NewBerlinNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

The Local Buzz

Paul Gallagher is a former New Berlin alderman. He stays actively involved in local and regional issues.

A Rallying Cry

By Paul Gallagher
Thursday, May 8 2008, 07:29 PM

For years the drunk driving laws in Wisconsin have been far too weak. Time after time we read about habitual drunken drivers killing innocent people. The tragic death of Jennifer Bukosky and her two children may have finally been the last straw. State Legislators are calling for stricter penalties for 3rd offense drunk drivers.

Many years ago, I was arrested for DUI. It was one of the biggest life altering experiences of my life. The consensus seems to be that everyone can make a "mistake", but after that you should know better. For me it was not a “mistake”; I did it knowingly. I paid the penalties, rode the bus for a year, learned from the "mistake", and moved on with my life. I have known a few people over the last 25 years that have been arrested for DUI. The majority truely did regret what happened and make a great effort not to repeat. From my own personal experience I understand that those that don't "get it" after the first time, probably never will. Those that don’t “get it” after the 2nd or 3rd offense, will likely keep driving until they maim or kill. Repeat offenders are the most guilty of all. After all, they are experienced at this, and fully understand what they are doing is wrong. They make a conscious decision to risk innocent lives.

While staying out of town last week, I stopped at the hotel lounge. I witnessed several local men drinking until they were so drunk, they could barely talk or walk. The bartender kindly reminded them to “watch out for the police”. I hardly think this is an isolated event. It unfortunately happens every day in every city.

Legislators are proposing making the 3rd offense a felony. They also propose confiscating the offender’s vehicle for the 3rd offense. This is a great start but it does not go far enough. For starters, revoking a driver license has virtually zero impact on the repeaters. Here are some suggestions:

·        1st offense. Penalties stay the same as they are. Except, all vehicle registrations in the offenders name are revoked, and plates are confiscated. This will significantly reduce the chance of driving. After the license revocation period, mandatory alcohol sensors should be installed in the vehicle of the offender and the offenders spouse’s vehicle for a period of at least one year.

·        2nd offense. In addition to the above, there should be much stiffer financial penalties, and mandatory jail time. Special license plates should be required on vehicles titles in the offenders name, that warn other drivers.

·        3rd offense. Mandatory 3 years minimum prison time. Confiscation of vehicle.

·        4th offense. Life in prison. These people are hopeless and will eventually kill.

The fear of prison, or having a vehicle confiscated will prevent most from repeating. For those that continue to repeat, we need to have laws that make further repeat offenses impossible. It’s time to get tough with this issue before more innocent people are needlessly killed.

Comments

MP SOLDIER   

I hope you realize that the penalties as outlined above have greater implications.

For instance, prison overcrowding is a problem in Wisconsin. Now where are we going to put these people we are locking up, especially the life-ers? Maybe we should just let out the armed robbers and child molesters to make room.

Also, specialized plates  may affect the innocent families of those offenders by embarassing and subjecting them to possible mistreatment. Not only that, it definately gives those accused of DUI a way out. It is very easy to say that the officer just made the stop or his decision to make the stop was influenced by the special plate, negating probable cause.

Seems to me that your solutions will cause more problems than they fix and perhaps should be reconsidered.

May 11, 2008 8:58 PM

Paul Gallagher   

MP Soldier,

Sounds like you're more concerned about the offenders than the victims.

May 11, 2008 9:10 PM

MP SOLDIER   

As a law enforcement officer, I'm not overly concerned for offenders and I fail to see where I have advocated for the offenders.

I merely mentioned their families of which have done nothing wrong. Lets say for a second that you had two DUI convictions, would you want your children or wife to have to drive around with special plates? I bet your children wouldn't want to drive your car to school.

If anything I think that I took a stance AGAINST offenders when I highlighted that it would allow them to get out of DUI convictions as that implies that I want to see them convicted.

As for prison over-crowding, that is a fact that needs no defense.

