DUIs warrant stiffer penalties
The Spectator Staff
Issue date: 9/10/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion
As the fall crackdown on drunk driving by state law enforcement gets into full swing, proponents of a proposal to reform drunken-driving laws are considering making drunk-driving a crime if a child is in the car, even for first-time offenders.
That's right, a crime. We hope that key phrase struck you as well.
Currently, drunk driving is little more than a traffic violation for first time offenders.
It doesn't become a felony until the big number five.
Driving drunk five times is more than enough chances to kill someone.
Though the proposal by Sen. Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa) and Rep. Tony Staskunas (D-West Allis) isn't as big of a step as we would like to see, it is a step in the right direction. And it's about time.
For far too long Wisconsin has been known as the biggest drinking state in the country, not only for its boozy traditions, but also for the subsequent problems.
Our great hypocritical state too often claims it is cracking down on drunk driving and drinking issues, yet somehow always finds a way to be behind the curve in the reform of drunken-driving laws.
It really wasn't all that long ago Wisconsin finally lowered the legal blood-alcohol
content while driving to .08.
It is refreshing to finally see a few of our elected officials taking the issue seriously.
Unfortunately, word has it that the state doesn't have the funds to implement and enforce new drunk-driving laws.
Here's where it's time for the state to put its money where its mouth is.
Instead of spending hefty amounts of funding on those ridiculous anti-drunk driving ads, use it to actually punish drunk commitment
drivers.
We all know the comedic value of those ads outweigh any sort of awareness value … a car brimming with vodka, garnished with floating olives? Seriously?
Instead of spending large amounts of time, money and manpower with those less-than-effective sobriety checkpoints, how about using that money to make it a crime to gamble with the lives of others?
Besides, blowing at a sobriety checkpoint isn't that big of a deal if you're a first time offender, right?
That's right, a crime. We hope that key phrase struck you as well.
Currently, drunk driving is little more than a traffic violation for first time offenders.
It doesn't become a felony until the big number five.
Driving drunk five times is more than enough chances to kill someone.
Though the proposal by Sen. Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa) and Rep. Tony Staskunas (D-West Allis) isn't as big of a step as we would like to see, it is a step in the right direction. And it's about time.
For far too long Wisconsin has been known as the biggest drinking state in the country, not only for its boozy traditions, but also for the subsequent problems.
Our great hypocritical state too often claims it is cracking down on drunk driving and drinking issues, yet somehow always finds a way to be behind the curve in the reform of drunken-driving laws.
It really wasn't all that long ago Wisconsin finally lowered the legal blood-alcohol
content while driving to .08.
It is refreshing to finally see a few of our elected officials taking the issue seriously.
Unfortunately, word has it that the state doesn't have the funds to implement and enforce new drunk-driving laws.
Here's where it's time for the state to put its money where its mouth is.
Instead of spending hefty amounts of funding on those ridiculous anti-drunk driving ads, use it to actually punish drunk commitment
drivers.
We all know the comedic value of those ads outweigh any sort of awareness value … a car brimming with vodka, garnished with floating olives? Seriously?
Instead of spending large amounts of time, money and manpower with those less-than-effective sobriety checkpoints, how about using that money to make it a crime to gamble with the lives of others?
Besides, blowing at a sobriety checkpoint isn't that big of a deal if you're a first time offender, right?
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
rebeccapierce
Becky
posted 9/10/09 @ 9:41 AM CST
I agree wholeheartedly. Why don't we put a breathalyzer in (a clean--non-alcohol laden_ breath is required before the car will start) each and every car after the first conviction of drunk driving? This will save lives and not cost the state, the convict pays the rental fee on the unit. (Continued…)
Post a Comment