Should first time drunk driving offenders be required to equip their cars with ignition interlock devices?
47 Comments
Anonymous said:
Yes!!!
Tom said:
No!!!! The judicial system should allow the individual to take responsibility for their actions and consider the first offense to be a wake up warning.
scott said:
after being a tow truck driver, and seeing the same people two or three times picking up the same car . i think it should be that way for even the first time offender !!!!
Merlin said:
This is an excellent idea and my wife and I ae both in favor of legistation to require this test.
John said:
No, they should have their license removed. Come on, people. They made a bad decision that potentially takes other peoples lives. There is no excuse for them not thinking about the possible outcome. Why should there be a second chance? Look at the statistics! 16,885 people were killed in 2005 in the United States due to alcohol related accidents, almost 6 times as many deaths as our soldiers in Iraq have suffered. And then come the excuses: "I won't be able to go to work," etc. It doesn't matter that they won't be able to be as mobile as they were used to: driving is a PRIVELEDGE, not a right. We are way too lenient on the use of this drug. Imagine a loved one of yours getting killed on the road by some drunk who feels he should get a second chance. Will the dead person?
Joan Hampton said:
YES! The first time picked up is never the first time the person has driven drunk. A second chance may result in a death (if the first time didn't.)
gerald johnson said:
IT SHOULD BE A FELONY TO SELL IT,AND ANYONE DRIVING AND DRINKING AT ALL SHOULD LOOSE THERE RIGHT TO DRIVE AND PUT IN JAIL MORE THEN JUST THE TWENTY FOUR HOURS,,
BUT THEN AGAIN,THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT LET O.J. GO AND MARTHA STWART WENT TO JAIL
Tom and Cindy Tarrant said:
Yes, first time offenders should be required to equip their cars with ignition interlock devices. In 2000 my husband Tom, our son Torry, our grandson Garrett and I were hit head on by a drunk driver. Our whole world was shattered in a moment...our beloved son and precious grandson were killed. We were trapped in our vehicle with our children for over an hour. Tom and I spent six months in physical therapy mending our bodies, minds and broken hearts. We will never again hear our children say upon this earth, "I love you..." We can only carry those special memories with in our hearts. "A first time offender" can kill. We all need to work together to find an answer to the most "preventable deaths" that happen through out our world. "Drunk Drivers." How many other family members and friends do we lose before new laws are created to keep drunk drivers off our roads and from injuring and killing? Our hearts hurt at the thought of another mom, dad, grandma and grandpa crying somewhere because their children were innocent victims of a drunk driver or they are the parents or grandparents of a drunk driver that killed.
DMP said:
My dear cousin and best friend was killed by a first time drunk driver. Just because it was his first time, doesn't make it any less a crime than if it was his tenth. He knew what he was doing when he got behind the wheel of his car after drinking too much and my sweet cousin left behind two small children who will grow up without their mother.
I also believe that punishment for drivers who kill should be much more rigid because in my opinion it is no less first degree murder than if someone takes a gun and kills someone with it. A drunk knows what he's doing when he gets behind the wheel of a car. If he drives and kills someone, it's premeditated murder and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
PUNISH THEM EARLY!!
david alexander said:
it is my uderstanding that over 75% of first time dui offenders are required to have the lockout interlock device installed.
7 million dollar advertising campaign gee I wish I was in the business. All those commissions, wow.
With that kind of money you could buy 300 minivans and staff over 300 drinking establishments with pickup and delivery services
like a car dealership does thats working on our cars. For one year.
come on Madd you need to try to educate and provide transportation to and fro. Our prisons are full of dui offenders.
once the interlock device comes off in 6 months
the majority of offenders will drive to have a couple of cocktails and then they drive and people get killed or hurt terribly.
david alexander
liberty lake
Loye said:
Absoutely a first time drunk should have to put the divice on their car. Why should someone or their property be in danger just because it is their first time driving drunk. Frankly it most likely is not the first time just caught. so YES YES YES
jacob jr said:
No! because a person planning to drive under the influence is probably gonna make a bad choice to drive anyway. The way around it, they will get someone sober to blow into the ignition lock system and they are still driving under the influence. Waste of time and money.
