Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....


Locutus
#1
Ok then.

Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction | Watch the video - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
+1
#2
Live n learn. Apparently, he's slow at learning.
 
B00Mer
+1 / -2
#3
...and this is why I LOVE TEXAS!!!! Nuff Said.

 
karrie
+3
#4
It's one of the least objectionable applications of the three strike law that I've seen at least.
 
shadowshiv
+4
#5  Top Rated Post
I can't say that I am overly sympathetic to this man. Every time he got behind the wheel he could have wiped out innocent people. He obviously didn't learn his lesson the first two times, and if he didn't get life in prison who's to say that he would have learned after his third time? And if he was still out there, drinking and driving, who knows what would have happened during his 4th DWI? Perhaps it would have occurred after he killed an entire family after smashing into their vehicle head-on. I would prefer him to remain in prison for the rest of his life than for that to occur. And someone who gets nailed with a DWI 3 times in more than likely to continue to do so, so the odds were good that it was only a matter of time before a fatality would occur.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Ok then.

Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction | Watch the video - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)

3 times stupid -- he is lucky in Texas they didn't fry him.
 
captain morgan
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

3 times stupid -- he is lucky in Texas they didn't fry him.


This brings-up an important question RE: the OP... Exactly what does a 'life sentence' really mean in terms of the number of years?

I'm thinking that it will mean about 10 years with a bunch of that shaved-off for good behavior and attending rehab services in the pen.
 
SLM
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

This brings-up an important question RE: the OP... Exactly what does a 'life sentence' really mean in terms of the number of years?

I'm thinking that it will mean about 10 years with a bunch of that shaved-off for good behavior and attending rehab services in the pen.

In Texas? Isn't everything bigger in Texas? I've always got the impression that life means life there. Remember this is the country with the 400 year sentences, lol.
 
JLM
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

In Texas? Isn't everything bigger in Texas? I've always got the impression that life means life there. Remember this is the country with the 400 year sentences, lol.

Certainly effective in that he won't be doing any more driving drunk or sober. It might be better if they could install a chip (maybe in his liver) that would disable any vehicle as soon as he climbs behind the steering wheel. Much cheaper in the long run.
 
captain morgan
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

In Texas? Isn't everything bigger in Texas? I've always got the impression that life means life there. Remember this is the country with the 400 year sentences, lol.

I believe that the motivation in handing down multi-hundred-year sentences is a result of the State wanting to hold someone in jail for the remainder of their natural life.

Just look at the number of murderers that walk after 7-10 years after having a life sentence imposed.
 
SLM
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I believe that the motivation in handing down multi-hundred-year sentences is a result of the State wanting to hold someone in jail for the remainder of their natural life.

Just look at the number of murderers that walk after 7-10 years after having a life sentence imposed.

In the states? I thought it was just us that did moronic things like that.
 
captain morgan
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

In the states? I thought it was just us that did moronic things like that.


Nope... Sadly, the trend of coddling the perpetrator and leaving the victim(s) to twist in the wind is a time honored tradition in Western society
 
Colpy
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Ok then.

Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction | Watch the video - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)

I sorry Guys, but that is insane.......
 
Cannuck
#14
Makes sense to me. Take alcoholics off the street and warehouse them for life at 20 - 30,000/year. Good use of taxpayers dollars.


The high cost of incarceration - The Denver Post (external - login to view)
 
JLM
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I believe that the motivation in handing down multi-hundred-year sentences is a result of the State wanting to hold someone in jail for the remainder of their natural life.

Just look at the number of murderers that walk after 7-10 years after having a life sentence imposed.

There may be a method to the madness- for one it might just scare the sh*t out of them and second (I'm a great believer in there being an exception to every rule) there may be a few who are rehabillitated in a term shorter than "life".
 
Ron in Regina
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

I can't say that I am overly sympathetic to this man. Every time he got behind the wheel he could have wiped out innocent people. He obviously didn't learn his lesson the first two times, and if he didn't get life in prison who's to say that he would have learned after his third time? And if he was still out there, drinking and driving, who knows what would have happened during his 4th DWI? Perhaps it would have occurred after he killed an entire family after smashing into their vehicle head-on. I would prefer him to remain in prison for the rest of his life than for that to occur. And someone who gets nailed with a DWI 3 times in more than likely to continue to do so, so the odds were good that it was only a matter of time before a fatality would occur.

I know two guys that had impaired driving charges much more numerous than three. One had
between 10-12 & the other in the teens...oh yeah...& a third I guess in the teens. All three to
the best of my knowledge are all clean and sober at this point in their lives after decades of
run away alcoholism.

