99 years for a DUI . . . (but it’s his 16th one)
I’ve been thinking about this for awhile. Is it right to put someone in prison for the rest of his life after pulling him over with 0.10 blood-alcohol content? Even if it’s the 16th time it has happened?
Readers of this blog know that I am critical of our DUI laws. I want more enforcement and I want penalties that result in the loss of driving privileges, but lower fines. I believe the financial costs to the defendant of a DUI are too high right now (they run in the thousands of dollars even for a first-time DUI) because they put people in truly desperate situations. But I think a loss of driving privileges for a significant amount of time is warranted, and I think after two or possibly three DUIs that loss should be forever.
But prison? Forever? Obviously you have to enforce a situation where a person just plain refuses to stop driving no matter what the court says, but this seems excessive to me, even draconian. What about three years or so after each offense? The person in the video above has a drinking problem, obviously. Wouldn’t it be cheaper and safer for everyone to find a way to get that person into a lifestyle where driving is not necessary and he can drink himself to death without risking the lives of others? Do we need to punish him for the rest of his life in a prison cell?
–Erik Ryberg
March 28th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Fail to get to the root of the problem 15 times now toss him away, at our expense, for ever. Good plan…….
I would like mandatory license loss for periods of time. Pay court costs. (We just had a 4 day trial for a drunk driver probably because he was trying to avoid large fines etc., He lost BTW.) Jail for injuring some one, long jail for killing some one. Mandate counseling, we do that for spousal abuse.
Three DUIs total ban on driving. Of course then we might have to invest in our transit system so people could get to work w/o having to drive….
March 28th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
This is why we are cutting education funding while spending more on our prisons!
March 28th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Why punish sick people? And why, Erik Ryberg, get a sick person into a lifestyle that leads to death? Huh? WTF! Cheaper and safer for everyone? Rhetoric is all well and good and has its role. Your piece needs work…you can do better.
March 29th, 2011 at 6:47 am
This is a tough one. Something clearly has to be done b/c the recidivism is apparently guaranteed with him.
I don’t like the idea of sending him to prison at, as others have stated, our expense. We don’t deserve the burden of paying for his stay.
I don’t like the idea of simply taking away his license and banning him either. There’s absolutely no guarantee that he’ll not drive again. He clearly doesn’t care what the court says. He’s going to do it anyway. What, then, are we then to tell the families of those he’s killed while driving drunk after being let go after losing his license?
I can only think of one way to get him off the roads forever at zero tax payer burden… hand him the keys to his car and a bottle of Jack, and turn him loose in a minefield. Cleanup is the responsibility of other stubborn DUI recidivists.
March 29th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Red Star, if a person really wants to spend his life drinking, I think that’s okay and he should be able to do so. I don’t care if his lifestyle kills him, so long as he goes into it knowingly and willingly. I just don’t want it to kill me, too. Maybe a more appropriate punishment for him would be a requirement that he move to an apartment where he can walk to and from the bar. Then he gets to live out his life the way he wants to, we don’t have to pay for his stay in prison, and he is still available to his family.
March 30th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
[...] Tucson Bike Lawyer: 99 years in prison after 16 DUIs. [...]
March 30th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Erik Ryberg commingles extreme self-medication with free will and his/”our”self-interest. Calvinism. It’s designed to be confusing and slick for some mysterious reason. Be on your toes, you jurors…
March 30th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Hi Red Star,
Hmmm. It is true that I own all 22 volumes of Calvin’s Biblical Commentaries and admire very much his biblical exegesis, but I am not quite grasping the Calvinist link to my post.
Also, I should say that as a confirmed agnostic, I do not share Calvin’s support for the practice of burning heretics at the stake. I am sure glad those days are over!
March 30th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
@ Red Star
What’s your problem, man? You ALWAYS come across as if you’ve got a beef with Erik. Further, why do you always refer to yourself in the third person?
I encountered plenty of crazies when I lived in Arizona but man, you’re the most unreal of them all. And I had a really bizarre encounter with Grandpa Woodstock at Casbah once.
March 31st, 2011 at 11:48 am
Yeah, Red Star, you better sit down and shut up!
March 31st, 2011 at 12:36 pm
@Erik
Historically, Red Star has gone back and forth between apathism (wrt to religion) and atheism. Agnosticism has always seemed really cunning and screwed-up. Whatever we actually die of, see you in the death camps?
April 1st, 2011 at 10:44 pm
You’re nuts.
April 4th, 2011 at 10:13 am
@Bryce
Oh, yes!
Expecting a different result, Bryce?
(other than idly wondering why Red Star’s sanity is oh so important to Bryce, Red Star is ‘outta here’ on the Bryce thing as it can get counterproductive)
May 3rd, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Must have had a god attorney keeping him out of jail on the previous 15 DUI convictions.