Brian from Tri-Cities said:
No. I have a better idea. Take that drunk driver's licence to drive away. FOR LIFE. Driving is a privilege, NOT a right, and a drunk driver violates the privilege by putting people's lives in jeopardy just by being on the road.
Live Yourlife said:
I want to respect other people and their opinions. It is so hard after reading their comments. This is why we are here, now with all the rules a problems.
Who would pay for this machine? I think those that vote for more control should pay for it.
Make penalties stiffer.
Don't create a business out of punishment; 2 weeks in jail on first offense. Time enough to see that this is a serious subject. One year jail on second offense if it occurs within 10 years of first offense, 90 days if over ten years.
Every-time something like this gets passed, someone is profiting.
So my answer is no.
Crime should be punished by removing the criminals from society, not trying to profit from them.
Anonymous said:
Yes
John Lashua said:
No! Current law is poorly understood. Most think a DUI citation is only issued if the breathalyser reads above .08. The truth is if you are pulled over at night for any of a number of driving "infractions" such as favoring one side of the lane or driving with your window down or not stopping at the cross bar that sometimes is and sometimes isn't in front of a crosswalk, and you test out as little as .03 on the breathalyser, you can go through the whole punishment scheme pushed by MADD. The cops argue that the above "infractions" are proof enough the individual has had too much to drink....even though if they cited everyone of us who do these "infractions" during the day, there would be precious few of us uncited.
I think the DUI laws are Draconian in their present state. I thought MADD had accomplished their goals. Turns out I was wrong. My question is, is there a limit to how much punishment should be meted out to a "drunk" driver? Right now licenses are revoked which has the potential to result in loss of job. Job loss likely will lead to divorce since money is the number one reason for it. What will MADD suggest next? Execution?
Janet Nick said:
With overcrowded jails imposing jail time hurts everyone. As for ignition interlock the person resposible for paying the fee is the defendant. Can't afford the device and you don't drive. Saying that a drivers license is revoked is a joke, the court system is choked with people driving while license suspended. I say if you are convicted of dui, you pay the price and that means 1 year of ignition interlock. The reason for the stiffer penalties is to protect society, almost everyone can name someone touched by a dui accident. It's time to make the defendant responsible for their actions.
rod said:
everybody has good comments and there is always a lot of emotion on this subject. drunken driving will never be stopped until every auto,truck ect has an ignition lock detector. that means EVERYONE has to go thru the start up procedure to drive. stop and think about that, it is the only way to stop the problem totally.are you ready for that every time you get in your car, final comment: how many people are killed on the roads by cell phone users, speeding,high on drugs,or the all wheel drive vehicles whose driver thinks they are invinsible on snow and ice
Brian C Roswell said:
Yes,Also think the laws need to be changed because it seems to be to easy for people with money to hire Lawyers to get them off the hook!I also think that a person should never be givin the chance to get 4 and 5 DUIs!!!Judges,dont you think that after a couple of DUIs there just might be a problem.Some people just might be alive today,If the system had a system!
Anonymous said:
NO! maybe for multiple offenses, but everyone should have the opertunity to self improve once
Anonymous said:
No.
We need to eliminate the possibility of drunk driving not by attempting to restrict driving or alcohol consumption (which hasn't worked) but by creating a better alternative to the personalized death machines (cars) we drive: public transportation. Make mass transit convenient and available and people won't drink and drive.
Anonymous said:
watch a few episodes of cops or court tv. those people dont look like the transit system type. how do you get a drunk to take a bus home from the lake? what about those high speed chases? weather they have been drinking or not they should lose thier license for life.
i think it would be a good idea if first timers were required to have a breathalizer but i dont think that would stop all of them from drinking and driving once they are done with the courts and its been removed from the car.
Karen said:
34 years ago my infant son was killed by a previouly convicted drunk driver. Driving drunk was not as seriously punished back then, but if it had been, and had included a first time offender consequence, my son, might have been alive today. Alcoholics do not take personal responsibility for their actions; they re-offend.
