.jpg)
Sen. Jane Nelson has always been clueless about the practical aspects of law enforcement.In light of the tragedies of late which involved repeat DWI offenders, she now wants to propose a law which would cause a person convicted of DWI-Second to lose their drivers license forever.
Ok, so a guy who is inclined to drive drunk after having two DWIs (and thus be subject to 10 years in prison for a third DWI) is going to be discouraged because he doesn't want to drive without a license (a misdemeanor)? Sheesh.
22 comments:
Saw this earlier and was going to send to you, but I expected the "sheesh" response. Why not do this? The only problem is she is waiting until NEXT year to do this. So it does make it appear as grandstanding by a politician, who would have thunk it. I thought having a drivers license was a privilege not a right. If you show a pattern of intentionaly putting others at risk and fines, probation and jail time don't work to stop you, then why not? And yes, there are speeders (who get suspended), and women drivers, but why is this such a bad idea?
This is your profession and you should technically not agree with this type of legislation and your comment confirms that. But come'on BG why not?
Nelson has never met a microphone or a press conference she doesn't like. She is shameless in throwing out the red meat to the right-wing crazies.
I suppose you have a better idea?
Sen. Nelson may be a bit naive regarding law enforcement but she is a freaking genius compared to Lee Ann Dauphinot.
Roads are overcrowded and gasoline is a precious resource. This proposed bill helps alleviate two problems. Alcoholics rarely stop drinking and driving. They need to get bicycles. It's good for the planet and for the well being of innocents.They'll even wear off their beer bellies and be less of a strain on health care.
What is sad is that the R's in Texas will believe her.
Perfect Jane - bet she doesn't drink, smoke, attends church every Sunday, teaches a SS class, all that...........
.....and watches porn after midnight.
Politicians - biggest hypocrits of all.
First practical problem--NOBODY will plead guilty to a DWI 2nd, and there will be a HUGE number of cases that can only be disposed of by jury trial--the misdemeanor courts will be overwhelmed (at least make it permanent upon the conviction of your felony DWI--the 3rd--but of course THAT will create a big burden on felony courts).
Second practical problem--even if the law passes, it won't get the drunk drivers off the streets--they'll just without a license. Irresponsible people just don't care if they have a license or not. The more reasons the legislature dreams up to cause a driver's license suspension, the more Driving While License Invalid cases they have created. Just check out the reason for the legislature recdently LOWERING the punishment level for first time DWLI's (Class C--JP and Municipal Court), thereby alleviating the burden they created on the county misdemeanor courts.
It just goes to show--when you propose a legislative change, you need to examine ALL the trickle-down effects it will cause--BEFORE you can figure out if it'll be effective or not. Our legislators RARELY do this.
Taking away a driver's license will not stop someone from driving. So next time this person is stopped by law enforcement, there will be additional charges. Okay.... but this is not a prevention measure. I suspect she is looking for ways to prevent drunk driving. This isn't it. I don't know the answer.... but taking away one's driver's license will create more problems that may lead to further drinking. Forever is a very long time...think about it. This person (if they obey the law) will no longer be able to drive to a job, thus increasing their poverty level, and possibly their inclination to continue drinking. That's only one scenario.
The next thing to consider is that just because someone is drinking at a certain point in their lifetime does not mean that they will forever be at this stage. Many people quit, mature, change, find religion, whatever.... you get my point.
OK, a state senator who proposes a measure that may or may not reduce drunk driving is grandstanding, while a DWI attorney who opposes any measure that would inconvenience a would-be drunk driver does so on principle?
Do I understand this correctly?
Not to say you're wrong, but we'd like to know your rationale.
As Poins says in Henry IV: "Come, your reason, Jack, your reason."
Oh the irony of it. Many commenters of this blog are the first ones to say that this is a good idea, get the people that drink and drive off the road for good as punishment. Think about this: Some jobs require a license, so those jobs are knocked out immediately. Say this person doesn't live in town. Who is going to bike to work if it is more than 5 miles from their home and if they are having trouble getting rides from others? Then this person gets on welfare in order to eat. Suddenly, people on blogs, like this one, would be griping about that too. It's all a vicious circle.
Not only that, but I agree with Barry....if a person is willing to drive while drinking, why wouldn't they be willing to drive without a license?
A license to drive is a license to work
You don't really need a license to drive away in a car. But you need one for a lot of jobs where you drive a car.
So no license = no work = more welfare and fewer workers available = meaning some immigrant with a fake DL will get a job instead.
Some people don't think things through. Particularly Jane Nelson.
6:11 maybe the drunk can get a license and drive a 18 wheeler rock truck and wipe out multible families and a school bus. At least he got a job! Come on you can't be serous. Just a couple of weeks ago a whole family was destroyed by a drunk driver in Lewisville. I have a solution, let's cut off their arms, deny them handicap status, paint them orange and give them jobs as traffic cones.
Thankful this isn't already law. A person near and dear to me would not be able to work or go to AA meetings. That program was not begun till after 2nd DWI. Long span of sobriety now, done one day at a time. Different person entirely.
Perhaps a better answer would be for the entire communal family to attend counseling, and all vehicles in household have interlock devices. Just a suggestion, but alcoholism is a disease that affects the entire family. I know no one in the family mentioned above was offered any information to help the rest of the family. The alcoholic went to classes after each DWI, but maybe if the family was referred to Al-Anon or Alateen to learn about alcoholism, it would make a change. I understand the rest of the family has not been charged, but surely there could be some way that doesn't infringe on their constitutional rights, to involve them in a solution.
