Stevens Point man arrested for 10th OWI offense
Additional details here. Reports like this are not at all unusual in Wisconsin."A Stevens Point man has been arrested for his 10th drunken-driving offense... The man was on supervision for his ninth operating-while-intoxicated conviction when he was arrested..."
It seems that after X number of convictions, a license to drive would be revoked. After X+1, the vehicle would be confiscated, and every vehicle thereafter.
But perhaps that would infringe on the perpetrator's freedom...
I heard a Wisconsin Public Radio segment on this very topic back in August. If I recall correctly the WI government spokesperson (I have no idea what branch he or she worked for, perhaps Dept. of Public Safety or Health) said that taking a repeat offender's licence away isn't a real deterrent. Most of them just keep driving, because in America and especially in rural areas you need to drive to get to work. I'm kind of amazed that people like that can still get car insurance. Although, if they're willing to drive without a license, they're probably willing to drive without insurance... I can't remember why the person said that WI's system is better though.
ReplyDeleteThey don't have insurance, either.
DeleteAnd the really scary thing is. Even if they did confiscate the guy's license and vehicle(s), they'd never, ever consider confiscating the idjut's gun(s).
ReplyDeleteNot exactly true. If you are convicted of a felony (and DWI can be a felony conviction), you lose your right to vote, along with your right to bear arms. In fact, the right to own weapons can also be rescinded in some misdemeanor cases, such as when domestic violence is involved.
DeleteCheck out the brouhaha over at Broadsheet.ie
ReplyDeletehttp://www.broadsheet.ie/?s=Gardai+points
And every little town in the US of A
Which is not actually a Democracy but pretends to be one.
In reality it is a French/British based mishmash that only serves the rich and is based upon a population of people who either wanted out of Europe, were forcibly thrown out of Europe because one of the rich families that run the world wanted to take their land and use it for hunting or sheep (The Highland Clearances) or chaps who saw it coming and wanted out anyway.
i don't understand what's going on at that website, but thanks anyway.
DeleteFrom what I've read and observed, if a person sees no problem with driving while intoxicated, having no license or insurance means nothing to them. And if you take away their vehicle, some idiot friend or relative will lend them a car. And if that doesn't happen, chances are they'll just steal one.
ReplyDeleteHere in South Florida the number of people without a license or insurance who drive while impaired is appalling.
For a multiple offender I would take away the vehicle - not impound it for return, but confiscate it for sale. If they then drive a friend's car while intoxicated, I would do the same with that person's car. Eventually friends and relatives will stop loaning cars to them.
DeleteIt's not just a Wisconsin thing. A few years ago the Boston Herald did a story on "over 200 drivers in Massachusetts have 8 or more DUIs." 5 is a lifetime loss of license. That doesn't mean they drove drunk 8 times: it means they got caught driving drunk on a lifelong-suspended license three times and got let out.
ReplyDeleteOpposition to driving drunk is viewed by some as elitist, because of the perception that DUI is more prevalent among the poor.
After attending a party with many wealthy people, I can assure you that it is NOT more prevalent among the poor.
DeleteGetting caught and having it stick... now that is something the poor would fail miserably at. Drunk driving lawyers are very good at finding mistakes in lawful procedure.
i was having a conversation with a state legislator about this very thing.
ReplyDeleteit;s a difficult problem, because throwing a guy in prison for his drunk driving in rural areas or confiscating vehicles often has the effect of plunging yet another family into poverty. the drunk driver will take other people's cars.
it;s really hard not to enable the drunk who says he NEEDS to go to work and too many families don;t have alternatives. some states have locks you have to blow sober to start the car, but people will blow for the drunk.
you can confiscate and imprison all you like, but harsh consequence isn;t really getting at the problem and in a lot of places lawmakers just don;t know what to do.