive. How should each driver be charged?

The one who did not hit the vehicle is charged with DWI. The driver of the car that hit another vehicle and resulted in a death is charged with Intoxication Manslaughter. You cannot charge someone with a crime on the basis that they MIGHT have done it...this is still America, not a totalitarian state where you can be locked up and punished for something you did not actually do. At least I hope we are not headed there. I can't believe anyone on here really wants to give the government the authority to arrest and convict people for imaginary offenses...that's sort of the purpose of the Second Ammendment...a last resort to prevent governmental tyranny.

Actually they both did exactly the same thing. The only difference is timing.

That's true enough, they both did the same thing, but with a different result. Now take the scenario a step farther: the driver that ran the same red light and by blind luck missed the car has NOT had a drink...they are both pulled over by a police officer who witnessed it...the only difference in the outcome is once again timing...they both did the same thing. Aside from the possible DUI aspect, should the two drivers who didn't hit anyone be charged differently?

[steveincowtown]

LEOs don't deal with punishments other than testifying in court if the prosecutor's office pulls us in. I couldn't tell you what a standard plea deal entails. What was presented above seems plausible.

Driving to work is allowed via temporary driving hours on the suspended license. Otherwise, no you don't get to drive. If convicted (and usually even if not), you have demonstrated an inability to safely handle the responsibility of driving.

The penalties are getting stiffer for DWIs as it is easier to put together a good case. A few years ago, marginal cases and refusals were pled to obstructing a roadway, a different MB, but useless for enhancing subsequent DWIs. I don't really want to bring up the topic, but I will tell you that I use blood warrants all the time, and I get convictions on all of my cases. I don't accept refusals from anyone I arrest for DWI. I am hesitant to chime in much about this from an LEO perspective, but I tend to work alot of DWIs so I "get" how they work, and the damage they do.

100% agree DWIs are horrible and sometimes indicative of a larger issue.

I am curious about your statement that you "don't accept refusals." I thought a judge had to decide this?