I understand the complaint about people paying for rehab services or testing as part of their agreement.

 

I was sitting in court one day and two women were complaining that their son/brother was going to have to pay $45 per day to be on home incarceration. Their thinking was that since a local store had charged him with shoplifting that the STORE should have to pay for his home incarceration! They then looked at me (not knowing why I was there) and asked if I didn't think that was fair, that if the store wanted to prosecute him they should have to pay for his home incarceration. I told them they didn't have to pay it. The mom asked me, "Why is there a program to pay it for us?" I laughed and said "No, but he can go to jail for free" that ticked them off. Then they really got ticked when I got up and went to the bench when their family members case was called and stood with the prosecutor.

 

If people don't want to pay for rehab or get weekly/random testing they almost always have the option of staying in jail for free.

 

 

Definitely so. I completely understand what you are saying there. I was going more for situations that are more the exception but can really only be described as a kickback scheme. If it's competitive in terms of how the bidding, fee arrangements, etc. are conducted, then that's not something that I have a problem with. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case though. I'm not saying that the system as a whole is broken, crooked, or corrupt, but there are definitely some things that make you question priorities.

 

The fee thing can really hurt for people who are already struggling financially and haven't done anything that's really awful (e.g., speeding ticket for going 12 over in 65 that will raise insurance unless you pay to enroll in some type of driving course, etc.). It's certainly one thing when the program cost is reasonable and the intent is to help, but it's another when whoever is in charge would be just as happy if you just wrote them a check and left them alone to apply for more grant money.

 

In Texas, even if you are judicially ordered to perform community service, and depending on what you are charged with and how you plea, you can "buy" up to a certain amount of community service hours in lieu of performing them. I'm not talking about paying someone off illegally or something like that. I'm talking about it literally being legal to just write their agency a check at a "per hour" rate and that takes care of "x" amount of hours. Not really sure how many ways you can take the intent of whoever set that up.

It's a persons CHOICE to drink that much in the first place.

 

To start drinking in general I agree. Once someone is an alcoholic it's no longer a choice. So on that we can agree but that's not what you first said.

I understand the complaint about people paying for rehab services or testing as part of their agreement.

 

I was sitting in court one day and two women were complaining that their son/brother was going to have to pay $45 per day to be on home incarceration. Their thinking was that since a local store had charged him with shoplifting that the STORE should have to pay for his home incarceration! They then looked at me (not knowing why I was there) and asked if I didn't think that was fair, that if the store wanted to prosecute him they should have to pay for his home incarceration. I told them they didn't have to pay it. The mom asked me, "Why is there a program to pay it for us?" I laughed and said "No, but he can go to jail for free" that ticked them off. Then they really got ticked when I got up and went to the bench when their family members case was called and stood with the prosecutor.

 

If people don't want to pay for rehab or get weekly/random testing they almost always have the option of staying in jail for free.

 

I don't have a problem with paying. You do the crime then it's on you . My problem is with a lot of the organzations who make the money off these penalties. It's an unspoken about shady industry.

 

For the record as mentioned above by an earlier post I'd probably be fine with an adjustment to 3rd DUI as long as there was an emphasis on rehabilitation as well.

 

My fear is people want to get to strict 9n the first or the second. I know many good successful people who have made the mistake and learned from it.

Actually no, my comparison is not hyperbole, it's the exact same line of thinking/reasoning that you used for punishing people for DUI if they did n't cause an accident. While admittedly my example might be out there a bit and maybe a little crazy, it would be crazy to NOT punish people who have driven drunk...and punish them severely, even when no property or lives were damaged.

 

And no, DUI is NOT taken nearly seriously enough in the country. That's one reason why it's still a big problem.

 

I don't usually like looking to other countries to help solve problems here...but in this case I will. You do NOT want to get a DUI in Germany and several other Euro countries. And you definitely don't want to have a wreck and hurt someone with as little as .03 BAC.

 

How To Germany - DUI - Not a Good Thing

 

DUI Laws in Germany | eHow

 

What you don't know about German DUI law

 

If you went to .03 in this country it would cripple the service industry in areas that have zero public transportation. That would mean people couldn't go to dinner have a glass of wine. This isn't even serious.

 

There are huge differences in our countries that can't allow that to work. They also allow people to drink at a much younger age which I agree with. Where do you stand on that ?

 

I've always felt part of the DUI problem in this country is how taboo we make drinking. We don't allow responsible drinking to be taught and by the time kids are legal all though know is binge drinking which leads to thousands of youths every week driving drunk because they hide it from their parents.

