Murder one.

Brett

Criminally negligent homicide. Drunk driving is a crime.

Don

My best friend of 21 years- the person I spent more time with than any other human being- was killed last May 2nd. by a driver who had been drinking and using marijuana and driving on a suspended license.

What's the appropriate sentence? This woman's awful life and the guilt she has to carry seems sentence enough. I do feel bad for her two children, who were in the car, when she hit Michael R. Rabe and killed him. They didn't have a choice.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Manslaughter. Unfortunately, for some reason we don't hold people responsible for their actions while intoxicated. If I'm on cocaine and I flip out and kill you, that's murder one. But if I get drunk and plow into a bunch of school children on a field trip, that's a tragedy.

Our society (and some religions) have accepted that what you do in certain altered states is not entirely your responsibility, so we allow ridiculously bad behavior to go unpunished if a person is intoxicated.

Bottom line: It's up to you to decide if you are fit to drive after drinking or taking drugs(prescription or otherwise.) If you have chosen poorly, you should be held responsible for your bad decision, especially if your decision costs somebody their life.

And frankly, the attitude that the public and the courts have towards cyclists in general is pathetic.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

I know what you are trying to say, Tom, but I really can't buy into "her guilt is sentence enough." We know there are many drunk drivers who get into accidents repeatedly. For some people drinking is a way of life, and any regret they feel is probably just more likely to make then drown their sorrow in a 5th of vodka. Taking their license permanantly seems like the minimum, along with something like 5000 hours community service (drunk driving prevention), loss of right to buy or serve alcohol, or be in an alcohol related establishement. The hard part is coming up with something that doesn't make them a further drain on society. Bottom line is, these people put our lives at risk every time we go out the door.

What's sad is that if terrorists killed as many as drunk drivers, we'd be at defcon 1.

Sadly, I doubt we will ever see truly tough punishment for drunk driving. the alcohol industry has too much to lose if their customer base was to actually think twice before having a few extra drinks before hitting the road. They have a financial interest in keeping the punishment lax. Our safety is for sale...

Brett

The only thing I was interested in is getting her off the road. Obviously the legal system tried that by suspending her license and that was not successful as she was driving on a suspended license when she killed Michael R. Rabe.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Our safety for sale? Please. A 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that talking on a phone while driving quadrupled the risk of an accident and was almost as dangerous as being drunk behind the wheel. How many more people use cell phones now than in 1997? Where is Mothers Against Cell Phone Usage While Driving (MACPUWD)? At least drunks can claim that their decision making process was blurred by alcohol. What about cell phone users?

The penalties for a first offense drunk driving are pretty harsh in many states. You will lose your licensce. You will pay a huge fine. You will pay huge insurance premiums for the forseeable future. You will have a high level misdemeanor or felony on your record -- for life. If your job requires you to drive, you will probably lose your job. You will go to counseling. You will pay to get your car out of impound. And that's only if you don't hurt anyone. If you hurt someone, you're in a much bigger world of shit.

Mind you, I'm not defending drunk driving or drinking (I don't drink myself). But, I don't think harsher penalities, at least for first time offenders, is the solution to the problem. There are a lot of hazzards on the roads.

Manslaughter is what is typically charged. Is it enough? NO. Unfortunatley, to make it worse is how difficult the courts have made it to actually convict on DUI's.

I am a police officer and the amount of paperwork required on one DUI arrest is unbelievable. In Kansas if you do not allow the drunk to actually hold on to on one of the pieces of paperwork required, the entire case gets dropped. A DUI, with no accident involved, generally takes an experienced officer 3-4hours to complete. And that's only if they are cooperative. The in-car cameras have helped out greatly because at least you can show the court what that person looked and acted like at the scene.

DUI is a tragedy and a crime.

"For some people drinking is a way of life, and any regret they feel is probably just more likely to make then drown their sorrow in a 5th of vodka."

Okay, here I go again. You are 100% on the money here. I was once involved with someone who was an alcoholic. She was one of those "blackout drunks" who go on three day benders, then assuage their guilt by choosing not to remember anything...except selected details. She drove drunk constantly. We're talking, "I will stab you if you don't give me my car keys!" drunk. She sideswiped the house pulling her car into the garage one time(so much for the class-winning 1965 Mustang Convertible show car.) She also wrecked my sports car once, by driving it into a pickup truck loaded with people. I had to deal with bailing her out, I had to deal with the insurance company(who paid for the car, then cancelled all of our policies), and I had to deal with figuring out how to make money without a car to get me to work. (Yes, it's all my fault. I was enabling her.)

I honestly don't think she really cared about the people she hit, or anything else except herself and where her next drink was coming from. After she completed her sentence(a course on the evils of drunk driving and 20 hours of community service) she was right back to drinking and driving(without a license, registration, or insurance.) She never once voiced any regret over the incident. She never once voiced any concern for the people she hit. She never once apologized for wrecking my car.

