Posted on Wednesday, 7th May 2008 by Patrick Dorwin
On behalf of Jennifer Bukosky, her daughters Courtney Bella and Sophie Bukosky as well as her surviving family, most notably, her son Zachary Bella, husband Michael and father Mike Farney and the students of Oconomowoc High School, where Jennifer was a beloved educator, I ask you to join us in a fight that must be won.
We have all been moved by the tragic deaths that took place in Oconomowoc two weeks ago. An impaired driver with numerous convictions was still on the road and caused the deaths of three people, and the devastation of a family and hundreds of students and friends. We ask that all of our readers join us in taking this fight to the Wisconsin Legislature by taking a moment to sign a petition that will press our elected officials to make it possible for those convicted of repeatedly driving after their license has been revoked, to have their cars seized by local or state government or law enforcement. Please take a moment to sign this and pass it along to your friends and family.
Since these people refuse to obey the law and continue to drive, for the sake of our families, we must remove their means to drive, we must take their cars!
Wisconsin’s driving after revocation law must change
If you need more encouragement, please read the comments by Jennifer’s father Michael Farney and listen to him speak with WTMJ radio’s Wisconsin’s Morning News. That was a very powerful interview and I encourage everyone to listen, then sign!
Wisconsin’s driving after revocation law must change
Review our past coverage:
Posted in Home | Comments (68)
68 Responses to “On behalf of Jennifer, Courtney, Sophie and their loved ones”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:06 am
This is undoubtedly a tragedy, but is giving away personal property rights really going to solve anything?
As long as people are allowed to drive, people are going to die in car accidents. Licenses get suspended for a lot more than DUI’s. It’ll hardly be a month after this law passes that stories of cars confiscated by the authorities for unpaid parking tickets start to pop up. After all, auctioning cars is a nice revenue stream.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
1st offence 30 day loss of car
2nd offence 30 day in jail, no Huber, no bail. Jail on day of conviction
3rd offence 60 days in jail, no Huber, no bail, enter jail on day of conviction
4th offence 6 months in jail, no Huber, no bail
Don’t pose the problem as not enough jail space as with this punishment there will be very few getting to the 3rd or 4th offence.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hi ESK
We may have moved beyond property rights. We need to get people’s attention. If you are stopped and convicted of DUI you will lose you car for 30 days.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I can get behind impounding the individuals car at their own expense, but it seems to me most are advocating outright seizure of these vehicles, which is a frightening slope to start slipping down.
And in reality, there is little more important in a truly free State than property rights.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:15 am
ESK, should they also stop confiscating the cars of drug dealers too?
I wouldn’t mind if this is limited to revocations for OWI and similar offenses.
I know the arguments that will be made against it, it will be a hardship on the rest of the family etc. but this needs to be done.
Sometimes I feel a little like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, but sometimes those windmills need to be charged!
May 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Yes, they absolutely should never have started confiscating the automobiles of drug dealers, unless they can prove they were obtained illegally (directly, not through money-stream assumptions).
May 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I’m not arguing this based on some soft hearted notion of criminal rights, I’m saying granting the government the power to outright seize the automobile of someone for any driving while suspended offense is a frightening step to take in order to try and prevent the unpreventable.
(I’m not saying this specific tragedy was unpreventable, just automobile-related tragedies, in general, are unavoidable).
May 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Outstanding! Rep’s Joel Kleefisch (R) and Bob Ziegelbauer (D) are willing to take this fight to the state legislature!
I must thank Charlie Sykes for dedicating so much of his show to this issue and holding our elected officials’ feet to the fire. Thank You!
May 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
We need to toughen the drunk driving laws. Here is my proposal.
1st offense—misdemeanor charge
2nd offense—misdemeanor charge
3 or more offences—-felony charge.
Also, the outrage is that in Wisconsin when someone is convicted of a third drunk driving offense they are sentenced to “part-time” jail (aka work release). The vast majority of states sentence third time offenders to prison.
Finally, lets get rid of huber, work release, etc. Its either you are in jail if you committed a crime or you are NOT in jail if you simply obey the law.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Tilting at windmills is under-rated. If we didn’t hoist a foil every once in a while, very little would ever change.
You’d be surprised who you might catch in a stricter law. Kevin Fischer, mouthpiece for State Senator Mary Lazich, has three OWI convictions. The Illusory Tenant has a few, too.
