Unreal, spending 2 years in solitary confinement for a DUI

I agree the punishment was excessive but how much do you want to bet that DWI/DUI incidents would PLUMMET if this was the established punishment?

Not much I bet. Alcohol and tobacco are the 2 worst drugs and they are freely available to people who cannot mange their addictions.

He was charged with DUI and POSSESSION OF A STOLEN VEHICLE.

Generally speaking, you don't get tossed into solitary confinement from the general population in prison unless you've gone out of your way to be a malignant pain in the ass. If you stay there for two years, you've probably made a real impression on the warden and the prison staff.

Tell me Jim, if your car had been hit the other night in the intersection and members of your family had been critically injured or killed, and it turned out that the driver who hit your vehicle was driving under the influence, would you still feel that this man's punishment was excessive?

Frankly, giving this dirtbag twenty-two million dollars of the taxpayers' money because he didn't like two years in the hole sucks.

What about guys who have been prisoners of war as a result of doing their duty for this country? Shouldn't we give them twenty-two million dollars long before this guy?

I'm sure a survey of the families of the victims of drunk drivers would illuminate this story. And how about a chat with the guards and the warden to find out why he was in the can?

The court has screwed over the people.

Frankly, I think the penalty for DUI, without a stolen vehicle, ought to be around twenty years. And if you don't behave in the general population, you should get to do a lot of it in solitary.

Everett Alvarez spent eleven years in the Hanoi Hilton after they shot his SLUF out from under him, and I'll bet he didn't get twenty-two million dollars.

Cheers!

Rick...

Hardly the same, but nice try on the argument.

From what I hear the guy was a nutjob that they had to keep isolated for his and other people's safety. I really dont see why he won this case.

Because it looked excessive- if what this article is saying is true, he had to extract his own tooth because he was refused proper attention. While he was slipping into madness, they just kept prescribing him more anti-psychotic drugs. Somewhere they must have agreed it was too severe even for a convict- even convicted murders don't necessarily receive that kind of treatment.

It's not to let the guilty off the hook, but the prison system in California is nightmarish- the things that are permitted to happen is on average worse than what you've heard in Abu Ghraib or where they hold non-uniformed combatants overseas. It has got to the point where the US Supreme Court has had to intervene because the concept of human rights are in danger of becoming non-existent.

The problems are 1) 'Tough on crime' political platforms are popular no matter what, even if they don't actually curb crime or are bankrupting the state; 2) an indifferent or ignorant public 3) The powerful prison guard's lobby, which never receives the same scrutiny on its effect on California's institution or economy as other unions.

The California system is all but left to the prison gangs to run, who from the prison's point of view are useful in that they maintain some order over the vast prison population. First time, white, non-violent offenders who don't display aggressiveness serve as the lunchmeat for the other prisoners. If you don't have a crazy reputation already, you are almost well advised to join a prison gang, or you are going to have your clock cleaned. White prisoners are particularly susceptible in that they usually are more divided by race than Latino or Black prisoners, who are expected to join up in a gang. Whites go their own way and often don't arrive into prison carrying that tribal mentality from the outset. But it's white America that usually argues for harsher and longer sentencing, it's the whites really who are just ignoring what they are creating.

The public's attitude is dangerous in that it just feeds more and more prisoners into the system. Someone who goes in say, with a 2 year sentence might become so hardened or dangerous will either have to be released back into the public again even worse probably on the way to become a multiple offender, or will have to stay longer than his original sentence because he will have had to commit more crimes in prison in order to earn respect. Either way, the public pays for it.

Definitely NOT the same, and that's the point.

Cheers!

Rick...

IMO...

DWI first offense should be mandatory license revocation for a year and mandatory hospitalization to dry out.

DWI second offense should be mandatory 5 years in the state penitentiary, no early outs.

DWI third offense should be loss of license for life, and if ever found driving, incarceration for life.

The state pen? You know what kinds of people go there? It's just not equivelant. So a high school kid with 2 DUI's could be put in with hardened psychos who have nothing to lose. He's dead in less than a week. His own cellmate will nightly invite his buddies in for a party on the someone like that, it's exactly what they look for.

County, ok, that's serious enough, but state prison? Someone with a DUI is just not in and of itself the kind of person who belongs there.

The problem, as I see it, is we want a whiffle life. Everyone wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die.

This is the same society that wants weed legalized and we can't even get people to quit driving while getting wide on idiot oil.

We're nuts. And worse, none of us want to be responsible for what we do.

Alot of people of people probably will want to die if they went to state prison who aren't cut out for it. They might be susceptible to off themselves. If they think of themselves as human beings or have limitations that they won't cross, they're not going to make it. Those are people who if anything, don't get happiness out of life except for prison violence. The adrenaline of prison violence is they only stimulation they have.

I remember reading about a case some years ago, some pastor was protesting something on public property- just an minor thing, went to jail. They found him the following day after the weekend half alive, by estimates he was raped at least 50 times, probably much more until he was just out of it. And people just think that sort of thing is acceptable, it's all part of the punishment- but it's not. In fact, we have the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, to which I always hear people are strictly in favor of the Constitution, but in reality, they are selective about what they think here.

Society needs to be protected, yes, but what's happening is something else entirely. It's growing the prison system even as an industry and creating ever more resourceful and dangerous people. In fact the prison system is where organized crime flourishes and controls what happens on the streets.

