Dui's are one of the only laws on the book where some people want to punish for what could happen instead of what did happen. I'm just not comfortable with that.

At the very least I wouldn't get any tougher. Like I asked is there some sort of huge uptick that calls for it. I guess 170 deaths a year is a good number of deaths for you

 

But for one I would get these corrupt "alcohol counselers" of the government tit. Not even sure what your saying here

 

We already have the ability to punish harsher for aggravated reasons. If no property or people are harmed I'm not comfortable making it harsher. If a guy walks into the mall a fires off 20 shots but doesn't hit anyone should that be OK or get off with a wrist slap "Because he didn't hit anyone", same as driving drunk IMO

 

I've never been comfortable with .08 and now you want to increase punishment on that no thanks. So you think .08 is sober...OK..Would you be OK if your pilot or surgeon was .08 next time you flew or had surgery?

 

I don't know if they need to be any tougher or not, that's why I started the thread.

 

My biggest point is that most DUI wrecks are from repeat offenders, they evidently aren't learning a lesson under the current system. Percent of Drivers in Fatal Crashes Involving Repeat Offenders is over 70% for those with BAC over .15 and over 26% of DUI fatalities are repeat offenders with a BAC of between .05-.14

 

System doesn't really seem to be much of a deterrent as it is now. Maybe prosecution is at fault for letting so many DUI's getting reduced for expediency sake.

No increase, but still 170 or so Kentuckians die each year due to DUI.

 

Of those, how many are the drivers themselves? Meaning how many of the 170 are innocent lives that are lost. Granted Even one is too many.

I've met a lot of folks in the legal profession but I've never met too many lazy prosecutors. Their dockets are massive and more often than not have to to deal with judges that don't particularly care or view the prosecutors as too harsh. Again, a judge looks at a DUI scenario and most of the time sees no injury and no property damage. Most judges won't hand down jail time without an identifiable victim. They don't even like to hand down massive fines without one.

 

I do think judges have gotten much better about enforcement of the penalties on the books in the last few years. I want to see where things go from here.

 

Maybe Lazy was the wrong term, they do it for expediency sake. Deal down and move on rather than go to trial for a conviction. I know that happens on all charges not just DUI.

Of those, how many are the drivers themselves? Meaning how many of the 170 are innocent lives that are lost. Granted Even one is too many.

No idea, the stats I saw were just total and didn't break it down like that.

 

But is driving drunk any less a danger than leaving a loaded and cocked gun on a table in reach of a child?

Maybe Lazy was the wrong term, they do it for expediency sake. Deal down and move on rather than go to trial for a conviction. I know that happens on all charges not just DUI.

 

Expediency is only half of it. Like I said above, a prosecutor can go after charges all he or she wants, but the judge is going to hand down that sentence. Without a victim, what you want just isn't going to happen.

Dui's are one of the only laws on the book where some people want to punish for what could happen instead of what did happen. I'm just not comfortable with that.

 

No, driving drunk is against the law. That's what they are being punished for.

 

If we wanted to charge for what could happen you could charge them a count of endangerment for EVERY car they meet or pass and every pedestrian they may drive past.

Expediency is only half of it. Like I said above, a prosecutor can go after charges all he or she wants, but the judge is going to hand down that sentence. Without a victim, what you want just isn't going to happen.

Without a victim? So should DUI's be legal unless the driver causes there to be a victim?

I just want at least the law as written to be upheld when it get's to court.

 

I've sat in court 100's and 100's of hours, in nearly EVERY single case, if the prosecutor makes a deal at the rail with the accused or their attorney the judge accepts the deal, I'd say in 99% of the cases I've seen.

I don't know if they need to be any tougher or not, that's why I started the thread.

 

My biggest point is that most DUI wrecks are from repeat offenders, they evidently aren't learning a lesson under the current system. Percent of Drivers in Fatal Crashes Involving Repeat Offenders is over 70% for those with BAC over .15 and over 26% of DUI fatalities are repeat offenders with a BAC of between .05-.14

 

System doesn't really seem to be much of a deterrent as it is now. Maybe prosecution is at fault for letting so many DUI's getting reduced for expediency sake.

 

I didn't say 170 lives was Ok. But there isn't some sort of rising epidemic. That calls for massive change.

 

If there isn't a rising epidemic I normally rule on the side of not giving the government more power to put citizens in jail longer.

