As awful as the crash that killed Jennifer Bukoksy, her daughters, and left a family friend critically injured was, a proposal to seize cars owned by third-offense alcohol and drug-impaired drivers won’t prevent such crashes in the future, and would have an unfair impact on their families.
The families of drug and alcohol-addicted offenders are already struggling. We shouldn’t penalize them for criminal activity they’re not responsible for and are probably powerless to prevent.
I’m not certainly not suggesting that our current laws involving drunk drivers shouldn’t be strengthened. I was actually surprised that a third offense isn’t charged as a felony. It ought to be, and a second and perhaps first offense should be as well. No one can possibly be aware that driving while drunk or on drugs is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.While we're at it, we should consider toughening laws and enforcement of unsafe and aggressive driving generally. The serial tailgater, the person who thinks the left lane is an opportunity to work out their NASCAR fantasies, and the city driver using bus and parking lanes to speed pass traffic pose significant risks to life and property as well. The slower, safer drivers are paying the price for the actions of these offenders.
But seizing their cars, and penalizing their spouses and children in the process, isn’t going to help.
5 comments:
Good commentary.
But personally, I would pass on felonizing the first offense, unless there were extenuating circumstances--such as bodily harm or death resulting...
Better solution: long jail terms beginning with #2, and REALLY long for #3.
I am interested in the downfall of this doctor. I have just read the article in the Freeman. So I don't think I have the complete picture.
So he lives in a place that the only way to get his Viagra is to drive. No other form of transportation works.
Interventions are not working with this guy?
What happens to a guy that he destroys his life like this and in the process causes such a tragedy?
There are thousands out there that are in the midst of destroying their lives and they are ready to do the same to us. They can do it with their first offense. How do we defend against this?
Actually, current law already gives state judges the option of seizing cars owned by convicted third time drunk drivers. When this statute was intially proposed by then Gov. Tommy Thompson, it provides for SEIZURE AT THE TIME OF ARREST. This was weakened in the State Senate to provide seizure after conviction (although the title to the vehicle is to be stamped within five days by the Clerk of Court that the title to the vehicle cannot be transferred by the defendant while the case is pending in criminal court.
This really is not a hardship on the families of third offense defendants, because by the time the person with that serious a problem with alcohol has his third arrest, they seldom have any intact family left.
It is far more effective that jail sentences in counties like Milwaukee, because the past practices of the Sheriff and House of Correction in Milwaukee has been to release DUI sentenced prisoners on Electronic Survellance at about the time that half their sentences were served.
Generally, people will not loan their car to someone they know has a drinking problem. Generally, at that stage of alcoholism, potential drunk drivers don't have the cash or credit to by another car to use in re-commiting their crime.
So vehicle seizure is in fact an effective way to protect the public from repeat, repeat drunk drivers.
I think the point of the petition drive is to require the seizure of vehicles, rather than giving judges the option to consider the individual circumstances of the defendant, something that is almost always a lousy idea anyway.
In terms of current statutes, Waukesha DA Brad Schimel told the Journal Sentinel that seizures are difficult to administer, raises costs for local communities, and just doesn’t prevent these drivers from getting behind the wheel again anyway. From their report:
“…judges may seize a driver's vehicle upon a third or subsequent conviction, but this is rarely done because it is too costly and hasn't stopped the offender from driving, Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel said.
Generally, the vehicles have very little value; they are expensive to seize since there is a civil process that must be abided by; the justice system would have to pay any lien on the vehicle and when it has been done, the offender just gets another car, he said.”
And, I would dispute your point that “this really is not a hardship on the families of third offense defendants, because by the time the person with that serious a problem with alcohol has his third arrest, they seldom have any intact family left” as being unquantifiable and probably wrong. Schimel noted that 400 third offense drunk drivers are arrested annually in his jurisdiction. That’s a lot of people, and in just one county. Not all of them have been abandoned as hopeless. I saw reporting that indicated that Mark Benson spent part of his first few days in jail on the phone with his.
I don’t mind throwing the book at offenders, but I just don’t think punishing their spouses or minor children in the process is a justifiable answer to the problem. They didn’t commit any crime.
You identified the real "justice" issue well, Mike.
(Mark this date...)
Benson is an exception. Usually, convicted DUIs' vehicles are precisely what Schimel describes--old junk worth (maybe) $2K.
And yes, siezure WILL affect wife/chilluns. That's not "justice," it's blind revenge.
Post a Comment