I disagree.

Cheers!

Rick...

Excuse me, but we're talking about a DUI here. That just means driving under the influence. I knew people in the Army who were the biggest drunks I'd ever seen climb into their POVs and go bar hopping or sneak back on post barely even able to stand let alone drive. They either just didn't get caught, or they could always get out of it. Few of them ever really got busted. And I don't think any of them would be prepared to serve hard time in a state prison.

Now I'm not saying of course that I think drinking and driving is ok, but let's have some appropiate measures here. That doesn't mean a death sentence at the hands of other prisoner or repeteadly and violently gang raped or abused by prison staff or anything like that.

From an economic standpoint, it's not sustainable either. Leaving even that issue aside, the United States has the highest percantage of its population behind bars in the free world, a large proportion of which are non-violent offenders. More jails and longer sentences isn't working like one would assume it should.

There's a difference between the thousands of people every year who blow enough over the legal limit and the animals serving time in the state prison. The former didn't have it in mind say, to do it and kill or purposely hurt someone. The latter kinds of people are. When they are combined together, there is a problem.

So punishments, yes, few people will argue for anarchy that anything should be permitted. But still, we should approach the problem rationally.

Speak for yourself. I am, and want to be responsible for what I do, and I am.

I don't drink much, but when I do I am responsible. Why shouldn't I or others of legal age be allowed to smoke weed and be responsible if I/they so desire? Getting randomly drug tested for my job is not only a degrading experience, but humiliating as well. That's for another thread though.

Seeing as how I don't believe in heaven, I have no desire to go there. I'd rather go to a beer volcano, and drink responsibly.

I'm in agreement with K5 on this issue.

If you really want to fear something, look at texting teens and elderly drivers- those people scare me at least much. Unfortunately, you can't have elderly drivers take a sobriety test for it. There's been a couple of cases recently about elderly drivers smashing through outdoor markets and wiping out a bunch of people. But you can't really pre-empt them, you can only wait until it happens.

dui only prison

I disagree I used to be dd with my mates in the early 80's in all the bases I served in, Campbell, Riley, and Wainwright.. there is no excuse for dui, so what happens when they kill and they do, hell a guy just last month had 5 convictions and a revocation of his licnese killed a 21 year old in Colorado.Where is the justice for her? Can you give her family back her life. it is time folks took responsibility for their actions and no 2 years for first offense to me is not harsh!
If people could take responsibility, I maybe less inclined for such harsh offense, but they do not. I always see folks tell us how it is some one else responsibilty for their action which is complete and utter bull crap.


Bullet

People aren't arguing against convicting someone who kills while under the influence. As far as DUIs go, it's not the same thing as the kinds of people who go to state prison. You're talking about career hardened criminals, who make a sport out of the former people. That's why they have different security level prisons and so forth.

I'm the last person who argues against justice for victims, however, I am against a system which itself is just out of control or in control by the most violent, hardened criminals in society.

Again, I have to state this. Let's say your teenage son is convicted of a DUI. Suppose there were mandatory sentencing of 5 years in the state prison, no appeals. Now, if he's lucky, he gets to make a choice. Join a ruthless, white prison gang, and to do that, he's going to have to put in work, that is, kill another prisoner or something to prove that he belongs in the gang, or run other chores for them which could get him a stay in prison a lot longer than 5 years. Or not do that and just be a target of everyone in prison, because he's on his own, especially if he's white and not a career felon.

If he's not lucky, he doesn't even get that option. No one is going to take a weakling, he's just toast. The guards don't care. That's just the way it's going to be.

That's what he'd be looking at with a sentence of 5 years. It says 5 years, but in reality, it may as well be even longer or may mean his life. If he makes it through, he's probably going to have some serious problems with society when he gets out and might being headed right back. Those who survived have learned to become career criminals when they weren't before.

I agree with K5 that throwing a potential killer into a room full with actual killers who did it in cold blood is just too much. Now, if he is placed in a "more civilized" prison, then maybe it's okay.
People usually use "we can't wait until he/she actually hurt someone" argument. Problem with this argument is, humans are dangerous animals by nature, with or without booze. I've seen many more tragic accidents caused by people who were texting while driving than by DUI drivers (at least over here). Yet, I've never seen a texting driver arrested and serve 2 years in a jail for doing this.

People who DUI derserves far worse than prison, they deserve to be strung up by their neck from the lighting masts along the roads and from road signs as a warning to other potential DUIers to not do it.

There is no excuse. DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!

I haven't seen a prison movie yet that really matched some of the stories that come out and in written in books with maybe the exception of American Me. Anyone who has seen that knows what I'm talking about.

Yep, and IIRC one of the actors got killed after the movie came out in retaliation for telling the story.


Wheels

Yeah, that's probably not going to go over well in reality. Capital punishment for a DUI? That's not even an automatic thing for murder one. In fact, I know one person who talked like that actually did get a DUI once, and I've known several others who have driven under the influence (perhaps the majority of people I know), and probably could have blown over the legal limit.

There needs to be real answers, not just hang them from lamposts. That's just not realistic.

Hmmm. Off to look that up.

Yep I do. Do you? And who put him there? He himself and no one else. With any luck word will get around fast how much more horrible it is. He will last a week? Well that is several days longer than if he hit someone and ruined their life and family.


You misread and have an error in your post. I said DWI, not DUI.