 

The "alcohol counselers" comment is dealing with these law firms that give the "alcohol classes" to the offenders. The classes are a joke and the whole system revolved around it smells shady.

 

No I don't think .08 is drunk. I can already see from your stat you are putting .05 in there. So now I'm guessing you want to go lower.

 

The whole DUI enforcement is a joke. If we wanted to eliminate DUI's we could tomorrow. Make every car come with a breath analyzer and boom no driving drunk .

 

Every bar and restaurant on a Friday and Saturday parking lot is full and if you come back at 4am they are empty I'm sure most of those drivers didn't drink.

 

I know this is going to anger some but it's true. When it comes to laws follow the money. This so called problem could be eliminated tomorrow but we choose to keep punishing citizens harsher and harsher.

No, driving drunk is against the law. That's what they are being punished for.

 

If we wanted to charge for what could happen you could charge them a count of endangerment for EVERY car they meet or pass and every pedestrian they may drive past.

 

You want to increase punishment in cases of no victims. So yes you want to punish them for what could happen.

You want to increase punishment in cases of no victims. So yes you want to punish them for what could happen.

 

I didn't say that, I was asking a question.

Without a victim? So should DUI's be legal unless the driver causes there to be a victim?

I just want at least the law as written to be upheld when it get's to court.

 

I've sat in court 100's and 100's of hours, in nearly EVERY single case, if the prosecutor makes a deal at the rail with the accused or their attorney the judge accepts the deal, I'd say in 99% of the cases I've seen.

 

You're extrapolating a lot. Where did I say "legal"? You're not going to get max penalties on a DUI where no one was injured and nothing was damaged. Just won't happen... unless you want mandatory sentencing on DUI convictions... but then you'll REALLY see what prosecutorial discretion looks like as far as pleading down.

 

The prosecutors make deals because that's what judges want them to do. Even that deal then has to be approved by the judge. Almost all of the time they are because, again, that's exactly what the judge wanted. You don't need new laws. You need good judges... and they're getting harder and harder to find.

I didn't say 170 lives was Ok. But there isn't some sort of rising epidemic. That calls for massive change. I didn't ask for a MASSIVE Change

 

If there isn't a rising epidemic I normally rule on the side of not giving the government more power to put citizens in jail longer. I know you militia guys want everyone released from jail..calm down just kidding

 

The "alcohol counselers" comment is dealing with these law firms that give the "alcohol classes" to the offenders. The classes are a joke and the whole system revolved around it smells shady.

 

No I don't think .08 is drunk. I can already see from your stat you are putting .05 in there. So now I'm guessing you want to go lower. .05 was a typo, I'm fine with .08

The whole DUI enforcement is a joke. If we wanted to eliminate DUI's we could tomorrow. Make every car come with a breath analyzer and boom no driving drunk . I figured YOU would be 100% against that...it would help, but people already find ways around that

 

Every bar and restaurant on a Friday and Saturday parking lot is full and if you come back at 4am they are empty I'm sure most of those drivers didn't drink.

 

I know this is going to anger some but it's true. When it comes to laws follow the money. This so called problem could be eliminated tomorrow but we choose to keep punishing citizens harsher and harsher. You make a decent point on this...but only the lawyers are getting rich from DUI's...state in the end isn't coming out ahead

 

You put a lot out of what you think I'm saying, I'm asking questions more than anything. I do think repeat offenders need to be dealt with more severely, I don't know what should or shouldn't be done more severely.

You're extrapolating a lot. Where did I say "legal"? You're not going to get max penalties on a DUI where no one was injured and nothing was damaged. Just won't happen... unless you want mandatory sentencing on DUI convictions... but then you'll REALLY see what prosecutorial discretion looks like as far as pleading down.

 

The prosecutors make deals because that's what judges want them to do. Even that deal then has to be approved by the judge. Almost all of the time they are because, again, that's exactly what the judge wanted. You don't need new laws. You need good judges... and they're getting harder and harder to find.

I misinterpreted what you were saying, I thought you said no prosecution without a victim...my bad.

We do need good judges and good prosecutors, too few of both. Can't put it all on the Judges, though.

You put a lot out of what you think I'm saying, I'm asking questions more than anything. I do think repeat offenders need to be dealt with more severely, I don't know what should or shouldn't be done more severely.

 

 

For the record I'm not against the breath analyzers in cars. It's why I brought it up. Atleast then the government would be honest in their intentions.