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

[gore0bsessed]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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?

10 convictions - 9 months jail
Repeat drunk driver sentenced to nine months behind bars | Calgary | News | Calgary Sun

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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]

Driving ban for life after DUI?

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]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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?

 

[SLM]

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

Personally I think jail time is kind of useless but I'd have no problem revoking, for life or for long periods of time (say 5-10 years) for violations. Whether it's harsh or not, those who are capable of change will make changes in their life. Those who are not capable of change (and some people never do change) at least will not be taking down a bus full of school children with them.

I think though you should have the ability to re-license after a period of time but you need to prove that you are now responsible enough to hold a license.

I'm just tired of repeat offenders, chronic offenders who face no repercussions that make them change their behaviour. That they don't hurt or kill someone is nothing more than luck.

 

[Cannuck]

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

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?

Yes it's too harsh. To begin with, we should throw out the term "drunk" driving because people can't agree on what "drunk" is. If we are going to use the term "impaired" than it should be impaired regardless of what is causing the impairment (ie sleep deprivation or drugs).

Secondly, we should compare BAC levels (as opposed to legal impairment) to accident stats. I read an interesting study done in Australia a few years ago that said that the accident rate begins to drop as people drink until the BAC hits 0.10. One possible reason is that while people's judgement may become impaired, they may tend to compensate in other ways such as staying off of major thoroughfares.

If I wish to take drastic steps to protect myself, the first thing I need to determine is where the risk is. That clearly hasn't been done because people like MADD like to make the issue emotional so they can increase revenue. After all, the number one rule of sales is people buy emotionally and justify logically.

 

[lone wolf]

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

Driving bans don't mean much to anyone who thinks they are above the law.

 

[Machjo]

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

Personally I think jail time is kind of useless but I'd have no problem revoking, for life or for long periods of time (say 5-10 years) for violations. Whether it's harsh or not, those who are capable of change will make changes in their life. Those who are not capable of change (and some people never do change) at least will not be taking down a bus full of school children with them.

I think though you should have the ability to re-license after a period of time but you need to prove that you are now responsible enough to hold a license.

I'm just tired of repeat offenders, chronic offenders who face no repercussions that make them change their behaviour. That they don't hurt or kill someone is nothing more than luck.

Maybe. Or perhaps revocation of license for an indefinite period until proven to be treated for alcoholism or something of the sort?

Driving bans don't mean much to anyone who thinks they are above the law.

Maybe not. But at least there is then recourse if the person is cought driving without a license.

 

[Angstrom]

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

Maybe. Or perhaps revocation of license for an indefinite period until proven to be treated for alcoholism or something of the sort?

That's basically what we have for punishment here in Ontario already.
Its called the back on track program.
http://www.remedial.net/about.html

 

[SLM]

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

Driving bans don't mean much to anyone who thinks they are above the law.

Laws don't mean much to criminals in general but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Maybe. Or perhaps revocation of license for an indefinite period until proven to be treated for alcoholism or something of the sort?

I'd also support a call for absolutely zero blood alcohol levels too. No one has a right to drink, no one has a right to drive. No one should have a right to do them together in any capacity.

 

[Cannuck]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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

Because they are dishonest. It's difficult to have an honest discussion and assessment of the problem when so many people buy into their propaganda. That's why RIDE likes to trot out the stat about "drunk" driving being the biggest criminal cause of death. The real question should be, how many deaths are caused in Canada by people with a BAC under 0.10 and is it really worth it for us to invest so much time, effort and tax dollars on a problem of that scope.

 

[Angstrom]

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

I'd also support a call for absolutely zero blood alcohol levels too. No one has a right to drink, no one has a right to drive. No one should have a right to do them together in any capacity.

Your such a sour party pooper.
Let people have a little bit of responsible fun.
Sheeesh

 

[Goober]

Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

Because they are dishonest. It's difficult to have an honest discussion and assessment of the problem when so many people buy into their propaganda. That's why RIDE likes to trot out the stat about "drunk" driving being the biggest criminal cause of death. The real question should be, how many deaths are caused in Canada by people with a BAC under 0.10 and is it really worth it for us to invest so much time, effort and tax dollars on a problem of that scope.

Murders in Canada
2006 -606
2007 -594
2008 - 611
2009 - 610
2010 - 554

800 was the average for persons killed from drunk drivers- did not add in the accident costs for those that lived.
Alcohol impairs- fact- 1 drink or 5 drinks- it impairs abilities.

 

[L Gilbert]

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

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?

Increasingly heavier fines till the 3rd time (like $50K or more on the third) along with some jail time and then a complete ban on ANY alcohol complete with a daily trip to the copshop for a couple years and then random blood-testing for a few more. And a publicly funded buspass every year. After that, a minimum of 10 years public service and wage garnishees. No jail after the 3rd conviction.
BTW, impaired driving doesn't have to include legal or illegal substances. One can impair their driving simply by yakking on a cellphone or changing a disc in their player.