Anonymous said:
Yes,the first time a drunk driver is charged with a DWI isn't the first time they have driven drunk. We need to make it manditory! If people had enough pain and embarrassment from the begining of their alcohol habit, it might be a lesson in taking responsibility for their actions.
Rob said:
Yes we should. There is NO excuse for getting behind the wheel while having alcohol in your system. BTW,,,,,A First Time Offender ???? I think NOT,, just the first time they got caught!!!!
Laura said:
Why bother? The drunk can always find a way to drive, their car, someone elses car, and if their license is taken, you'll just have a drunk driving without a license and insurance.
Tina said:
YES!!!!!! I feel that it's a wake-up call for those who drive drunk. If they don't care enough about their own life to not drive drunk and call a cab, then what makes people think that they care about your life or even worse yet your families!!!!!!!!!
Stephanie said:
Absolutely Yes! This gives those first time offenders the opportunity to correct their behavior and keep other people on the road safe. They should also do community service and have to take a series of classes before it is removed. The punishment should be very memorable and help them form good habits. Bravo!
Tim said:
A person who drives drunk and kills another is guilty of murder. The laws should be changed to be able to prosecute these people for first- or second-degree murder. As such, we could then prosecute DWI offenders for attempted murder.
Give them a chance to "self-improve?" Does the child who was hit and killed by the drunk have this chance? Why do people try so hard to make it easier for criminals to improve themselves while ignoring the victims?
It seems like the only way to get justice anymore is outside of the legal system.
elsied said:
Setting drink limits at the bar, is another good start.
maureen said:
There is all kinds of reasons that everybody comes up with which none are working, except one that is to stop the real reason is alchol its self. do away with it and maybe everybody would be better off, they sure did come down on the cigarettes and slowly eliminating them because it kills people.
scott washington said:
it is very true that drinking and driving is a disgrace in our socity, iv'e always thought that prohibition should be brought back! but we can't do that cause of the revenue it brings in to our states! so lets put a blow and go on their cars! that a great idea!!! cause they can still be a drinker (revenue) and they have to buy (gas and extra insurance) revenue! oh, and the blow and go costs about 70.00 a month + (tax!) revenue!!!! cars should be equiped with steering wheels that can differentiate between a impaired driver and a sober one! no extra cost and no fowl. states should investigate the option of medications for the alcoholic, oops that wouldnt make sence (no revenue!)
James Richey said:
It should be a Federal law that a person has to be drunk to drive. Can you emagine 2 drunks trying to hit each other! It aint going to happen. Old people cause more accidents then any one else.
Terri said:
A first time offender who does not cause personal injury to anyone, including themselves, should be given the chance to straighten out their lives on their own...no locking device on the car and no license suspension. Make them attend AA meetings on a daily basis for 12 months. If they are an alcoholic, then that's the treatment they need, not striping them of their ability to generate a livable income because they have no drivers license. That in itself may cause them to drink even more due to the depression that may come from loss of license and the ability to provide an income for themselves and their family
joseph said:
The only one who benefits from a device on the car is the company who makes that device...anyone can blow into it...and losing a license for a first time offense that doesn't involve injury to themselves or another person is rediculous...their insurance is already going up..they now have the stigma of being a drunk driver and in alot of cases, they have lost their vehicle anyway...if it were You that did it once and got caught, you would say the same thing..only idiots go to extremes on decisions
Bill Holmberg said:
Yes! The subject pays for the device. If it happens again, their license should be revoked and a mandatory jail sentence of 1 year, should be imposed
Tim said:
Drunks who drive should be jailed for 2 years and be forced to pay for their incarceration (cash or labor). Drunk drivers who cause damage to property should be jailed for 5 years, forced to pay for their incarceration, and forced to pay 5 times the cost of the damaged property to the owner. Drunk drivers who cause harm or death to persons should be imprisoned for 10 years (hard labor) and forfeit all of their assets to the victims or surviving family members. All repeat offenders should be executed. Ignition interlock is moot. If you recklessly disregard anyone's right to life, you forfeit your own, period.