Scariest and last night I ever drove drunk I had to go through a DUI checkpoint. No way to avaoid it since I was already committed the second I turned onto the street where it was located. To this day I don't know how I pulled it off since I know I was way over the limit if they had made me get out of the car and use the breathalyser. The only thing I can think of is since I knew the area fairly well and I told them I was a block from home and they could see the sign for the Apartment complex where I said I lived they cut me a huge break. The fact that I was scared poopless and looked it may have helped too.


Wheels

No, you were. I mentioned DWI punitive measures in my earlier post.


DWI not DUI.


Yep, the ones that kill people just like DWI drivers do. Drunks on the highway are repeat offenders... until they take themselves or someone else out. Or maybe they'll get real lucky and it'll only happen to a family member or friend. Sometimes that might make them think.


DWI not DUI.

Yep, luck.... "I'm sorry I jumped into my 3500 lb vehicle and ran into your mother's Subaru. I didn't mean to hurt anyone."


You're right. Second offense for DWI (after they have been dried out and lost their license for a year) should be more than 5 years state.

Yeah, I do know, and if you do, I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. Even all the tough on crime agendas aren't necessarily prepared to go there. You're arguing for things that people convicted of manslaughter get less time for with good behavior and so forth. A DWI or DUI isn't the same thing as what the people who are in state prison for. Need to put people in minimum security facility to protect them from society, fine, that does the job. Even put them to work cleaning up roads, making license plates, fine. What your'e arguing for is basically a problem with the system. It's not doing more to protect society, but it's creating bigger problems. Potentially manufacture more professional criminals and creating a prison industry costing more money.

Again, a DUI or DWI isn't in and of itself a violent act or the product of a violent mentality. I'm not arguing that society shouldn't protect itself, I'm saying that a state prison isn't really the answer for that.

I sense it's more about the retribution factor than protecting society, more often than not. Even then, it's funny that people pick and choose in this regard out of proportion to the act itself. While killing while drinking and driving is one thing, drinking and driving in iteself is another. State prisons have people who are basically monsters, often deluding themselves with a system of 'ethics' which really serves to justify brutality or homosexual rape on weaker prisoners. At this point, perhaps someone with a DWI 'deserves' to be raped or brutalized in prison, that's all part of the sentence, right? I never understood this mentality. And the feminist movement has done alot to contribute to that mentality well, since it often although not always routinely won't permit the definition of rape to include male on male acts and fights it strenuously. So while people might be more sympathetic to female prisoners raped by prison staff or other prisoners, it's practically approved of in male prisons, no matter who gets raped- just the fact of being there is justification enough.

Well that's another problem now isn't it. Repeat offenders going through courts who let them back out on the streets far too soon... or at all.


Evidently it doesn't because of the repetitive nature of drunks to get back out of prison and do it all over again.


Says you. How many people were killed and maimed by drunken junior when he was stuck in prison? That would be zero.

Clinically you're wrong. Look it up. I think your personal beliefs betray your thoughts.


Sure it is.


Hopefully you weren't referencing something I said, eh?


Agreed. Dumb luck.


Your concocted story, not mine. Never said that and don't think that.


Nope, I never understood that mentality either.


Did I miss the bus here? What does that have to do with drunks getting proper punishment and not a mild slap on the wrist... until they finally do make someone a vegetable, or worse?

I can look up stats online for my county and see the statistics for DUI arrests. The fallacy you're pushing is that DUI or DWI = killed and maimed victims.

So, I am seperating those two out, because they aren't the same. You can't argue that they are the same. Even the convictions in those cases that result in death aren't 1st degree murder cases, they lack the intent. That is a huge difference than the kinds of people you see at San Quentin, Pelican Bay, Folsom Prison. Different characters entirely.

So, yes, society should protect itself, but no, it shouldn't go overboard. Reserve that for the people who actually do kill people with malice intent rather than drinking under the influence by itself.

Last year, about 1 in every 140 licensed drivers were arrested for driving under the influence. That's just the ones who were caught. Think you can put that many people in prison?

Not a concocted story, it's reality for prisoners, you know where you would send people. If people don't like that the way that sounds, nevertheless, that is the situation. Now you may not approve of it, but there's a high likliehood of that happening to just some average person who gets a DUI and goes to state prison. That is a place for the worst of the worst, who prey on these kinds of people. It's not an invention, it's not an exaggeration, it's something that society is either grossly indifferent to, or just implicitly approves. One of the two.



Yes, it has everything to do with it. It's not a case of either a slap on the wrist or simply to go to state prison and their assess whooped. That is a false dichotomy, a false choice. Loss of freedom of any kind isn't a slap on a wrist, and that's another false idea- that inmates have the times of their lives in jail with three hots and a cot. But state prison is another level entirely, and in my state they are crowded beyond capacity. It is basically a form of controlled chaos, one that basically is controlled by the inmates themselves, that is, the cruelest, most brutal ones, and they set the rules. It's not really in the hands of the state to discipline, they discipline themselves, which is basically tolerated by the prison because they can't control that many prisoners, so this situation is permitted. So I'm saying there are two kinds of people, people who to be disciplined and eventually to be released back into society, and people who are basically never going to be disciplined and released back into society, and they have no business being mixed together in state prison.

This.

Miao, Cat

So what did we learn, boys and girls?

Don't drink and drive.

Simple.

No excuses.

Which is much better than:

Dwarfism + Looking like Gordon Ramsey = Death by Badger.