 

But everyone trumpeting for stricter laws never trumpets about how are own laws work against on DUI's.

To start drinking in general I agree. Once someone is an alcoholic it's no longer a choice. So on that we can agree but that's not what you first said.

 

I disagree. It is an individuals choice to start drinking. Ergo. it is an individuals choice to drive drunk.

I disagree. It is an individuals choice to start drinking. Ergo. it is an individuals choice to drive drunk.

 

People do a lot of dumb things when drunk they wouldn't do when they are sober. It's there fault they drink irresponsibility I agree . But some people are alcoholics and it's a physical addiction hence the reason for rehabilitation.

The point is it’s not about Kentucky only. Consider how many lives are lost nationwide each year and how many people get permanent disability and life is full of trauma for many for no reason of their. One of my friends who was working in a DUI attorney Los Angeles firm often told me how DUI impacts live of everyone.

Felony on the second DUI, in my opinion.

 

You can have your 5th, 6th and 7th within the same year as long as the first 4 are spaced out a year or two apart.

I have a really tough time arguing for jail time in a situation where no one was injured or property destroyed. We could talk about more aggressive fines, community service, or license suspensions though and I'd probably be on board.

 

Truth be told, the penalties already on the books at each level are rarely handed down; maybe that's the place to start. It's already happening in Louisville with public and media pressure for judges to use those statutory penalties more forcefully.

 

So you can break the law as much as you want. Completely disregarding the lives of anyone else on the road as long as you get caught without hurting anyone first?

So no increase but we must makes laws even tougher ???

 

So no increase but 170 sounds acceptable to you..... As long as it's not someone you love or care about?

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.

 

 

And what if the current legislation isn't as effective as it was intended to be? Do you think house legislators wrote those laws with 170 lost as a considered success rate?

I know it affects people in different ways. That's why I don't like the law of a hard .08 meaning DUI.

 

There are a lot of good cops out there and I'd like to give them more discretion on this. I know plenty of cops who wish they did have more discretion because they know not all .08 is the same.

 

Even with the hard number a decade or so a cop could handle it with more discretion. But with all the motoring they recieve now they don't want to walk that grey line.

 

Another problem I do have that needs to be updated are some of the soberity tests. The alphabet questions is meant to be failed.

 

Of for the sake of the matter I will give you that it effects everyone Very differently and it carries differently. I can drink to a 1.8 and wake up likely a 1.2 even though science says you will be fine after 8-12 hours My sinuses do not drain. I keep that breathe. Some folks are like that.

 

We aren't talking about 0.08. we are talking about DUI law's. If aggravated should the laws be tougher? What about AT LEAST an increase for aggravated DUI laws?

If you get a D.U. I. you can make all the plea deals you want. The final decision is usually left up to the judge. A judge can look at your prior D.U.I's from over 5 years ago and hold them against you.

Actually no, my comparison is not hyperbole, it's the exact same line of thinking/reasoning that you used for punishing people for DUI if they did n't cause an accident. While admittedly my example might be out there a bit and maybe a little crazy, it would be crazy to NOT punish people who have driven drunk...and punish them severely, even when no property or lives were damaged.

 

And no, DUI is NOT taken nearly seriously enough in the country. That's one reason why it's still a big problem.

 

I don't usually like looking to other countries to help solve problems here...but in this case I will. You do NOT want to get a DUI in Germany and several other Euro countries. And you definitely don't want to have a wreck and hurt someone with as little as .03 BAC.

 

How To Germany - DUI - Not a Good Thing

 

DUI Laws in Germany | eHow

 

What you don't know about German DUI law

 

So you think what Germany does is better than the US? It seems a bit extreme to me. Look, I have family that were in law enforcement and have heard horror stories about the effect of drunk driving first hand. I abhor drunk driving but these German laws are extreme IMO. And .03 is not driving under the influence for virtually anyone. To have to see a doctor for months and a psychologist for months reeks of a cash grab as well. I wonder how many of these psychologists take cash payments on the side to give a nice report to the courts...

So you think what Germany does is better than the US? It seems a bit extreme to me. Look, I have family that were in law enforcement and have heard horror stories about the effect of drunk driving first hand. I abhor drunk driving but these German laws are extreme IMO. And .03 is not driving under the influence for virtually anyone. To have to see a doctor for months and a psychologist for months reeks of a cash grab as well. I wonder how many of these psychologists take cash payments on the side to give a nice report to the courts...

 

Because drunk driving is taken seriously there, and not nearly seriously enough here. Its easy, if you have a drink, dont drive, then thrre is never a question. Why that concept is so hard I will never understand.