Lots of people argue that alcoholism is a disease, and that those with it can't help themselves. I would argue that being an alcoholic is a choice you make. By choosing alcohol, you choose liquor over the lives of those you know and care about, and the lives of those you encounter while drinking. Rarely have I seen a practicing alcoholic who was willing to suffer the horrors of sobriety. Most of those I have encountered(at AA meetings and elsewhere) truly wish that they weren't alcoholics, but they still want to drink.

I know that there are lots of people out there who I might offend by saying this, and that there are people out there who work hard to maintain their sobriety, who have put their lives back together after years of drinking and drug use, and battle with the urge to drink or use every day. But my experience has been that most problem drinkers are not willing to do that.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that cell phone use while driving is as hazardous, if not more so. I don't have a cell phone myself.

You are correct that the penalties as written in the law books are pretty harsh, but as jaj commented, getting a DUI conviction is rather tough. There are many, many people who have been cited for DUI only to have it later reduced or dismissed for a variety of reasons.

Brett

---

"Du or Du not-there is no Tri" - Yoda

I think you have to weigh the danger of cell phones against the benefits. Thousands of lives are saved because people have cell phones in their cars and are able to call emergency services whenever an accident occurs.

Wolfwood when they are using the cell to save lives they are usually stopped while doing so. I don't think anyone would dispute the use and convienence of cell phones but how and when they are used is the issue. Back to the alcohol issue which is a very difficult problem with different answers for each individual. Some individuals truly need to be put away for the duration to protect society and others become model citizens. I have seen both sides had an uncle uncontrolable the family pressured my father to hire him and this costs my father money for the jobs he ruined and business lost. Then he started forging checks on the business and the family was angry at my father when he put a stop to things. Then there is my wife (of 6yrs.) has been sober 18yrs become an Occupational Therapist is now an ovarian cancer surviver(6yrs. out) and has never had an issue of needing a drink. All this to say people are different and need different answers some times. Tom's point about the woman having to live with what she did is a good point but won't work for everyone and you never know it will be ananswer for. My wife was struck by a truck(hit and run) while riding home from work and one of her statements he'll have to live with what he did (or will it affect him at all).

Sorry for the rant but it is a very difficult issue

I think that the dangers of cell phone usage are overblown, and will be exposed as such eventually (probably in one of John Stossel's "give me a break" features :-)) I don't see how this can be any more distracting that eating, carrying on a conversation with a passenger, or tuning the radio. Granted these are all distracting activities, but no one ever complains that we should get rid or drive-through's, car stereos, or passengers in cars. If you use an ounce of common sense cell phones are no more dangerous than any other activity a driver carries on while driving.

Now as far as this "intoxicated drivers aren't responsible for their actions" crap... how about taking responsibility for the decision to get drunk in the first place. I'll grant you that people can't make good decisions once they're looped, but that's not the point. Taking their license away doesn't work- they'll drive without one. A car is a weapon just like a gun- I say 1st offense is attempted murder if nobody is killed, and murder 1 if someone dies. I think people will reconsider the decision to drive to the bar with these penalties. After all, that is the decision that needs to be influenced, not the decision to drive after they're drunk.

Two years ago a man with a BAC of 3 times the legal limit crashed into and killed my 16 year old brother. Unless you have experienced this first hand it would be impossible for me to put into words the tragedy and void me and my family face everyday! The drunk driver was sentenced to the maximun in our state, and will be out of prison in aprox. 3 years.

IMO there is no punishment stiff enough to compensate for or prevent this ecidemic! Life in prison means nothing, the death penalty? Go ahead, although it does not change what has happened!

I've been hit twice by cell-phone talkers while driving in the last four years. One, broadside, about 3 days before a significant tri. My neck was stiff enough that it hurt like hell to twist my neck and breathe during the swim. Another time, rear-ended by a woman going at least 35 mph, pushed my car 6' into the rear of the car in front of me. Made a nice little sandwich of my car.

I probably have a chip on my shoulder because of this, and also because I don't agree with some of the techniques groups like MADD are pushing onto local law enforcement. We seem to get a lot of sobriety checkpoints around here, which I feel violate my constitutional rights (I realize the legality of these have been upheld, but I still disagree). Dropping the BAC levels to .08 have caught a lot of joe six-pack guys coming home after work or perhaps after the company softball game where they had a few beers. The lower levels do not seem to help to get the chronic, .25 guys off the road, most of them have been busted before. They are going to drive with a suspended license, etc, as those above have mentioned. These people are a real problem, but frankly I have no idea what the solution is.

"joe-six pack" can kill someone just as easy as the chronic drunk driver! Anyone who's had too much to drink even if they are "coming home after work, or perhaps, after the company softball game where they had a few beers," should not be driving. To those people, I say, grow up! and have someone sober drive you home!!!