Honey Badger don't care.

If people are really serious about preventing horrific car crashes, are many of them in favor of making it mandatory that every vehicle have a device installed that they have to blow into in order to start the car? That would go further in preventing these things than just the punitive aspect after the fact. If people aren't in favor of that in the name of freedom, well, then you see what priorities are.

Texting drivers, some elderly drivers who in themselves are a hazard, drivers on little sleep- those are all dangerous people,
but the reaction doesn't seem to be the same to throw them in the hole for two years and deny them basic care.

I'm not actually seeing it in the article - he was CHARGED with driving a stolen vehicle, but where was he sentenced (i.e. put to trial)? Does this case not rather sound like they "forgot" him?

You're pissing in the wind.

Tired drivers, texting drivers, and elderly drivers are still nowhere near as dangerous as drunk drivers.

Every 48 seconds, a drunk driver makes someone eligible for handicapped parking.

I agree that driving while tired is bad, that's why they have mandatory crew's rest when you're flying in the military. Same thing.

And yes, texting while driving, or putting on make-up, or whatever is a bad thing and should not be done.

As for elderly drivers, we do need to start subjecting drivers to closer scrutiny as they get older.

But. Am I too tired to drive? Subjective call.

Should I text while driving? No, but at least my faculties are functioning at normal levels even if I'm an idiot.

Am I too old to drive? Another subjective call.

Should I get behind the wheel of 4000 pounds of 60 mile per hour steel after loading my system with ethanol? Criminal.

Perhaps drunk drivers should not be incarcerated with serial killers, armed robbers, gang bangers and that sort.

But incarceration in a state's medium or minimum security facilities is certainly appropriate.

And if they kill someone, then house them in maximum along with the other killers.

And if they are unwilling to abide by the rules of the institution, give them whatever amount of time they require in solitary confinement to learn to cooperate.

There is no way to justify or ameliorate driving under the influence of alcohol. It is a selfish, irresponsible act that could result in someone's death. It deserves punishment.

If I decided to fire random shots with my eyes closed at the county fair with a 9mm pistol, I might or might not hit someone.

Would you argue so vociferously in my defense if I made that choice? I think not.

Drunk drivers make a like choice. And it's a bad one too. They might or might not hit someone.

Cheers!

Rick...

No, they are just as dangerous. A texting driver can kill just as easily. They do and have. And on top of that, couple that with the disposition of a a teenager, which tends to be a high risk group anyway. The irony is that they have the best reflexes, but are among the most dangerous drivers- overconfident, underestimate their skills and experience, tend to think of themselves as lucky or have not the awareness to contemplate their mortality quite yet. That's how the insurance industry looks at it, and they know better than any one. Young males under the age of 25 are the highest risk group.

I've never denied the dangers of drinking and driving- never. What I'm saying however is how strange it is that people are often more interested in the punitive side than the preventive side. I would probably sooner support vehicles having breath analyzers installed, that would actually go to saving someone's life than only punishing after the fact, when it's too late. I'm not sure the public would support that, though.

They do and yet they still find ways to get around it. is texting dangerous, yes, old drivers, yes they can be, tired drivers absolutley however if they cuase an accident they should be held liable no excuse and yes if my kid drank and drive and the sentence was 5 years, you bet your ass I would support it.The difference is I believe in personal responsibility and it falls on the person who commits said crime.


Bullet

He was never sentenced. Just locked away and ignored. Mentally ill and in complete darkness for 23 hours a day. 2 years. I know
dogs that are treated better after killing someone. System completely failed this man. This was a county jail lockup. Not Prison.

They can get around it- certainly. But it wouldn't happen in every case. But that's better than nothing, right? If it prevented less injuries and death, then it's worth it.

But many people don't really seem to think that way- somehow that's where it becomes an inconvenience. I think it should be mandatory after a certain age to get tested more frequently, but that probably would meet lots of resistance also.

In terms of a criminal disposition, it's not necessarily any more of a worse person who drinks and drives than drives and texts. It's not in and of itself a violent act or the actions of a psychopath. Both are dangerous, but it's inconsistent to focus on one for harsher penalties. Would you really care if you or your family were wiped out by one rather than the other? It's probably the difference that cell phones just haven't received the same kind of attention or haven't been around long enough. Furthermore, they have become so embedded into our way of life that it's that much more difficult to get people to change their habits.

The preventative side is pissing in the wind. Drunks drink. The only ones who can prevent them is them.

When they raise the stakes from just drinking to taking the wheel while drunk and joining me, my wife, and my children on the road, I lose all inclination to be merciful. I was almost taken out by a drunk driver with my wife and kids in the car a few years back. Disaster was averted by a distance so small I wouldn't have wanted my hand in there, and it was only averted by Mrs. Sauron's skillful evasive maneuvering. The idiot who caused the incident was pulling out of a winery in New York, part of the summer crowd in the Finger Lakes region that the state encourages. It ensures plenty of drunk drivers, and brings in enough money so a state trooper or a sheriff's deputy on the winery tour route is about as scarce as hen's teeth.

Ethanol is a powerful drug, a depressant as powerful as the high octane barbiturates. You may as well load up on Seconal. It's a persons own business right up until they become involved in my life without my input. Which they do the moment they choose to get behind the wheel.

There are two fixes for it. Either A). Don't pour that stuff in your mouth, or B). Don't get behind the wheel if you do.