Meghan said:
I think first time offenders should have to serve jail time. DUI offences are not taken seriously! My parents were hit by a drunk driver when I was nine months old, and severely injured. They spent three years in rehab while I lived with family members. The idiot that hit them had previously been given 7 DUIs! If he would have been punished for his thoughtless actions the first time, my parents would still be healthy.
kia said:
The problem with some of your comments is that I feel drunk drivers are singled out for some reason (crazy MADD people) what about smoking? Shouldnt people who smoke which constantly kill others be put to jail. What about people who speed? Surely all you great statiticians know that speeding causes far more deaths than drinking and driving...and lets not forget the cell phones, kills more as well.
Im not advocating drinking and driving, I dont even drink. But I do think that people make mistakes and deserves second chances. I also find it odd that they are singled out when other behaviors cause far more innocent fatalities. Lastly, things are going to happen in an imperfect world (cancer, second hand smoke lung cancer death, asthma to innocent kids, death by speeding, etc etc etc) everyone dies from something different. There is much blame to go around.
I DO however think these devices should be in ALL cars, we woudl eliminate innocent deaths as well as shame and charges to those who have an addiction. I think the government wouldnt like that though, bc they enjpy making money off drunk drivers (while knowingly putting innocent lives at risk the government profits)
yok said:
i think that people who drive drunk should go to jail more than twenty hours cause dis shit is getting redicoulous
jm said:
I feel that people make mistakes. People are human and a vast majority of the population at large has driven intoxicated at one time at least in their life. Alcohol is a legal drug and people will drive after consumption period. That is until alcohol is outlawed and prohibited which will, as history demonstrates, difficult. It is my opinion that we are no longer free in this country, we don't have the rights we once have. Driving should not be a privledge and privledge to move through this country effortlessly as willed. Is it a privledge to travel from state to state as well? If so, with this privledge should we have a license for this Luxury as well. Furthermore, as privledged citezens that have the freedom to go from state to state will we be required to pass a checkpoint and lose said privledges if we make a mistake. Welcome to Nazi Germany, were almost there. Driving is a right as an American citezen you stupid ass. My Great Grandfather and his sons and my uncles and brothers have fought for this right. People make mistakes and shouldn't be losing their right to drive because of it! Punishment yes but taking their right, their freedom to travel is ridiculous. We have too many people in this world anyway, so what if a drunk driver takes himself and an innocent out? Population control get over it liberal panzy. Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
danielle said:
Yes! Yes! Yes!
danielle said:
Yes! Yes! Yes!
danielle said:
Yes! Yes! Yes!
scotty j said:
What if this device fails and someone dies because they can't get to the hospital in time? Another stupid authoritarian idea. I think MADD are like Nazis..first they lower the legal limit to .08% to cast a wider net (now anyone having a couple glasses of wine at a dinner can be considered a "drunk" driver). When I read about the fatal drunk driving accidents its always some fool who drank 3 to 4 times that amount, not someone at .08%. Someone with just .08% blood-alcohol level is not as dangerous as someone going to work in the morning who didn't get enough sleep! Or someone on a cell phone. So why the unequal treatment?
This is all about the money. Just like the new freeway cameras that are generating thousands of tickets to be paid by the citizens (the camera company gets a kick-back for each ticket issued), these ignition devices will generate a lot of profit for the Government-Corporate complex.
Look at all the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. These taxes hit the poor the most. If it is such a "sin" to drink or smoke why not ban those activities? Oh that's right, because the government is making money from it.
I do agree that drunk drivers are a problem and should be penalized, but this device will probably not work as expected and cause more problems and lawsuits. It seems like more unnecessary government meddling into peoples lives.
A hefty fine on the first offense and a short jail term on the second offense will work with most people. After that no license.
And what about the millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom are already driving without a license or insurance? They will just get another car to drive around in.
Melissa said:
NO!!!! This is ridiculous! Honestly! Most people have drank alcohol and driven some time in their life. The people that DONT get caught are the ones who are still doing it. The people that get caught usually learn their lesson. If someone got into a wreck and someone was hurt IT WAS AN ACCIDENT for heavens sake! It impacts the driver too and of course their life is ruined and live with the guilt everyday! Because you try to make the punishment harsher it will NOT bring back your loved one or stop people from drinking and driving!