I do however appriciate that you did take the time to write about drunk driving and the fact that you were able to relate your own experiences to the topic. I do not disagree with you that we need to be tough on repeat offenders. I just wanted to point out the flaws in the penalties you came up with so that both sides of the subject were expressed.

May 11, 2008 9:38 PM

Paul Gallagher   

As a law enforcement officer (Which is hard to believe considering your soft stance), you should know that more people are murdered by drunk driver each year, than by guns. That fact should warrant extra resources and jail cells. Ohio, Minnesota Georgia and others have already instituted these special plates, and so far it has been a big success. Yes it may cause embarrassment, but it may also save a life. Maybe the life of a member of your family.

May 11, 2008 11:19 PM

MP SOLDIER   

You really do not do well with criticism do you? Again saying I am taking a soft stance without proving your claim by showing where I am soft in my argument.

Actually, if you would read up on those programs allowing for special plates in Ohio, Minnesota, and Georgia you would know that the special plates are not required for the offender themselves to drive, but to allow for family members to drive those cars in instances where the plates have been revoked and only issued for that time period in which they plates have been revoked- the offender should not be driving at all because their operators permit has been revoked. So I would love to see how you say this law is a "big success" when there is no such law in existance and no data to back it up.

Also, if you do enact to harsh of penalties, you end up reversing the effect you were trying to get. If the police, prosecutors, judges, and juries think the penalties are too harsh, they often times use the power of discretion and choose not to charge or convict you of that crime because it does not fit the punishment and instead look for something lesser. No matter how many laws you pass, discretion throughout the criminal justice system can not be controlled.

I will restate again that I am all for tougher laws for repeat DUI's and am not arguing that it may save a life if we can prevent a drunk driver from getting behind the wheel- I just don't think all of what you preach is the best answer.

I do think you are on the right track with the alcohol ignition interlock devices, installed at the offenders expense of course and revocation of plates. You just go WAY too far with everything else.

May 12, 2008 7:52 AM

The Nice Crowd   

With the severe penalties that are handed down for first offenses, I like this idea.  If you are too dumb to get it after your first offense, you are a complete MORON.  

May 12, 2008 3:59 PM

Paul Gallagher   

MP,

You keep making excuses for getting tough on this crime. That makes it appear that you don't take it seriously. Regarding the special plates, you are only half right, the drunks should not be driving the car. But the red flag plate should extend past the license revocation period. If someone sees a car with the special plate, it alerts them to the high potential that a drunk may be behind the wheel. And generally, I don't have a lot of sympathy for a spouse that may get stuck driving the car with the special plate, because in all likely hood, the spouse is either an enabler or a drunk driver as well. My sympathy is for the victims, and the future victims not the criminals.

The root problem is that the drunks won't stop driving. We have to take extra measures to prevent them, or alert other drivers to their recklessness. If that means locking them up for extended periods, or branding them, then I'm fine with that. I think most people would agree.

May 12, 2008 8:36 PM

Beverly Thomas   

Bravo Paul.  Drunk Drivers must be dealt with.  People sit on the fence. . .  until someone they love is injured or killed by a drunk driver.

May 13, 2008 8:58 AM

Icaughtthat   

It is suprising to me that a past DUI offender would be the first person to make up such drastic punishments.

May 17, 2008 10:47 AM

T S   

icaughtthat, who are you to say that there should no punishment for drunk drivers. make you're own laws.

May 17, 2008 4:01 PM

Icaughtthat   

What does that mean? What are you talking about?
May 18, 2008 1:39 AM

how to forgive? - Takin' the Blog for a Walk   

Pingback from  how to forgive? - Takin' the Blog for a Walk

May 24, 2008 9:38 PM

Linda Richter   

FYI: There is an online petition about impaired drivers which supports law changes, confiscating vehicles for people who continue to drive after license revocation. Patrick of BadgerBlogger.com is championing it. Looks like lots of people have already signed the petition. Cindy Kilkenny did a May 7 article about it on her Fairly Conservative blog. The blog entry is called "Take a minute and review this petition".
June 8, 2008 9:47 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

No tags have been created or used yet.

Archives

Search the Blogs