Driving drunk is a malicious act. If you're caught at it, prison is a very good outcome. And the sentence should be long enough so you'll be very leery of doing it again, and so as to give pause to others who might be tempted to get behind the wheel.

As for the U. S. having the highest percentage of people incarcerated of any country in the world, we also have the highest percentage of misfits who can't abide by the rules and who insist on acting out in antisocial ways. So we lock them up. Not that it does any good. The rate of recidivism is astounding. They don't learn anything from it.

Personally, I think we should bring back hard labor, chain gangs, make prison really ugly. That would help.

Or even better. With seven billion people on the planet competing for ever scarcer resources, the herd could use some trimming. I'd support sending those who can't be good citizens back to the manufacturer as factory rejects. Let God sort them out.

But, of course, we live in a crybaby world where the weak rule, and our society will never have the will to enact the policies that might actually fix things.

Cheers!

Rick...

Personally I think you should never drive again if you get a DUI. Solitary isn't that bad when you think this guy will have the opportunity to drive again possibly drive drunk at that and put lives at risk.

Oh, ok, then you really aren't serious about preventing them then- prevention is pissing in the wind, so that's where it ends with you.

Every time you talk about the risks to your family, think of what you would prefer- preventing it from happening in the first place, or just punishing after the fact. I promise you that you would prefer the former upon reflection if something did really happen. If you could elect to prevent it, you would. It tends to be more the case with survivors that say any sentence never brings their family back, that is what they regret more than anything.

Driving in itself is one the most dangerous things that society faces- every day, with our without drunk drivers, which I understand on average in a decent sized city, about 1 in 10 drivers are estimated drunk.

Everywhere you look, there are preventative measures- seatbelts, speed limits, motorcycle helmet laws, which I have seen people argue against with fanaticism, but I think it's odd that how people try and balance those things with their notions of freedom.

Having read some of the horror stories about the California penal system I would prefer solitary over the general population if I were ever incarcerated for my own safety. I would be dead in less than a year otherwise.


Wheels

Fine. Then let's take really effective prevention measures. We'll reinstate Prohibition, only this time make the penalty for possession of alcohol death. We'll need to do something about the absurdity of the appeals process in capital cases so as not to back up the court system or overtax the penal system, but once that's out of the way, it should be effective.

Or we could take a look at predisposing factors for alcoholism and screen everyone before issuing them a license. If you've got a first degree relative who suffers from alcoholism no license for you, for example. But we'll need to look at ALL predisposing factors.

You design a reasonable and effective prevention program and we'll give it a go. But we'll still need to punish people who decide that what they want outweighs the well-being of others and get behind the wheel while drunk.

Cheers!

Rick...

If everyone screaming for punishment had to spend two days in a California prison to see where they were consigning "Otis Campbell" for 5 years or more they might not be so enamored with the idea.


Wheels

Otis made his bed, he gets to lie in it. If California prisons aren't up to the standards people think they should be, that's an issue for California to fix. It doesn't mean Otis gets a break.

This is the sort of thing drunk drivers do:



That's her in the smaller black and white "before" picture. She looks a little different with the involuntary modifications applied by the drunk driver, eh?

Prison is the least that should happen to them.

Cheers!

Rick...

I don't think Prohibition would work because Prohibition didn't work. Prohibition did create problems like push it underground and create the black market and in effect create organized crime, the biggest fans of Prohibition. That wasn't so much preventative as it had the opposite effect.

I think the problem is that people always push for these black and white, either/or dichotomies, no middle ground, just these false dilemmas.

Prohibition- no. Take away licenses, pay heavy fines, time in the county jail for a couple of months, yes, mandatory service to the community, yes. 5 Years in prison for a DUI- no. That may as well be a life or even a death sentence for some people.

The fines that people are hit with now aren't cheap. I'd rather they pay the $10,000 fine where it could go to victims rather than go to prison to house them for $50,000 per year, plus it creates a ticking bomb by manufacturing more criminals.

So your basic premise is we should not be held liable for our own actions? So if the preventives measures fail is it the preventive measures fault? So where is the personal responsibility then, I guess that does not matter, if we can instill all these restrictions then by god all is well!!! So what if people will be people and get around them as long as it is restricted then we can blame it on the preventive failure not on the person!
I really do not think you beleive that I was making a point,at some time you have to hold the individual responsible and in a free society there are idiots and they will cause mayhem and destruction and you can not stop them. God knows we have laws for all kinds of things and yet laws are broke all the time.
In this case tho it sounds like the system failed, why if I am ever in trouble I will not wave my right to a speedy trial :P. I hope this person gets the help they need and become a reposible person. however I doubt it.


Bullet

Well, people try that when they introduce measures, but at the last minute, all the political campaign ads come out and people wet their pants. Basically, the problem is out of control. The US Supreme Court stepped in and ordered California to release inmates, simply because of the nightmarish problem the prison system has become. A prison industry has grown and is a very powerful lobby, one that has no interest in solving the problems but growing them. They knock down every serious attempt at reform, as the Governator found out when he tried to have a serious look at it.

I'm pretty sure I haven't said that. I'm pretty sure time and time again I've made that clear.

In fact, what I am arguing is against ideas that people are coming up with that do less good.

State prisons are for people you would never want to be in a cell with, often people who aren't going to be released back into society.