Jerry said:
No, for heaven's sake. You people are talking about sending someone to jail for a year, for the probability that they might hurt someone.
Jumpin Christmas, every single person who drives a car sober or not has a probability to injure or kill someone. Are we going to start arresting people for speeding, running red lights? You people are amazing in your self-righteousness.
You run red light and are sober you get a ticket, you run a red light after a beer and it's off to jail you go. Do you people realiz there is no difference? I would say I see 20 or more people run red lights every single day.
Yes!!!
No!!!! The judicial system should allow the individual to take responsibility for their actions and consider the first offense to be a wake up warning.
after being a tow truck driver, and seeing the same people two or three times picking up the same car . i think it should be that way for even the first time offender !!!!
This is an excellent idea and my wife and I ae both in favor of legistation to require this test.
No, they should have their license removed. Come on, people. They made a bad decision that potentially takes other peoples lives. There is no excuse for them not thinking about the possible outcome. Why should there be a second chance? Look at the statistics! 16,885 people were killed in 2005 in the United States due to alcohol related accidents, almost 6 times as many deaths as our soldiers in Iraq have suffered. And then come the excuses: "I won't be able to go to work," etc. It doesn't matter that they won't be able to be as mobile as they were used to: driving is a PRIVELEDGE, not a right. We are way too lenient on the use of this drug. Imagine a loved one of yours getting killed on the road by some drunk who feels he should get a second chance. Will the dead person?
YES! The first time picked up is never the first time the person has driven drunk. A second chance may result in a death (if the first time didn't.)
IT SHOULD BE A FELONY TO SELL IT,AND ANYONE DRIVING AND DRINKING AT ALL SHOULD LOOSE THERE RIGHT TO DRIVE AND PUT IN JAIL MORE THEN JUST THE TWENTY FOUR HOURS,,
BUT THEN AGAIN,THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT LET O.J. GO AND MARTHA STWART WENT TO JAIL
Yes, first time offenders should be required to equip their cars with ignition interlock devices. In 2000 my husband Tom, our son Torry, our grandson Garrett and I were hit head on by a drunk driver. Our whole world was shattered in a moment...our beloved son and precious grandson were killed. We were trapped in our vehicle with our children for over an hour. Tom and I spent six months in physical therapy mending our bodies, minds and broken hearts. We will never again hear our children say upon this earth, "I love you..." We can only carry those special memories with in our hearts. "A first time offender" can kill. We all need to work together to find an answer to the most "preventable deaths" that happen through out our world. "Drunk Drivers." How many other family members and friends do we lose before new laws are created to keep drunk drivers off our roads and from injuring and killing? Our hearts hurt at the thought of another mom, dad, grandma and grandpa crying somewhere because their children were innocent victims of a drunk driver or they are the parents or grandparents of a drunk driver that killed.
My dear cousin and best friend was killed by a first time drunk driver. Just because it was his first time, doesn't make it any less a crime than if it was his tenth. He knew what he was doing when he got behind the wheel of his car after drinking too much and my sweet cousin left behind two small children who will grow up without their mother.
I also believe that punishment for drivers who kill should be much more rigid because in my opinion it is no less first degree murder than if someone takes a gun and kills someone with it. A drunk knows what he's doing when he gets behind the wheel of a car. If he drives and kills someone, it's premeditated murder and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
PUNISH THEM EARLY!!
it is my uderstanding that over 75% of first time dui offenders are required to have the lockout interlock device installed.
7 million dollar advertising campaign gee I wish I was in the business. All those commissions, wow.
With that kind of money you could buy 300 minivans and staff over 300 drinking establishments with pickup and delivery services
like a car dealership does thats working on our cars. For one year.
come on Madd you need to try to educate and provide transportation to and fro. Our prisons are full of dui offenders.
once the interlock device comes off in 6 months
the majority of offenders will drive to have a couple of cocktails and then they drive and people get killed or hurt terribly.
david alexander
liberty lake
Absoutely a first time drunk should have to put the divice on their car. Why should someone or their property be in danger just because it is their first time driving drunk. Frankly it most likely is not the first time just caught. so YES YES YES
No! because a person planning to drive under the influence is probably gonna make a bad choice to drive anyway. The way around it, they will get someone sober to blow into the ignition lock system and they are still driving under the influence. Waste of time and money.