I'm thankful some of you see revocation of license is not the answer. John Barton, who hit the Lewisville family, killing two, was supposed to drive only vehicles with an interlock device installed. He was in his wife's car. So, just maybe, if the courts had ordered interlocks for the entire communal family, this wouldn't have happened. I don't think, any more than the rest of you do, that drunk driving is OK. I just think this is not the answer, and maybe we should try to come up with solutions that would work.
If someone was convicted TWICE of walking into a Wal Mart and randomly shooting a gun, would we be concerned if on the second conviction that person was not allowed to carry a gun FOREVER? What's the dang difference?
You people that think a vehicle is necessary to have a job are idiots. There are billions of people in this world who have a job and no car. There are millions of people in the U.S. who don't have cars but have jobs. You choose to live away from an urban center with public transportation to all the places you need to go. You choose not to live in a place you can bike, walk, ride a bus, catch a train.
All of the emails about not driving equals no job are horseshit. They can move to any city with public transportation, and do just fine.
They have proven they do not have enough responsibility to have the privilege to drive.
Quit making sorry excuses for bad behavior.
There is nothing that is going to keep a person from drinking or doing drugs...they have a addiction and they need help!!!! and wise county dont have any resource's other than wise alchol and drug council to help... and this new thing that they are starting on 2nd Alcohol offense's where they have to wear a ankle monitor that monitors the alcohol level in there blood what is that all about? what is there punishment if it detects anything? can they not even sit at home and drink? Just wondering... I know our legal system is trying everything they can think of but some people just dont care or are to far in there addiction to just stop because they get caught. Even if they get there DL taken away and get caught driving without them how many times does that have to happen? before probation isnt a option? and then they go the prison on tax payers money cause they drove without them? Isnt our Prison system over crowded as it is?... Just Saying..
Here is a Idea. I know many people that are on Welfare or Disability or some other goverment funded program. If they are on welfare yes I think everyone needs to take mandatory drug and alcohol screenings. If they are on Disibility or other goverment funding and catch a case againt them or faila test they should be cut off for good.Since there are so many people living off the goverment instead of working. But criminals will be criminals and it dont really matter what law is passed they will find away around it.
"I suppose you have a better idea?"
Why yes 4:30, I do. Make interlocks mandatory on every vehicle and part of your inspection sticker requirements.
DWI enforcement isn't about reducing drunk drivers and saving lives, it's about making money. They have just developed a really good morality based marketing campaign.
Interlocks would reduce DWI's before they happened. That, in turn, would reduce driving with suspended licenses and related costs. It would also reduce court costs, probation fees, mandatory DWI education classes, MADD victim impact classes, random testing fees and other mandatory costs for offenders.
But, I guess a mandatory interlock on YOUR car would invade on YOUR right to dive after drinking, because you know what your limit is because you've never been caught wouldn't it? Not to mention it would cost you an extra $200 - $300 on your new car.
But, I guess the reduction of DWI's and lives saved isn't as satisfying as being able to point your finger at someone and say you're a better person than they are because you've never been caught.
Interlocks on every car would be a safety device just like seatbelts, air bags, tempered glass or child safety seats. All of those cost you more but nobody complains.
Like others have said here, losing a license as a countermeasure would be highly counter productive. It would drive the welfare levels up as you will be forced to support the offenders for the rest of their lives. Maybe you think that's cheaper than a $200-$300 one time cost for an interlock.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but it won't get you any votes at election time. It's not about safety, it's about money.
Do the math and follow the money.
Honestly, this is one topic on which this blog has made some good points and created a somewhat reasonable and rational discussion. Not bad work people.
It might be helpful if we had a little science (statistical data in this instance) to back up Jane's assertion that suspending licenses will actually result in fewer drunk drivers. It would also be nice to know what the data shows us might happen to people without a DL and whether they are able to get/keep a job in Texas.
Additionally, have any other states passed such a law? If so, what was their experience?
What about a less sever measure? Say, maybe suspending licenses for 5/10 years with the possibility of getting it back after years of good action? Or limiting the driving to "to and from work" like we do with teenagers after curfew?
I'd like to believe that the Legislature will look at these issues as well as those other issues pointed out in this blog or otherwise. I'd like to believe that the actual statistics of what happens will carry some weight. I'd like to believe that Texas would look to see what other States have done to see if maybe there's a good working option that we might try.
But, history tells me that the Texas Legislature will follow whatever the popular public opinion is at the time no matter whether there's any real chance it'll work and no matter the negative consequences.
I fully expect the Texas Legislature to reinvent the flat tire.
Alcoholism is a disease? What other disease do you havt to buy your own germs for?
Yep -- even on the internet! The first 3 definitions in a google search for "alcoholism definition" define it as a disease or illness.
MedicineNet - "Physical dependence on alcohol to the extent that stopping alcohol use will bring on withdrawal symptoms."
Wikipedia - "Alcoholism, also known as alcohol dependence, is a disabling addictive disorder. It is characterized by compulsive and uncontrolled consumption of alcohol despite its negative effects on the drinker's health and social standing. Similar to other drug addictions, alcoholism is medically defined as a treatable disease."
eNotAlone.com - "Alcoholism is a primary illness or disorder characterized by some loss of control over drinking, with habituation or addiction to the drug alcohol, causing interference in any major life function, e.g. health, family, job, spiritual, friends,legal."
Post a Comment