A DUI isn't necessarily that type of person, now although it's no excuse, there is such a thing as having a balanced look at things. I'm not saying there should be no punishment, I'm saying that we are creating problems on top of the ones we have already that we are simply permitting to get out of control.

Any sane individual here would. I don't care what their backgrounds here, unless they are already acclimated to what's in store, none of them are up to it.

We had one guy here, I forgot his name, who seemed to be in and out of the county jail quite often, he doesn't post anymore. Maybe that guy could survive better than others, but it's nothing, absolutely like nothing what people understand.

If they have attachments to the outside- family, career, friends, they're not going to make it. If they have reservations about being brutal to another prisoner or standing up to guards or to the face of authority, they will be seen as weak and they aren't going to make it.

The prisons aren't filled with DUI cases, they are run by ruthless prison gangs, the kinds of people who would tell you to shank your own cellmate or your own brother or father, and you would do it or you would be the one to get shanked.

Wait...a HIGH SCHOOL kid...with TWO DUI's?!?!

He didn't learn the first time, YES, he belongs in state pen. Won't survive? Too bad, neither will the victims of his third DUI drive.

It's sad that so many people want to ban guns "because they are dangerous", but the same people want DUI drivers to face leniency...DUI drivers who actually kill people more often with their drunken accidents.

So, if we already have preventative measures (seat belts, speed limits, laws) why are you claiming there is less effort being preventative than punishing the guilty? A next step preventative measure is a stout law, and making the public aware if you do THIS, you will get THAT. Every single individual decides to comply or not. Make it completely clear that if someone gets drunk and thinks they're driving a speed boat down Biscayne Bay instead of realizing they're on a highway with families, and they get caught before they do damage to someone else, it is 100% their problem and they get whatever the punishment is deemed by the law. If the law isn't making a huge dent in the amount of activity, step-up the law.

The premise of this thread (excluding the supplemental information of grand theft auto, etc.) of DUI + 2 years solitary + first offense isn't appropriate IMO. Too severe for a first offense. I agree with JimK.

OTOH, a DWI first offense, again presuming they haven't hurt someone else, should be a year without a license to give them time to complete a mandatory drying-out period away from the sauce. That is being proactive, and gives them the chance to change. 100% their decision if they choose to accept it or not.

Rick, he was charged with Possession of Stolen Vehicle, because his mother thought that her car was stolen. It wasn't. The DUI was because of the meds he was taken and had accidentally over-medicated himself with the new dosage he was prescribed. He was thrown in solitary because the admin that processed him when being booked, saw that he was taking anti-depression medication and checked the box on the form marked "SUICIDAL", which means he was thrown onto solitary automatically until he could be medically evaluated. He went to medical and that's when his paperwork was lost. He was returned after eval without paperwork, was returned to his last place of record until they could find his paperwork... That never happened.

He never saw a judge.

Never went to trial.

Case was never heard.

2 years alone, near zero human contact, almost never let out of the cell, not even to shower... For crimes he did not commit.

He was only released because a State Prison Inspector was doing a routine inspection and saw the man while inspecting records and conditions...

Not everything is so black and white and cut and dry Rick... This man suffered a needless travesty of justice. Murderers, pedophiles, and rapists are treated much better than he was.

-Skater

Because in this particular case, I'd be willing to bet that many people would be opposed to preventative measures that would reduce accidents and fatalities. I see this again and again- what they argue is something along the lines like: "You can't prevent it from happening 100 % of the time," over and done, that's it. I see the same arguments against piracy in every other thread. If the standard is a perfect rate, then of course it's true, you'll never get there. But it's always a false dichotomy- either you prevent it all, or you can't do anything. That's not true at all.

Really, what would you prefer? More people saved if there were a means to do that, or just say forget it and throw people away after the fact? At the very least, even if you opt for the second case rigidly, why wouldn't you want the first as well?

"JUST driving under the influence" is what causes these accidents, often fatal.

Just because many get away with doing so regularly, doesn't make it morally OK. Nor should "getting away with it regularly" be an excuse to be lenient on the offenders.




Yet the DUI perpetrator IS providing death sentences by repeatedly driving while intoxicated: someone will end up dead as a result of their behavior.




Suddenly economics comes into the picture?

Well, if said perp would be "dead within a week" as you contend, that would actually be cheaper than all other solutions. It'd be far cheaper than an official death sentence, cheaper than a month of regular incarceration.

Part of the reason why DUI is so common, is that the real world consequences from getting caught are often low enough that people just don't think of it when they are drunk. But in BC, DUI laws have been dramatically increased, and it HAS had a significant effect on the number of people being caught for this crime: people are learning not to mess with their driver's license future. And it's saving lives. It's probably one of the best examples where harder laws are actually demonstrating a good effect.

Maybe for first-time DUI offenders who were not blotto, slightly over the limit, maybe send them to a regular jail, serve their time and get out. But for repeat offenders? Straight to the big house, and if rape and death await, well that's an issue for the institution to sort out, not court sentencing.

A proper law should never be impacted by bad or misused execution of the law. Purely a subjective opinion what "most people" would do. Put it to the vote at election time and let each state decide what is appropriate for them.


100% of the time with regards to prevention are your words. Not a soul in here (execpt yourself) has said that.


Certainly people being saved. That is why I suggested a year without license and mandatory hospitalization. If they take someone out, first offense is out the window.