I’ll be glad to help keep this going. I agree the law needs to change. Everyone should recognize it won’t happen quickly, though. There will be lots of hurdles and a powerful tavern league to get past.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
This will be a real political hotbed topic being the fact that Operating After Revocation cases have largely been decriminalized. Most if not all OAR cases are now municipal ordinace violations instead of state criminal misdemeanors. Municipal ordinace violations are only punishable by a forfieture. It is unlikely that any municipality would make the forfeiture to include a motor vehicle. In the case of “Dr. Death” that would have been about 50 stax with his Cadillac Escalade.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Okay, so you take away the offenders’ vehicle. But what if they just borrow a friend or family members’ vehicle? Or, they just go out and buy some $500 junker? How do you prevent that?
Suspending or revoking their licenses doesn’t really work because many offenders really don’t care about the law – they only care about getting high or drunk. If they’re already violating several laws, why would they care about one more law?
Look, I’m not saying we don’t need to get tougher on drunk drivers, but the bottom line seems to be that those who do drive drunk will find a way to fulfill their selfish needs.
In my opinion, we’re only creating legal obstacles for people who could care less about such obstacles. This is not a legal problem; it is a moral and cultural problem.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Interesting how people are more afraid to “shine a deer” they drive after drinking.
I’m afraid to go out in my boat if it’s not registared. DNR is doing something right.
Break the law, lose your property.
Let’s work on ways to make this happen rather then figure out why it can’t work.
This seem so simple
You do this, the result is this
You do it again, this is the result
You do it again, you’re in deep s*&t
May 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Jim Trainer:
If you think your scale of escalating penalties will “curb” operating after revocation, take two minutes to talk to a Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney who works in misdemeanor court. OAR’s are the bane of their existence because people will drive regardless, whether it be their car or someone else’s car.
Your proposed penalties may work on some, but not most, and certainly not all. Given that, institutional concerns have to be considered, including jail space, etc. (I’m just the messenger).
May 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Mr Pants
You lose you car beacuse you were convicted
of DUI and then you ask me to use my car…
my response “are you nuts”
I think impounding a vehicle would be a huge deterrent.. Let’em them keep their license as that has no effect.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I’d love to sign the petition, but since I no longer live in Wisconsin, will it count?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I still do not believe a new “impoundment law” will prevent them from obtaining a vehicle. They will find a way; beg, borrow, steal, or just buy some clunker off the Internet.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Good work in putting the petition together. I have to commend the activist approach to blogging.
But I also have to point out a problem I see with your proposal. It seems like there would be a problem with the fair application of this law. If your new paid for luxury car is confiscated your financial hardship could be into six figure range. If your old beater is confiscated you could be out only a few hundred bucks.
Confiscating vehicles seems like a good idea, but I would base the confiscation on the degree of danger your vehicle poses. An Escalade weighs more than twice what a small passenger vehicle does and therefore exerts more than twice the force upon impact that a small vehicle does. If this guy was driving an Escort instead of an Escalade there is a chance these people would still be alive.
I would like to see a law that takes your vehicle away and sells it if you are caught drunk behind the wheel of any vehicle that weighs more than 3000 lb’s. To a certain degree our drunk driving laws already take physics into account. If you are caught driving a large commercial truck drunk there is no second chance. The state does everything they can to try and assure that you never have a chance to drive a dangerous vehicle again. I don’t understand why that principle stops being applied simply because of the vehicle’s classification type.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
We’re getting weighted down with the minutia.
Big car or small car, Impound it for 30 days(immediately) on first conviction. Drinkers will think about having a designated driver in their group. What difference if it only impacts a few drinkers. Current regulations have no teeth. We continue to look for ways why something like this won’t work, shell we work the opposite direction and try it.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
30 days in jail without bail = time served by the time it gets to a plea hearing.
30 days of vehicle impoundment on a case without bail = same result.
And Brett’s right — you want to take resources away from already-understaffed DA’s Offices, make us handle more OARs. That’s less time for armed robberies and sexual assaults and even drunk drivings.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Kate, go sign that petition!
I find it interesting that so many people are opposed to confiscating cars of people after they have been caught using that car several times to commit a crime. Driving is NOT a right.
By this standard, do you oppose the confiscation of a gun that is used in a crime? It is just a tool, like the car. No one is suggesting that the car be taken on the first offense, but if they are caught three, five, ten times…? They clearly don’t care about the sanctions they are being given now, the only way to stop them is to remove, or at least make it harder for them to break that law. Sure, it won’t stop everyone, only long prison terms could do that, and we know that won’t happen with our broken Criminal (in)Justice System, but there is no reason we have to make it easy for them.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Update The family of has files a Wrongful Death and Personal Injury lawsuit against Mark Benson.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Jeff Wagner also has a great post and gave us a mention on his radio show, go read Zachary’s Law.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Done!
May 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I don’t understand all the legal mumbo jumbo. This is how I would propose the law.
