What should the punishment for DUI be?

Question

Do you think we (America) are too easy on DUI's or not hard enough?
What would you like to see the punishment be? What about for multiple offenders? First time offenders with no criminal record or traffic violations?

sorry, I meant too hard...my son was calling me from the other room and I became distracted...and just finished as quick as I could=)

Answer 1

Driving a motor vehicle while "intoxicated" is as close to wreckless-endangerment of human life as "one-can-get" without actually hurting someone...till the accident... Oye !

...Ok... 1st. offense... no accident, no one hurt...just DUI 1st. time...? ...$1,000.00 fine 40 hrs. community service, loss of drivers license 6 months. Driver education course as determined by the local standards...

2nd. offense...no accident, no one hurt...just DUI X2...?
30 days Jail...no time off... $2,000.00 fine Mandatory out patient re-hab when Jail time has been served. loss of drivers license for 1 year... after suspension of license. Given limited license... to and from work, church, AA meetings... must keep travel log with millage for Law Enforcement inspection at any time for the next year.

3rd. offense of DUI...no one hurt, no accident... $10,000.00 fine... 1 year in Jail... 10 years loss of license. (Period)

If any of the DUI's have an accident or some one is hurt. the 3rd offense would apply to any case... such as Dui # 1 &2 shown above. If the DUI resulted in the death of someone.
Felony criminal charges for Manslaghuter. lose of license forever.

Answer 2

I agree with phoenix. Drunk drivers who kill should be executed. But I don't know what to do about drunk drivers who have not yet caused an accident. On the one hand, it seems wrong to punish someone who hasn't hurt anybody. On the other hand, a drunk driver is like a would-be murderer who shoots at somebody and misses. Just because he has bad aim, that doesn't mean he is morally superior to an actual murderer. As a practical matter, I think we can hope for laws which will mandate long prison terms for multiple offenders. Most people would rather let first offenders off with a warning (warning: next time you get 5 years in jail).

Answer 3

All of them should be required to attend some rehab classes because if they drive while drunk they have a problem. Shock time is appropriate for lst time offendors who did not have an accident. If they had an accident in which someone was hurt, one to two years would be right. For multiple offendors, 10-20 years. That is my opinion, not necessarily consistent with the law.

Answer 4

Multiple offenders: incarceration for 5 years times number of offense - #2 offense = 10 years, #3 = 15 years, etc.

First offense with clean record: 5 year driving privilege suspension, jail time, and fine.

Drinking and driving is just Russion Roulette attempeted murder in my book -- every time they get on that road they are playing games with everyone's life.

Answer 5

I'm glad that this country has taken a concern to drunk driving, but holy cow you people are vicious! What about driving while tired? That's just a "murder waiting to happen." And what about fiddling with the radio? Putting on makeup? Eating McDonalds? Taking a drink? Talking to your friends or kids in the backseat? TALKING ON A CELL PHONE?

We've all done one or more of these while driving, and many of them affect your driving ability (perhaps even more) than driving on .08 (the now "legal limit" for driving while intoxicated). That, of course, is less than 1 drink per hour for many people. And it hardly slows reaction time at all, much less than, say, talking on a cell phone or fiddling with the radio. (Not making excuses for drunk drivers here, but just stating some facts.)

So if you're going to crucify, crucify everyone who has done anything distracting while driving. Sure, it's negligent, perhaps even risky, but it's not murder. And the drunks you're talking about -- people who blow a .24 after wrapping their car around a tree -- they're driving completely aware of the danger they're imposing, and they're not going to change their mind in their intoxicated state anyway-- even if there IS capital punishment.

Answer 6

There are signs along the Pennsylvania highways. DUI? You can't afford it.

Getting off? NO way.
The kicker is, you won't get an attorney to answer the phone for less than $$1000.00 IN Advance. Also, be prepared to spend $ 10,000 a year for car ins after you get your license back. .

That's in addition to what the courts throw at you.

No, you can't afford it.

Answer 7

First time offenders 500-1000 dollar fine.

2nd offender, should lose thier car! Also thier licence to drive for 10 years.

There should never be a third offender, and if there is, they should get 20 years in prison, as they already pose themselves a danger to the community.

I wish you well...

Jesse

Answer 8

Obviously we are not hard enough on them.

We have to recognize that the difference between DUI and Involuntary Manslaughter is pure dumb luck, and start treating DUI as a crime of violence.

Upon arrest, they should be arraigned immediately, and come before the judge before the effects of alcohol wear off.

I think that would resolve the problem in no time.

Answer 9

Yes, we are too easy on it. I feel that if someone is under the influence and they cause an accident where someone dies, then they should be executed. That would bring a dramatic drop to drinking and driving deaths but since we are a country that worries more about protecting the rights of murderers than the victims it will never happen.

Answer 10

No offense but too easy and not hard enough is redundant. It's the same thing and YES...HELL YES we are too easy on them. They should have their lic. taken away the first time for 6 months, if it happens again, take their lic. away for a year and if it happens a third time their lic. should be taken away permanently never to get them back with a long jail time to go along with it.