Once again, I'm talking DWI not DUI. You are aware of the difference, correct?

Well, Rick, I think that is the wrong approach to take in light of everything I've said, obviously. I wish white people however would understand more about the context of what they are creating. This is going to sound racist, but here it is: in the prison system in California, there are two kinds of people. Those in gangs, those who are not in gangs. The gangs are usually organized into race. Those who are not in gangs are often your white, first time, non-violent offenders. They are under the delusion that they just want to serve their time quietly and be done with it. This is wrong.

Whites have a problem thinking realistically here. They are usually the ones who argue for longer, harsher sentencing, for denial or indifference to the 8th Amendment, and who do they hurt the most? Themselves. They don't organize the way the other groups do, they are the natural victims of everyone else.

A black prisoner might brutalize a black prisoner, a Latino prisoner can rape a Latino prisoner, which is understood and part of the system. However, a race riot could break out if a black person attempted to do that to a Latino prisoner, or if it were a gang rivalry thing. It doesn't work that way with the white prisoners. They are the bottom of the pecking order. When they go to prison, it's a different set of rules that apply to them. Their sentence may say 5 years, but don't count on it.

Meanwhile, the state continues to pour huge amounts of money into the prison system, continues to swell the prison population, those who actually do learn to survive in that environment have learned to become better, professional criminals. And still, the crime rate doesn't seem to have any correlative effect with the amount of prisoners or the number of prisons you have.



Red herring. One has nothing to do with the other.

Ah, OK. Well, then somebody screwed up big time. That violates his constitutional rights and that is not acceptable. So perhaps the damages were justifiable.

But that's this case. In the case of your average drunk driver, I'm still in favor of teaching them a lesson that will act as a deterrent for others who are so inclined.

Hopefully this guy will recover from his ordeal. If it was me, twenty-two million would go a long way toward helping cheer me up and get my bearings.

Cheers!

Rick...

Thanks Jim. I would say that point makes it moot to discuss on the merits of locking away DUI drivers - no one deserves to be sent two years to jail with no trial.

Except enemies of the state. Oops! Did I just say that out loud?

Cheers!

Rick...

I've not said that it shouldn't. But we are fundamentally disagreeing what is proper- a prison sentence for a DUI- not one that involves injury or death, mind you, is not in my view appropriate, at least not where I'm at. State prison is for different kinds of people, a committed, professional class of criminals. It's like putting a high school football team against a professional one. They are in different leagues altogether. Since most people I've known at one time or another have drunk a beer and then drove home, I look around and see the difference between them and the kinds of people who are in prison. Should they face sanctions? Yes. Is state prison the right answer? I don't think so in most cases.




It's implied. Actually, we've already had someone say that prevention is pissing in the wind, so that's pretty much how anyone could read into that.



What an odd thing to say. Driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit is not really a distinction worth mentioning. If you push hard on it, why parse it in this way?

Prevention IS pissing in the wind. You ever see a drunk quit until they're damn good and ready themselves? There's nothing anyone else can do to change them. They have to change themselves.

And you have to admit, most people, if they're not chronic alcoholics, are going to think twice about getting behind the wheel with a few drinks in them after spending a couple years being repeatedly gang sodomized after the last time they drank and drove.

It gives them pause, to stop and reflect before acting.

Cheers!

Rick...

Well the above post pretty much sums up the attitude I'm talking about.

Yep, there is a difference. Football teams don't kill families in their SUVs. Again, you're incorrect and misquoting. No one is saying have a beer and go to prison.


I'm debating my points, not others. You would need to take that up with them.


Odd? Not at all. But your "...is not really a distinction worth mentioning" comment is surprising. With your credentials, I would have thought you understood the difference between "under the influence" and "blind-stumbling-drunk".

The fallacy you seem to promote is that a DUI or a DWI = kills a family. If this is what you argue, then your own penalties have problems. You don't prescribe prison time for a first offense, and give only 5 years for a second. Why so lenient if it's the same act?




Nice try. You said no one here is arguing against prevention because 100 % certainty can't be obtained, I showed you where that was the case.



Did you know that some states don't draw any distinction between the two? Legally speaking, you're in trouble either way driving over the legal limit or driving while impaired in some way as far as the law is concerned. The penalties can be stiff in either case. If you're arguing for prison sentences, I don't see why you even care what the difference is.

Nope, wrong again. I'm not promoting a DUI or a DWI = kills a family. Again, have a beer and go to jail vs blind-stumbling-drunk. There is a significant difference.


I'm debating DWI. You're lumping DUI and DWI together. I'm surprised you would do that.


Nice try on the nice try. I'm saying no one in this thread claims to have or expect a 100% effective prevention measure. I said "If the law isn't making a huge dent in the amount of activity, step-up the law." To clarify, big dent doesn't mean 100%.


Well sure you're in trouble with the law either with DUI or DWI, but they're still not the same or there wouldn't be two legal definitions. Again, it is surprising that you lump both together with your credentials. What any two states do in comparison is not relevant in this debate because we weren't discussing state comparisons. It is up to each state to determine the degree of preventive measures and enforcement their residents accept, correct? To not advocate prison time for a second offense DWI is IMO wrong.