When you apply for a driving license you sign a form in big print that says something to the effect.” if you are convicted of driving under the influence” first offense, you car will be impounded immediately for 30 days. period, end of story. Contract with the firm that tows cars from snow emergency zones. What are we talking about 50 -100 cars a month(I have no idea). In a few months as the stories get out you will see a drop in the number of car impounded because less people will drive under the influence.
Which, oddly enough , is what we’re trying do in the first place. Oh, it seems so easy.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Prosqtor says: “And Brett’s right — you want to take resources away from already-understaffed DA’s Offices, make us handle more OARs. That’s less time for armed robberies and sexual assaults and even drunk drivings.”
That’s the same argument Hegerty used when trying to convince people that cops couldn’t handle the “small things” because they were too busy handling the “big things”. And we all know what that philosophy yielded over her 4 years of failed policing strategy.
It’s time to quit making excuses and start finding ways to do the job. Repeat DWI offenders; repeat OAR offenders; and even those who drive without insurance need to have their cars impounded for 30, 60 , 90 days or more – at their cost. Those whose cars are impounded for failure to have insurance get 2 weeks to provide proof of insurance or your car gets shredded. Same for those who are repeat DWI and/or OAR offenders except immediate shredding upon the 3rd conviction. As for the case in which the offender is driving someone else’s car, there are safeguards built into the drug car confiscation law, although if someone knowingly allows a repeat offender to drive his/her car, then shred it too. This disposition should make the light rail and mass transit advocates happy too.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Update: News from Rep. Kleefisch
We just got the press release from Rep. Kleefisch, you can read the entire thing here.
Oconomowoc Tragedy Prompts Legislation
Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R), Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer (D), Sen. Jeff Plale (D) and Sen. Alberta Darling (R) are sponsoring this legislation and Kleefisch expects others to come on board.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Swedish DUI Law
Don’t bother asking me what a promille is other then a unit of measurement
The legal alcohol limits are 0,2 promille in a blood test, and 0,1 ml per liter in a breath test (effectively 0, because any alchol consumed in the previous few hours will be that much).
Punishments start with hefty (multi thousand kr) fines, and/or up to 6 months in prison. Your license will be automatically revoked for between 3 and 12 months.
More than 1,0 promille in blood or 0,5 ml per liter in a breath test is considered’gross drunken driving’. You will automatically lose your license for minimum 12 months, and up to 3 years, the fines are larger and you may be sentenced to up to 2 years in prison.
If you lose your license for 12 months or more, you have to resit your final driving test to regain it ,and you are on probation for 2 years; if you lose it again in that time, when that revocation is up you will have to resit all your driving tests to regain it, including doing actual driving lessons again.
Bear in mind it’s a lot harder to get a license in the first place here, most kids don\’t begin until they are 16 or 17, real lessons with a qualified instructor are required, and the license consists of multiple actual driving tests and it costs a lot of money, so losing it or having to resit the tests is a much bigger deal than in the US.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Governor Doyle is with us! With growing bipartisan support and the Governor coming out early speaking in support, we are off to a good start in bringing Zachary’s Law to fruition.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I’m from South Carolina, where there are tough DUI laws. Immediate jail time on the first offense and loss of license and tags on the second, etc. Also, check points after 2AM on many main roads. I was shocked at how lenient the law was here to this very dangerous practice.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The Governor and Legislature are certainly free to discuss, debate and perhaps even adopt tougher drunk and drugged driving laws. If they do, they can pose for holy pictures, have a special bill signing, put out all sorts of press releases and public relations efforts, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Then, when all of that emotion and fanfare dies down, some three-time loser like Mark Benson slams into another vehicle, injuring or killing more people.
What then?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Not to belittle Gov. Dopey or anything…I’d never do such a thing… but why is it he only jumps on board for something when it becomes obvious, in the press, and on blogs, that it is bipartisan?
Maybe I missed it, but they didn’t ask anyone with an “R” behind their name for a comment, did they?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The problem is not Wisconsin law – it’s Wisconsin culture. This state is awash is beer and alcohol.
Tailgaiting is extremely popular in Wisconsin. And what are the two main ingredients of tailgaiting? Vehicles and booze.
Our college campuses constantly rank as the highest in the nation in binge drinking.
You men reading this, look at your gut and tell you haven’t, at one time in your life, proudly displayed your “beer gut.”
The Milwaukee baseball team is named after its beer brewing history. They play in Miller (Beer) Park. Everywhere you look in Milwaukee is constant advertising for beer and alcohol.
In the wintertime, snowmobilers play drinking games as they travel from one participating bar to the next.
