My husband was injured by a drunk driver 12 years ago and the guy that hit him only got 3 months in jail and it was his third offense. We want to know if people think that the drunk driving laws should be stiffer.
2006-10-26 10:37:49 · 11 answers · asked by blueeaglecindy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Repeat offenders should loose the legal right to breathe.
2006-10-26 10:39:53 · answer #1 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Fact - if a person drives under the influence that person is considered to be not a reasonable person for their judgement is impaired.
It is argued that they could leave their keys made the decision to noot drive by taking away the oppotunity to drive.
Just because someone drinks and drives once does deserve a chance IF NO ONE INJURED. For it does not mean they are alcoholic.
But twice - well suspend for 5 years, if anyone killed or injured lose you licence for life and jail time.
Once is a chance to correct, but twice is just plain stupid and should not be behind the wheel again for as long as they can breathe.
And from the statement with the question, that peron had one to many chances, if it is the third offence of your incident.
Technically anyone that drives under the influence period should be whipped.
2006-10-27 00:48:24 · answer #2 · answered by tordor111 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A drunk driver that kills or injures a person should be treated the same as someone who should not have a gun in their hand. And yes the laws should be stiffer.
Take care.
2006-10-26 17:59:23 · answer #3 · answered by X-Woman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should be changed. The law doesn't punish drunk drivers enough. Personally, I think that the first offense for drinking and driving should be 3 years in jail MINIMUM, suspended license until the person goes through AA, and multiple required classes, and of course lifetime probation while having to check in with their probation officer at least twice a week.
2006-10-26 17:41:27 · answer #4 · answered by Kikyo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you want to know if the laws from 12 years ago should be changed? They have been. They are unconstitutional in my eye. They do not allow people accused of a dui the same rights as a child molester, murderer, rapist, armed robber, etc. If someone is accused of a dui they are presumed guilty, and are penalized before they even have their day in court. Even if they are found not guilty, they still are penalized.
if someone is found guilty of hurting someone while under the influence, and the alcohol was the cause, then I believe there should be severe punishment. More so than if it was just an accident.
2006-10-26 17:41:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they should get jail time the first offense and the second or there after should spend longer in jail. I also think they should be forced into AA or some kind of program. My husband got a DWI and it made no difference in him. I wish his punishment would have been stiffer.
2006-10-26 17:41:28 · answer #6 · answered by Ask Me 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like the law in, um, I think it's in Kenya. If they catch someone DUI, they wait until just before dark, drive them way out in the jungle and drop them off to make their own way back to town. Drunks never forget that night -- assuming they survive it.
Alas, we don't have many lions or hyenas here.
2006-10-26 17:48:13 · answer #7 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The laws are a lot stricter than they were 12 years ago, but if you have a good attorney then you can get a lighter sentence.
2006-10-26 17:53:40 · answer #8 · answered by Michael R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, why not?
Let 'em spend time behind steel bars the first time; it'll give them time to think about the consequences of their actions.
2006-10-26 17:47:15 · answer #9 · answered by comicards 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in that case hell yeah they should. 3 months isn't long at all for a 3rd affender it should of been more like 3 yrs.
2006-10-26 17:42:53 · answer #10 · answered by hugabug72 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