No. I have a better idea. Take that drunk driver's licence to drive away. FOR LIFE. Driving is a privilege, NOT a right, and a drunk driver violates the privilege by putting people's lives in jeopardy just by being on the road.
I want to respect other people and their opinions. It is so hard after reading their comments. This is why we are here, now with all the rules a problems.
Who would pay for this machine? I think those that vote for more control should pay for it.
Make penalties stiffer.
Don't create a business out of punishment; 2 weeks in jail on first offense. Time enough to see that this is a serious subject. One year jail on second offense if it occurs within 10 years of first offense, 90 days if over ten years.
Every-time something like this gets passed, someone is profiting.
So my answer is no.
Crime should be punished by removing the criminals from society, not trying to profit from them.
Yes
No! Current law is poorly understood. Most think a DUI citation is only issued if the breathalyser reads above .08. The truth is if you are pulled over at night for any of a number of driving "infractions" such as favoring one side of the lane or driving with your window down or not stopping at the cross bar that sometimes is and sometimes isn't in front of a crosswalk, and you test out as little as .03 on the breathalyser, you can go through the whole punishment scheme pushed by MADD. The cops argue that the above "infractions" are proof enough the individual has had too much to drink....even though if they cited everyone of us who do these "infractions" during the day, there would be precious few of us uncited.
I think the DUI laws are Draconian in their present state. I thought MADD had accomplished their goals. Turns out I was wrong. My question is, is there a limit to how much punishment should be meted out to a "drunk" driver? Right now licenses are revoked which has the potential to result in loss of job. Job loss likely will lead to divorce since money is the number one reason for it. What will MADD suggest next? Execution?
With overcrowded jails imposing jail time hurts everyone. As for ignition interlock the person resposible for paying the fee is the defendant. Can't afford the device and you don't drive. Saying that a drivers license is revoked is a joke, the court system is choked with people driving while license suspended. I say if you are convicted of dui, you pay the price and that means 1 year of ignition interlock. The reason for the stiffer penalties is to protect society, almost everyone can name someone touched by a dui accident. It's time to make the defendant responsible for their actions.
everybody has good comments and there is always a lot of emotion on this subject. drunken driving will never be stopped until every auto,truck ect has an ignition lock detector. that means EVERYONE has to go thru the start up procedure to drive. stop and think about that, it is the only way to stop the problem totally.are you ready for that every time you get in your car, final comment: how many people are killed on the roads by cell phone users, speeding,high on drugs,or the all wheel drive vehicles whose driver thinks they are invinsible on snow and ice
Yes,Also think the laws need to be changed because it seems to be to easy for people with money to hire Lawyers to get them off the hook!I also think that a person should never be givin the chance to get 4 and 5 DUIs!!!Judges,dont you think that after a couple of DUIs there just might be a problem.Some people just might be alive today,If the system had a system!
NO! maybe for multiple offenses, but everyone should have the opertunity to self improve once
No.
We need to eliminate the possibility of drunk driving not by attempting to restrict driving or alcohol consumption (which hasn't worked) but by creating a better alternative to the personalized death machines (cars) we drive: public transportation. Make mass transit convenient and available and people won't drink and drive.
watch a few episodes of cops or court tv. those people dont look like the transit system type. how do you get a drunk to take a bus home from the lake? what about those high speed chases? weather they have been drinking or not they should lose thier license for life.
i think it would be a good idea if first timers were required to have a breathalizer but i dont think that would stop all of them from drinking and driving once they are done with the courts and its been removed from the car.
34 years ago my infant son was killed by a previouly convicted drunk driver. Driving drunk was not as seriously punished back then, but if it had been, and had included a first time offender consequence, my son, might have been alive today. Alcoholics do not take personal responsibility for their actions; they re-offend.
