Defense lawyers blast DA's DWI diversion

[BP348]

but the majority of drunk drivers get one conviction and they stop that behavior. Repeat offenders are a minority.

The thing that gets me about repete DUI's is you get a bunch of underage kids who get poped then they don't get another DUI for 20 or 30 years and they get hammered because it's their 2nd offense.

[MyOwnNemesis]

The thing that gets me about repete DUI's is you get a bunch of underage kids who get poped then they don't get another DUI for 20 or 30 years and they get hammered because it's their 2nd offense.

All things being relative I do agree. However, I think this falls into an area that can be "what if'd" to death. If a person went 20-30 years before they received anther DWI does that mean they made a "mistake" or have they been doing it for 20 - 30 years and not been caught? Being pragmatic and not having a whole lot of faith in self-rehabilitation I will tend to go with the belief that they were never caught. Anyway...I thought I had a "point" here, guess it got lost.:confused:

Cheers!

[Creeker]

The thing that gets me about repete DUI's is you get a bunch of underage kids who get poped then they don't get another DUI for 20 or 30 years and they get hammered because it's their 2nd offense.

Last I knew in my state, after 10 years it dropped off the drivers record totally, but I don't think a DUI could be a second offense unless it occurred within that time.

There was once a time that people would worry about the stigma any crime would cast on their family reputation.

It used to be that way for Out of Wedlock pregnancies, too.... back before the 70's. Now they are called "Love Children". A more accurate name would be "Lust Kids".:D

[MyOwnNemesis]

It used to be that way for Out of Wedlock pregnancies, too.... back before the 70's. Now they are called "Love Children". A more accurate name would be "Lust Kids".


Here in Florida, after a hurricane we call them "hurricane babies"...no lights, no TV...Hmmm. "Damn honey, in the candle light while drinking this warm beer, you lookin kinda good!"

[ducatimom]

... I'm not denying that drunks cause a lot of wrecks, but fewer of them are fatal because they're not driving fast...

Aw, come on now. We all know that drunks don't die because they BOUNCE! :p

People who DUI/DWI burn my arse. These people sober cannot drive worth a darn, add alcohol and it is a crap shoot.

Then again, maybe you have a point. Maybe adding alcohol to their system is the only way to get them to pay attention while driving instead of acting like a distracted entitled arse behind the wheel like usual... ;)

[retdetsgt]

Aw, come on now. We all know that drunks don't die because they BOUNCE! :p

No argument, but they don't kill other people nearly as often as MADD would lead you to believe either.

DOT stats show that there is a 300% greater chance of death or serious injury at 70 mph than 50 mph. In Portland, you see a lot of people who would never think of driving drunk going 70-75 mph in the 55 mph zones of the urban freeways. And I mean, a lot! The only time you don't see it is during rush hours when it's impossible. And even then, they are still a lot of people cutting in and out of traffic. When I used to commute, I never failed to see at least one, usually more cutting other people off and weaving through traffic.

Again, I don't like DUI's either, but the honest truth is that MADD has created a whole lot of hype about it. Including at one time giving money to depts to target DUI's. And in the process, they've made DUI a lot more reviled than the stats support.

I never worked traffic, but I worked graveyard in uniform for about 10 years and used to respond to crashes and wait for a traffic car to respond. And I admit, almost all wrecks after midnight had a drunk involved. But just about all were really just fender benders. The fatals we had that time of night though were caused by someone driving way too fast even where there wasn't much traffic. And rarely did was alcohol a factor, even then.

I was a working cop when MADD was formed by the lady who's child was killed by a drunk. They collected millions of dollars and had an advertising blitz for years that formed an image of every drunk driver creating carnage every time they got behind the wheel. DUI's are a problem, but they never caused the damage and death they portrayed. But they did a good job because it's stuck in the mind of LE.

[retdetsgt]

Last I knew in my state, after 10 years it dropped off the drivers record totally, but I don't think a DUI could be a second offense unless it occurred within that time.

There was once a time that people would worry about the stigma any crime would cast on their family reputation.

I think it's 10 years here too. But people with drinking problems are going to repeat well within that time frame.

As far as stigma, I think that has to do with social class. The people we generally contacted through work didn't care, but most people do care.

I realized the difference my first year of retirement when I was volunteering at the local library. I wanted to do something different to get me out of the house and it was incredibly refreshing to be around "normal" people who weren't cynical and really cared about others. 28 years of spending most of my time with the dregs of society had jaded me more than I realized.