Yesterday, a guy I was playing golf with said the bar he plays volleyball at awards the team that consumes the most beer in one season gets an extra monetary award at the end of the season.
In most small towns in Wisconsin, there are only two things: churches and taverns.
Wisconsin set the record for the highest tested BAC level: .678
The Wisconsin Supreme Court just yesterday upheld Madison taverns all-you-can drink specials.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. We can change all the laws we want; we can sign all the petitions we want. But until we change our Wisconsin culture and attitude towards beer and booze, not much will change.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I agree with you Glenn.
I agree that there is a problem with OWI and OAR in this state.
I agree that our penalties are not severe enough for OWI.
I agree that judges are too lenient on repeat drunk drivers (you should see the judicial sentencing guidelines here in Outagamie County).
I agree that drunk drivers are ticking time bombs, loaded weapons, etc.
But I also know that OAR is NOT a priority crime in the Milwaukee DA’s Office, Outagamie DA’s Office, or any DA’s Office. I also know that OWI is often seen as “just traffic” until 5th offense in many places — this means it is not a priority.
If there were more prosecutors, there’d be more time and resources to prioritize OWI cases.
People don’t realize that statewide we are 125+ prosecutors short-staffed, when one looks at the caseloads. The Legislature knows this. And instead of taking a step to deal with this problem (which is tied to other problems), they are taking the additional negative step of allowing funding for 20 positions (16 in Milwaukee) to simply disappear.
If that’s the last time I’m compared with Nan Hagerty, I’ll be happy. Myself and 300+ of my brother and sister prosecutors see through a dark glass — we simply don’t have time to give every case its fair attention. We don’t get overtime, we don’t get paid a lot, and we bear an unreasonable burden of handling hundreds of cases.
I realize most of this post is not directly on topic, but it relates to every call for increased penalties. Create more work for the same number of already-overworked people, and you reduce the time each can spend on ANY case, let alone the “important” ones.
I’d think you as a former MPD copper would realize this, although I guess the DA’s office was different when you were a patrolman — sounds like a nice place to have worked, but it’s not the present-day reality.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I’m sorry, but at this point in the game I find the flurry over drunk driving to be another obfuscation of what is really going on.
True story: a friend of mine had an armed robbery happen to him in West Allis, the latin kings took 15 of his firearms along with antique coins etc.
Many of the perps were caught and released. The main perp was caught a week after being exonerated by some useless judge with dope and booze in the car — cut loose again.
Maybe we should be focusing on the real criminals first and leave the other stuff for later. The “doctor” in this story (although very tragic) is not an every day occurance, although the story I just told you IS an every day occurance.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Mr Pelican pants said:
Okay, so you take away the offenders’ vehicle. But what if they just borrow a friend or family members’ vehicle? Or, they just go out and buy some $500 junker? How do you prevent that?
Now this is an idea I had while Charlie Sykes was talking to Joel Kleefish.
Wisconsin has tools like CCAP and the Auto dealers have Car Fax and we all have this little tool called the internet. What SHOULD happen when cars get sold is the buyers name should be run through a database to ensure that the person buying the vehicle is actually eligible to buy the vehicle. (i.e. actually has a license to operate it)
May 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Prosqtor, it wasn’t really that much different when I was a young copper taking cases through the D.A.’s Office. Then we used to call it “Let’s Make a Deal” because that seemed to be the name of the game in the D.A.’s Office to avoid having to take a case to trial. The Defense Attorneys knew and played that game very well. Reality then and perhaps reality now, but I never quite accepted it and neither did the victims. Not much different as I rose through the ranks in MPD. We had coppers and some bosses who worked hard for all the right reasons and we had coppers and bosses who thought the job owed them a living just for showing up. I’m not suggesting that you or most D.A.’s fall in that latter category. I just never accepted less than I knew we were capable of doing, and I never forgot that we were the last barrier between the good people and the thugs.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Wow, Carrie Nation has a lot of sock puppets.
Do you guys seriously believe that professional drunks never lie to people to borrow their car, or steal cars to go into town and drink? And what about the spouse or child who also uses that car to get to work or school (no problem, raise taxes to cover their food stamps…)? Do you honestly think professional drunks “learn their lesson” from someone else’s inconvenience?
Lock ‘em away where they can’t hurt anyone– and you may as well lock up everyone who ever enjoys a beer before the first pitch, since those worthless pieces of shit might be driving home four hours later–the government steals enough stuff as is.
(Funny, when I joke about the government stealing my car to save to world, I always assumed the risk was coming from the fascists on the left, not the alleged conservatives. I’m dumb.)