Yes,the first time a drunk driver is charged with a DWI isn't the first time they have driven drunk. We need to make it manditory! If people had enough pain and embarrassment from the begining of their alcohol habit, it might be a lesson in taking responsibility for their actions.
Yes we should. There is NO excuse for getting behind the wheel while having alcohol in your system. BTW,,,,,A First Time Offender ???? I think NOT,, just the first time they got caught!!!!
Why bother? The drunk can always find a way to drive, their car, someone elses car, and if their license is taken, you'll just have a drunk driving without a license and insurance.
YES!!!!!! I feel that it's a wake-up call for those who drive drunk. If they don't care enough about their own life to not drive drunk and call a cab, then what makes people think that they care about your life or even worse yet your families!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely Yes! This gives those first time offenders the opportunity to correct their behavior and keep other people on the road safe. They should also do community service and have to take a series of classes before it is removed. The punishment should be very memorable and help them form good habits. Bravo!
A person who drives drunk and kills another is guilty of murder. The laws should be changed to be able to prosecute these people for first- or second-degree murder. As such, we could then prosecute DWI offenders for attempted murder.
Give them a chance to "self-improve?" Does the child who was hit and killed by the drunk have this chance? Why do people try so hard to make it easier for criminals to improve themselves while ignoring the victims?
It seems like the only way to get justice anymore is outside of the legal system.
Setting drink limits at the bar, is another good start.
There is all kinds of reasons that everybody comes up with which none are working, except one that is to stop the real reason is alchol its self. do away with it and maybe everybody would be better off, they sure did come down on the cigarettes and slowly eliminating them because it kills people.
it is very true that drinking and driving is a disgrace in our socity, iv'e always thought that prohibition should be brought back! but we can't do that cause of the revenue it brings in to our states! so lets put a blow and go on their cars! that a great idea!!! cause they can still be a drinker (revenue) and they have to buy (gas and extra insurance) revenue! oh, and the blow and go costs about 70.00 a month + (tax!) revenue!!!! cars should be equiped with steering wheels that can differentiate between a impaired driver and a sober one! no extra cost and no fowl. states should investigate the option of medications for the alcoholic, oops that wouldnt make sence (no revenue!)
It should be a Federal law that a person has to be drunk to drive. Can you emagine 2 drunks trying to hit each other! It aint going to happen. Old people cause more accidents then any one else.
A first time offender who does not cause personal injury to anyone, including themselves, should be given the chance to straighten out their lives on their own...no locking device on the car and no license suspension. Make them attend AA meetings on a daily basis for 12 months. If they are an alcoholic, then that's the treatment they need, not striping them of their ability to generate a livable income because they have no drivers license. That in itself may cause them to drink even more due to the depression that may come from loss of license and the ability to provide an income for themselves and their family
The only one who benefits from a device on the car is the company who makes that device...anyone can blow into it...and losing a license for a first time offense that doesn't involve injury to themselves or another person is rediculous...their insurance is already going up..they now have the stigma of being a drunk driver and in alot of cases, they have lost their vehicle anyway...if it were You that did it once and got caught, you would say the same thing..only idiots go to extremes on decisions
Yes! The subject pays for the device. If it happens again, their license should be revoked and a mandatory jail sentence of 1 year, should be imposed
Drunks who drive should be jailed for 2 years and be forced to pay for their incarceration (cash or labor). Drunk drivers who cause damage to property should be jailed for 5 years, forced to pay for their incarceration, and forced to pay 5 times the cost of the damaged property to the owner. Drunk drivers who cause harm or death to persons should be imprisoned for 10 years (hard labor) and forfeit all of their assets to the victims or surviving family members. All repeat offenders should be executed. Ignition interlock is moot. If you recklessly disregard anyone's right to life, you forfeit your own, period.
I think first time offenders should have to serve jail time. DUI offences are not taken seriously! My parents were hit by a drunk driver when I was nine months old, and severely injured. They spent three years in rehab while I lived with family members. The idiot that hit them had previously been given 7 DUIs! If he would have been punished for his thoughtless actions the first time, my parents would still be healthy.