One is a brother of mine, and he was in & out of corrections so often that he was known on a
first name basis there, and they'd just set everything up for him when they'd see his name on
the list of prisoners arriving. He'd get dropped off, deloused & changed into prison garb, handed
a broom, etc...and would start working, and wouldn't even see his cell 'till the end of the day.

It's sad. Some can handle booze, and some just can't at all. Two of the three above I know well
and had the same pattern. Once any booze was in their system, they didn't need food or sleep
and could go for days with just booze. One of them drank himself into a coma on several
occasions, had 30+ feet of burned out intestines removed over the years, had family called in
to sign the paperwork to shut of life-support several times only to come out'a it to go and get
drunk again. Hellish existence for themselves and all around them. All three found bottom way
beyond where anyone else would think bottom must be, & are clean and sober today.

Life sentences for three strikes on DUI's? That's pretty heavy based upon the justification above
of "could'a" in that a drunk could'a run someone over but didn't....as they all happen to be equipped
to have also "could'a got someone pregnant" or whatever. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

Above was mentioned a CHIP in their livers that would immobilize a vehicle once they where behind
the wheel (an electro magnetic pulse perhaps, seeing as everything is computer reliant now?), and
as far fetched as that sounds, I think it's not that far fetched though the answer might be a technological
one but less extreme and closer to Breathalyzer type machines factory installed someday in all vehicles
that're less intrusive than today's versions.
 
JLM
+3
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

I know two guys that had impaired driving charges much more numerous than three. One had
between 10-12 & the other in the teens...oh yeah...& a third I guess in the teens. All three to
the best of my knowledge are all clean and sober at this point in their lives after decades of
run away alcoholism.

Very good post, Ron. I've known/know several alcoholics, actually some of the most intelligent and compassionate people. Quite often they are Jekyll and Hyde personalities. I know once they take a life all that becomes secondary as it should. There is nothing sadder than to see a good person destroyed by alcohol/drugs. I would really like to see the technology where these people can be prevented from driving, but free to lead productive lives. That would be a win/win.
 
Angstrom
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

...and this is why I LOVE TEXAS!!!! Nuff Said.

You should move.
 
WLDB
#19
Might have been easier to just take away his license permanently after the second time. That way when the third time comes around no one would be surprised by the result. In general I find many people who get DUIs get off very lightly. This is just another extreme from that. If he had been in an accident and someone died as a result I could see life in prison. It seems a bit odd to give someone who got a DUI the same sentence that a murderer would get unless the DUI resulted in a death.

I'd say the same about sentences here. I really dont understand why so many people are allowed to drive again after a DUI conviction. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege which can be revoked if a person uses it irresponsibly.
 
taxslave
+3
#20
Taking away their license doesn't prevent drunk driving. There was one recently didn't even have plates because he had no license. Drove drunk anyway. Locking them up at least protects the rest of us. The alternative would be to shoot them. The choice is between a drunk's right to drink and drive or everyone else's right to not worry about being killed by said drunk.
 
gore0bsessed
-1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

I can't say that I am overly sympathetic to this man. Every time he got behind the wheel he could have wiped out innocent people. He obviously didn't learn his lesson the first two times, and if he didn't get life in prison who's to say that he would have learned after his third time? And if he was still out there, drinking and driving, who knows what would have happened during his 4th DWI? Perhaps it would have occurred after he killed an entire family after smashing into their vehicle head-on. I would prefer him to remain in prison for the rest of his life than for that to occur. And someone who gets nailed with a DWI 3 times in more than likely to continue to do so, so the odds were good that it was only a matter of time before a fatality would occur.

Life in prison isn't the answer. Revoke his license and never let him drive again would be the sane and logical answer. America thrives on this type of slavery though.
 
taxslave
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gore0bsessedView Post

Life in prison isn't the answer. Revoke his license and never let him drive again would be the sane and logical answer. America thrives on this type of slavery though.

Explain to us how revoking his license prevents him from driving.
 
JLM
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Might have been easier to just take away his license permanently after the second time. That way when the third time comes around no one would be surprised by the result. In general I find many people who get DUIs get off very lightly. This is just another extreme from that. If he had been in an accident and someone died as a result I could see life in prison. It seems a bit odd to give someone who got a DUI the same sentence that a murderer would get unless the DUI resulted in a death.

I'd say the same about sentences here. I really dont understand why so many people are allowed to drive again after a DUI conviction. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege which can be revoked if a person uses it irresponsibly.

