In another thread, someone said that if you were pulled over and not legal to drive, it was not something you were even likely to be ticketed for.

These days, if you're caught twice, you can be charged with a felony (1 year in prison). Do you think that as a society we overreact to DUIs? Do you think that .08 is too low? Too high? Too arbitrary?

Do the current laws actually have any affect on the number of drunk drivers out there? Or do they just burden our DA with nonviolent crimes to prosecute and fill up our jails and prisons with nonviolent offenders?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

In my opinion, jailtime is not an adequate deterrent to drunk driving. Being that Oklahoma transportation is completely centered around the automobile, suspended licenses are the only effective punishment for DUIs. Sure having drunk drivers behind bars makes the public feel better, but does it actually work as a deterrent?

Now, it is imperative that the state does not seem weak concerning drunk driving. There is no excuse and there should be no toleration for it. However, it is irresponsible to clog up the jail cells and prisons for completely non-violent crimes.

How is jail NOT a deturant? A person can not drink alcoholic beverages and then drive a vehicle while incarcerated. Therefore, they are detoured from the activity. Even if for a short, often too short, of a period.

But taking away licensees, for some, is not a deterrant, either. They still drive and just hope they aren't caught!

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

Anyone who thinks suspended driver's licenses are a functional deterrent should go visit the Avalon correctional facility sometime (it's where most DUI offenders go to serve weekend sentences). First, notice that they have a pretty large parking lot.

Second, realize that most of their inmates show up each weekend in their own set of wheels.

Third, realize that a second conviction for DUI (which lands you in the pokey) also mandates a 1 year suspended driver's license.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Stone them and I bet DUI's would go down in number.

What if they're already stoned?

^ nice.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

.08 is an adequate standard. I agree that license suspension is not a deterrent, unfortunately incarceration doesn't work well either. Without sounding too much like "Big Brother" there must be technology available to build an ignition system that would be disabled if the wearer of a "DUI Bracelet" got within close proximity. Make installation mandatory on any vehicle the offender has access to, at his or her cost.

Actually, I would like to see .01 as the figure for legally drunk. Then make DUI a first offense felony punishable by up to five years in prison with a minimum of two without parole. That would stop most people who now drink alcohol and drive.

now where are we going to put all these DUI's. I mean OK is now kicking criminals outta of prison to lease it out to other places and for other programs. OH wait build more prisons?? And I bet most of you YELL NIMBY..

__________________
"You can't fix stupid it's foreverrrrrrrrr!!" Ron White

At .01, you're not even punishing bad conduct. You can be at .01 the next day after drinking (not even drinking heavily).

You think our prisons are overfull now... you ain't seen nothin' yet.

99% of people think that's an incredibly terrible idea.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Although my training as a substance abuse counsellor was years ago (collateral duty in the US Navy) I would imagine that .01 is still attainable by mouthwash, aftershave, and other legal means. SORRY!

Personally, I think we need to be harsher on DUI's. Put someone in prison for a year after two DUI's. DUI's kill innocent lives. Simple as that. And the current penalty is not that harsh.

I would argue that at .08 you are impaired, but not significantly impaired.

I'd like to see the statistics on how many deaths are caused by drivers who are only at .08 BAC.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

i'd say some are, some aren't. bac and level of impairment aren't necessarily consistent among individuals. however, you argue that at .08 bac some amount of impairment exists... is it responsible to operate a motor vehicle while under any level of impairment? -M

Out of curiosity how many people have you heard of that have beat a DUI conviction at .08? And, what was their defense?

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

Is it responsible? Maybe not. Negligent, reckless, sure.

A few similar fact patterns come to mind which are just as dangerous as driving after 3 beers (all it takes for a lot of folks to get to .08BAC). For example, I, on my drunkest driving day would be far safer a driver than the 99 year old great-great-grandmother peering over her dashboard like Lily Tomlin in her 'big chair' (of Laugh-in fame); or perhaps someone who drives while extremely sick or otherwise impaired?

While situations like those could give rise to a 'reckless driving' charge (never happen though), they sure as heck aren't felonies, and they don't deserve to be due to the fact that no actual harm occured.

Calling something a felony (meaning 1+ year in prison is your sentence) is a big deal. In my mind, you need at least some actual harm to others to get there. I can think of no other crime where simply exposing oneself and others to a risk is punishable as a felony. Can you?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I say just give em more alcohol and then they won't be able to find the car.