This is a bit heavy-handed, don't you think? The legal distinction doesn't even exist in every jurisdiction, and for some others where it does, in all practical terms they may as well be interchangeable. A driver charged with either is facing stiff penalties. Now sure, some people can blow over the legal limit and function still fine, every person has different body chemistry and tolerances. That distinction might matter more to the driver in still getting himself home in one piece, but legally speaking, you would be in trouble either way. If you were caught and charged with either, you're busted. That's it- that means as far as the law is concerned, you did wrong.



I'm discussing state comparisons, since you introduced legal distinctions here- some states don't see it that way.

Furthermore, state sentencing will fall under state criminal procedure and guidelines, so of course we are talking about states. In California's particular case, there is something more unique to California that other states might not have. So California's response to the problem should take into consideration California's situation- Its own particular prison culture, more overcrowding in prisons, more money spent that the state doesn't have. I think we should start looking at alternatives here, something useful to the state instead of just a money sink. More money thrown at the problem for prison time isn't necessarily correcting the problem.

No, not suddenly. Suddenly only to people who jumped in on the problem late. People studying the problem for years have said this is beyond the ability of the state to handle. No matter, people won't think about the problem. It's been a discussion for years, the problem is that people resist it and think only two dimensionally: more prisoners, more prison time. They don't think in preventative terms, even if they believe in harsher sentencing, the component of prevention seems to be left out of it. So the rule to live by is: just don't get caught. That's the worst that could happen. That's all that people care about, if you got caught. If you're like the majority of drunks who slip by this time, well, no harm, no foul. But death to the one who gets stopped.




That's not the point. At the risk of offending innocent ears, a DUI in and of itself is a victimless crime. Most DUI stops don't result in the actual injury or death of a victim. Now, again I'll say in case anyone tries to say otherwise: it's not to condone the behavior and let it go, far from it. But people should really think both in practical terms and what we do with respect to our values.



I don't think the real world consequences are really that low, they can be rather stiff. But it's true of course, someone drinking may not think about consequences, that's the inherent problem with alcohol. That's why people do stupid stuff when they are drunk.

But there's stupid and there is just criminally evil. A DUI is stupid, but in and of itself is not the worst that people do- far, far from it. Again, there is a distinction here from a DUI and someone drunk who actually kills someone else. Those are two different things.

Erm,
What's the difference between DWI and DUI gents? Also, when you say County Jail or State Pen, what's the difference there? Cheers.

driving while intoxicated ought to be a death penalty offence imo

there's no excuse for it. it's incredibly dangerous to other people on the road. you're more than 11 times more likely to crash driving drunk than when sober.

it's like playing russian roulette with the revolver pointed at other people.

if you don't have the self control to not drive after drinking then you should not drink at all or you should turn in your license so you don't end up killing some lady and her kids.

i drink like a camel but i have enough sense not to ever drive drunk or get into a car with a drunk driver.

DWI, or Driving While Intoxicated takes place when they breathalyze you and you blow more than 0.10 percent blood alcohol.

DUI, or Driving Under the Influence takes place when they breathalyze you and you blow between 0.05 and 0.10 percent blood alcohol.

County jail is run by the local county government, usually overseen and administered by the county Sheriff. It usually houses people sentenced to less than 1 year behind bars.

The state pen is run by the state, such as New York, Texas, California. It includes charming ne-er-do-wells from all over the state, and is reserved for people doing more than 1 year behind bars.

And of course we have the federal pen. If you're convicted of a federal offense, you go to the federal pen.

If you're not rich, you usually go to the federal pen at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania or some other nightmarish hole.

If you're rich and well connected, you do your time in the federal country club penitentiary at Danbury, Connecticut.

Cheers!

Rick...

Source: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/texting-while-driving-statistics.html

Should we kill all of these people too since they are actually more dangerous. By your logic both are just as culpable since both were done by the choice of the driver.

Source: http://www.nationwide.com/newsroom/dwd-facts-figures.jsp

Personally these idiots scare me more than a drunk driver since I am more likely to have one of them run into me in my own personal driving experience.


Wheels

Blimey, folks go to jail a first offense of drink driving?

Over here, generally if no other circs (no death/danger etc) folks only go to jail if they get caught 3 times in 10 years for this kind of thing, and then only for a few months.

A couple of years of being repeatedly gang sodomized up in Folsom would keep their grubby fingers off those keypads while they're driving.

Cheers!

Rick...

As Sauron says, the difference is usually statutory. The kinds of crimes that are going to get you into the state prison system are worse generally than the County where you committed them usually involving longer sentences. There are some exceptions, such as overcrowding forcing officials to put some in one or the other. For example, you could be awaiting trial in one with a sentence expected to get you into the other. Culturally, the prison takes the dangers of county jail a magnitude further. The kinds of people who are facing long sentences or who are never going to get out, career criminals, people who cannot seem to stay out of the criminal justice system or who actually want to be there. The class of people has sometimes been described as convicts vs. inmates.

i wouldn't be opposed to prison for people who text while driving.

the boss at my last job in canada before i moved to japan ran over a cyclist and nearly killed him because he was busy texting while driving his giant suv

totally irresponsible, cars are not toys you're driving 2000+ lbs of metal at high speed, if your attention span is so short you cannot refrain from texting until the next traffic light you don't deserve to drive.

pretty simple IMO.

driving is thought of as a right in north america (and some other countries), this is a mistake, i think. people get to thinking that texting while driving is OK, or drinking and driving is OK as long as you don't crash. stupidity. some day, you WILL crash - whether or not you kill an innocent family in the process is the unknown factor.