What the courts are faced with here are offenders who differ from most other offenders. Their offenses occur more from sickness than from criminal intent.
 
gore0bsessed
-1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Explain to us how revoking his license prevents him from driving.

Well you see, a license is required to drive. When you don't own one you do not have permission from the government to drive any type of vehicle.
 
taxslave
+2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gore0bsessedView Post

Well you see, a license is required to drive. When you don't own one you do not have permission from the government to drive any type of vehicle.

That would be wrong. A license is only required to drive LEGALLY. Better luck next time.
 
Goober
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by gore0bsessedView Post

Life in prison isn't the answer. Revoke his license and never let him drive again would be the sane and logical answer. America thrives on this type of slavery though.

Many keep on driving after losing their license.

Repeat drunk driver not a dangerous offender - Montreal - CBC News

10 convictions - 9 months jail
Repeat drunk driver sentenced to nine months behind bars | Calgary | News | Calgary Sun (external - login to view)

Loved ones face repeat drunk driver | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Why some Canadians still drive drunk - The Globe and Mail

Drunk driving remains the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. The number of people killed by drunk drivers, averaging about 800 a year, is significantly down from the 1,296 victims in 1995, but the decline has slowed in the last decade.

In 2009, the latest year for which national statistics are available, police reported about 85,000 cases of impaired driving - notable because it was the third consecutive year in which charges increased, after nearly 25 years of decline.

Indeed, from 2006 to 2009, the number of recorded drunk-driving incidents jumped about 16 per cent. Some provinces, such as Manitoba, recorded much larger increases, nearly 30 per cent; elsewhere, as in Ontario, the change was marginal.
 
gore0bsessed
-1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Many keep on driving after losing their license.

Repeat drunk driver not a dangerous offender - Montreal - CBC News

A life sentence in this case makes sense because he actually killed a person. He seems to have a long criminal record as well, but did he ever have his license revoked permanently?


Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

10 convictions - 9 months jail
Repeat drunk driver sentenced to nine months behind bars | Calgary | News | Calgary Sun (external - login to view)

Loved ones face repeat drunk driver | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Why some Canadians still drive drunk - The Globe and Mail

Drunk driving remains the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. The number of people killed by drunk drivers, averaging about 800 a year, is significantly down from the 1,296 victims in 1995, but the decline has slowed in the last decade.

In 2009, the latest year for which national statistics are available, police reported about 85,000 cases of impaired driving - notable because it was the third consecutive year in which charges increased, after nearly 25 years of decline.

Indeed, from 2006 to 2009, the number of recorded drunk-driving incidents jumped about 16 per cent. Some provinces, such as Manitoba, recorded much larger increases, nearly 30 per cent; elsewhere, as in Ontario, the change was marginal.

When a person gets his license revoked and is no longer allowed to drive for whatever specified amount of time, are their vehicles also not confiscated? This should be the case, it seems silly not to do so especially when dealing with an repeat offender.
Now if friends or family give the offender access to their own vehicles they should obviously be held liable.

I still hold the position that man in the OP has had an excessive sentence.
 
Cannuck
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by gore0bsessedView Post

I still hold the position that man in the OP has had an excessive sentence.

Of course his sentence was excessive. Some folks like to regurgitate RIDE and MADD stats as if they are somehow relevant. MADD and RIDE are a big part of the problem. Locking people away for life because of an addiction problem is ridiculous beyond belief. We need to tell these special interest people to run along and let grownups deal with the problem.
 
Machjo
#29
I'm curious about attitudes here concerning the idea that if you are cought driving drunk even once, even if you hurt no one, got into no accident, and your blood alcohol were just barely over the legal limit, that you are automatically banned from driving a personal vehicle for life, with life meaning life; and if you either violate this driving ban or, alternatively, get cought driving drunk again even for non-personal reasons such as work or business, again even if you hurt no one and had no accident, automatic X years of hard labour, maybe even life.

Would this be too harsh or reasonable?
 
Goober
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Of course his sentence was excessive. Some folks like to regurgitate RIDE and MADD stats as if they are somehow relevant. MADD and RIDE are a big part of the problem. Locking people away for life because of an addiction problem is ridiculous beyond belief. We need to tell these special interest people to run along and let grownups deal with the problem.

Any suggestions?
Why are MADD & RIDE a big part of the problem?
 

Similar Threads

69
B.C.s new drunk driving laws
by JLM | Sep 25th, 2010
57
Drunk driving laws
by Kreskin | May 9th, 2010
28
Drunk Driving Program Goes Too Far?
by karrie | Jun 12th, 2008
no new posts