The problem with some of your comments is that I feel drunk drivers are singled out for some reason (crazy MADD people) what about smoking? Shouldnt people who smoke which constantly kill others be put to jail. What about people who speed? Surely all you great statiticians know that speeding causes far more deaths than drinking and driving...and lets not forget the cell phones, kills more as well.
Im not advocating drinking and driving, I dont even drink. But I do think that people make mistakes and deserves second chances. I also find it odd that they are singled out when other behaviors cause far more innocent fatalities. Lastly, things are going to happen in an imperfect world (cancer, second hand smoke lung cancer death, asthma to innocent kids, death by speeding, etc etc etc) everyone dies from something different. There is much blame to go around.
I DO however think these devices should be in ALL cars, we woudl eliminate innocent deaths as well as shame and charges to those who have an addiction. I think the government wouldnt like that though, bc they enjpy making money off drunk drivers (while knowingly putting innocent lives at risk the government profits)
i think that people who drive drunk should go to jail more than twenty hours cause dis shit is getting redicoulous
I feel that people make mistakes. People are human and a vast majority of the population at large has driven intoxicated at one time at least in their life. Alcohol is a legal drug and people will drive after consumption period. That is until alcohol is outlawed and prohibited which will, as history demonstrates, difficult. It is my opinion that we are no longer free in this country, we don't have the rights we once have. Driving should not be a privledge and privledge to move through this country effortlessly as willed. Is it a privledge to travel from state to state as well? If so, with this privledge should we have a license for this Luxury as well. Furthermore, as privledged citezens that have the freedom to go from state to state will we be required to pass a checkpoint and lose said privledges if we make a mistake. Welcome to Nazi Germany, were almost there. Driving is a right as an American citezen you stupid ass. My Great Grandfather and his sons and my uncles and brothers have fought for this right. People make mistakes and shouldn't be losing their right to drive because of it! Punishment yes but taking their right, their freedom to travel is ridiculous. We have too many people in this world anyway, so what if a drunk driver takes himself and an innocent out? Population control get over it liberal panzy. Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
What if this device fails and someone dies because they can't get to the hospital in time? Another stupid authoritarian idea. I think MADD are like Nazis..first they lower the legal limit to .08% to cast a wider net (now anyone having a couple glasses of wine at a dinner can be considered a "drunk" driver). When I read about the fatal drunk driving accidents its always some fool who drank 3 to 4 times that amount, not someone at .08%. Someone with just .08% blood-alcohol level is not as dangerous as someone going to work in the morning who didn't get enough sleep! Or someone on a cell phone. So why the unequal treatment?
This is all about the money. Just like the new freeway cameras that are generating thousands of tickets to be paid by the citizens (the camera company gets a kick-back for each ticket issued), these ignition devices will generate a lot of profit for the Government-Corporate complex.
Look at all the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. These taxes hit the poor the most. If it is such a "sin" to drink or smoke why not ban those activities? Oh that's right, because the government is making money from it.
I do agree that drunk drivers are a problem and should be penalized, but this device will probably not work as expected and cause more problems and lawsuits. It seems like more unnecessary government meddling into peoples lives.
A hefty fine on the first offense and a short jail term on the second offense will work with most people. After that no license.
And what about the millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom are already driving without a license or insurance? They will just get another car to drive around in.
NO!!!! This is ridiculous! Honestly! Most people have drank alcohol and driven some time in their life. The people that DONT get caught are the ones who are still doing it. The people that get caught usually learn their lesson. If someone got into a wreck and someone was hurt IT WAS AN ACCIDENT for heavens sake! It impacts the driver too and of course their life is ruined and live with the guilt everyday! Because you try to make the punishment harsher it will NOT bring back your loved one or stop people from drinking and driving!
No, for heaven's sake. You people are talking about sending someone to jail for a year, for the probability that they might hurt someone.
Jumpin Christmas, every single person who drives a car sober or not has a probability to injure or kill someone. Are we going to start arresting people for speeding, running red lights? You people are amazing in your self-righteousness.
You run red light and are sober you get a ticket, you run a red light after a beer and it's off to jail you go. Do you people realiz there is no difference? I would say I see 20 or more people run red lights every single day.