The current drunk driving laws are a farce. The legal limit for intoxication (.08) would logically lead one to expect all bars to be closed, yet they are not. So when my wife and I go to the pub located across the street from the police station for a couple of pints on Friday night, why aren't they arresting every single person walking out the door? We've all had at least two drinks, so we're all probably over the limit. At least outlaw ordering tequila shooters lined up three deep.

It's a big complicated mess, and just like the gun laws, legislators seem to think that passing more laws is better than actively enforcing the current ones. Some folks around here have talked about lowering the limit to .05, which I think would mean anyone drinking outside their own home would be a criminal.

BTW, I agree with you on the sobriety checkpoints. They were doing those a lot here several years ago. Er, what about probable cause?

---

------------------------------------------------------------

The MADD agenda unequivocally argues for a .08% BAC (blood alcohol concentration) drunk driving arrest threshold with lower levels to follow. The .08% BAC threshold would make it illegal for a 120-lb. woman to drink two six-ounce glasses of wine over a two-hour period. (This calculation is straight from a 1998 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publication.) Not many would suggest this is alcohol abuse. There is a difference between this person and an alcoholic.

When I was in HS, one of my best friends was killed in a hit and run by a woman on a cell phone. I only know how I felt, I can't even imagine how his family felt.



But, I'm a Grad student in Justice Studies and we've discussed sentencing options for things like this. What can we do, lock them up and throw away the key? Execute them? Sure we could, do you complain about high taxes, well they would only get higher. The cost to society to incarcerate someone is far greater than it is to treat them. But like people said treatment doesn't work for everyone, people have to be willing to be treated.

I am a California liberal so take this for what its worth. Incapication and deterrence DO NOT WORK (thats my rant for the day).

I think the best solutions are alternative sentencing ideas. Sentence them to lecture about the emotional effects of their actions (this happen in Gilroy a while a go) and to counciling and treatment. Force them to relive the event over and over again. If they are not emotionally invested in their actions how can you change their actions. Of course this has unseen consequences as well. But just wait, the Supreme Court will rule alternative sentences like that Cruel and Unusual.

Same as murder in my book.

If I have a loaded gun, and start firing wildly into a crowd without trying to hit someone - but kill someone, I will go to jail for murder. If I'm drunk, and get in my 2 ton killing machine and drive down the road and kill someone.....different story. Why?

Because alcohol is a socially acceptable drug - as we discussed in my "hypocrite" post a few weeks ago. Because the judge, lawyers, and jury, all like to tip a few and drive.

This topic makes me want to puke. God help the drunk driver that ever kills one of my loved ones.

My brother was hit by a drunk and his wife sustained a whiplash injury and a woman I know lost her three year old on a Sunday morning by some idiot coming off an all night binge.

Years ago it wasn't such a huge issue about drinking and driving. I'm old enough to remember when the police would stop and ask you to walk a strait line. If you could they told you to drive home. If you couldn't then they'd drive you home and you could pay a fine and pick up your car the next day. My buddy and I got stopped by the police around 30 yrs ago. We were both 20ish at the time and had been drinking. The officer told me to drive my friend home because he seemed like he had had to much. I had just as much but wasn't showing it . Different world back then, and a lot less cars on the road.

My how times have changed. The limit in Ontario is .08 on the breathalyzer. Blow over and you lose your license for a year and your insurance rates go way up. Doesn't stop some people though. There's a guy in our rural area who just kept driving/drinking with no license until he got caught again. He even repainted his truck in the hope that the local cops wouldn't recognize him. He got busted again for drinking and driving. Was doing a bit of time last thing I heard.

I'm all for getting drunks off the roads. If you like to drink, and I do occassionally, then never drive. Always take a taxi or have a desgnated driver take you home. But I do think MADD is going a little over board sometimes.

However, I do believe that I'm more likely to be hit while riding my bike by someone talking on a cell phone or just not paying attention than by a drunk driver.

Two points to make:

1. BAC of 0.8% is not illegal, as described by some of the posts above. DRIVING with that is illegal. Although I would also point out that it is not a reliable indicator of being drunk, my wife would be unable to walk on a third of that (cheap date).

2. Most of us (see Tom's post) are interested in prevention rather than punishment. Capital punishment is not worth trying to argue....but we could have effective laws that prevent them from ever drinking or driving again. For example...

...all alcohol purchases require ID check (they have special "offender" id). Yeah, fake id....
...car is impounded, loose right to purchase or license a vehicle.
...anyone providing them with alcohol would similarly loose privledge to purchase.
...anyone providing them a vehicle would loose vehicle, license, etc.

Lawmakers are afraid to take away people's cars and alcohol. There are a LOT of people driving that are a danger to us, but nothing is done because in this country it is considered a severe hardship if you can't drive. Is this too severe for someone who kills another by their negligence? Most think so I'm afraid.