May 7th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
We need to microchip these animals like dogs.. GPS can follow their every move. If they are traveling at more than 20mph, they are in a car and a special enforcement group should track those individuals and do random stops to see if they are passengers or drivers. There has to be a way to do this. Or what about a whistle-blower system? Where you call in and give the plates of the person who you know is driving illegially. How many of us know people who drive illegially? My guess is we all can name at least one person.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I’m reading a wonderful book right now. The section I just read made me think of this thread.
Let’s not do what fascist liberals (OK, AnonymousInsider, they’re “Progressives”) would do here, and DO SOMETHING just for the sake of DOING SOMETHING. Remember all the sturm and drang over “think of the children”? Let’s keep in mind that there are unintended consequences to every action, and in seizing cars from people, we forget
- (What Heather said) Others who share it for legitimate purposes;
- Lenders who hold liens in the form of leases and/or loans — can’t take that which someone doesn’t own. Or do we hold lienholders responsible for the actions of their debtors?
- Anything else that could go wrong from this.
Increase the penalties, fine. Make a 3rd offense a felony, fine. But let’s not go so far as to overshoot the goal — which is to keep repeat drunk drivers off the road.
Whether keeping them off the road means “making the choice to drive after drinking so unappealing as to be undesirable” or “I can’t drink or drive because I’m in jail/prison,” doing only so much as to protect the public, without overkill, should be the conservative way.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Mr. Cheaney:
There is a world of difference between being “eligible to buy” a car and “eligible to drive” a car. Please don’t confuse the two. A 25-time OWI offender can still BUY a car — just can’t legally OPERATE the car if his DL is expired, revoked or suspended.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Links:
WTMJ Morning News started this ball rolling this morning with a moving interview: Bukosky’s Father Wants Change. The audio is included with that link.
Charlie Sykes dedicated a large part of his radio show and has been blogging, including: MOVEMENT ON ZACHARY’S LAW
Jeff Wagner also gave us a nice plug and has posted: Zachary’s Law
Christian Schneider has a piece at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
A Blueprint for a New Wisconsin Drunk Driving Law
Fred offers his help: On behalf of Jennifer, Courtney, Sophie and their loved ones
Our favorite Ol’ Broad reminds everyone to Sign The Petition.
That of course gives me a chance to give out the link ot the petition again, so if you haven’t signed it, go do it, just takes a few seconds.
Petition: Wisconsin’s driving after revocation law must change
As of now, less than 10 hours after first posted, 562 people have taken a moment to let our officials, and the family, know that we are willing to fight for change.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I agree with most of what Prosqtor said (thanks for referring to us as “progressives.”
Serious OARs, meaning those that are based on an OWI revocation, are still criminal no matter what the level. Very rarely does the Milwaukee County DA’s Office amend these to non-criminal offenses.
BUT…it is true. We live in a state where you don’t even need insurance to buy a car. God only knows if they verify that licenses are valid before selling cars. You really think impounding cars is going to solve the problem? Probably not.
That jerk in Oconomowoc would have found a way to get his stiffy pills, one way or the other. He lacks personal responsibility, like every other criminal. Now, if he’d been remanded into custody to serve a STRAIGHT TIME sentence, that may have done it. But who knows?
We all make choices and we have to live with the consequences of those choices. Too few people actually take that to heart anymore.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
This link will show you the court schedule for Judge Lee Dreyfus.
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/courtCalendar.do?countyNo=67&date.dateString=5-7-2008&range=1&ctofcNo=1003
You can scroll through the days to view the cases he will see. Tomorrow alone (5-8-08), he will handle 10 cases of drunk driving 3rd offense, one that is 5+, and several that are 2nd offenses. It’s scary to think we have that many drivers being seen on a daily basis for this, and keep in mind, this is ONE judges schedule. And how much do you want to bet 99% of them will be out on the road once again only hours (or minutes) after they leave the courtroom. Something has to be done to change this.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Courtrooms are open to the public, except in juvenile hearings, certain preliminary hearings and guardianship/civil commitment hearings.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:12 am
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel continues their coverage here:
Tragedy spurs push to toughen penalties
They also have a story on the law suit filed against Mark Benson, we seen in the police reports that a police officer overheard him telling his wife that they needed to start moving things out of his name, so the family is moving fast to freeze his assets.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:51 am
My post 24 hours ago still make sense even with all the issues comimg forth. Once again,
let’s work on ideas that help solve the problem and not why the idesa won’t work(money, jail space, overworked employees,etc , etc.
As one great post stated
“making the choice to drive after drinking so unappealing as to be undesireable”
1st offence 30 day loss of car
2nd offence 30 day in jail, no Huber, no bail. Jail on day of conviction
3rd offence 60 days in jail, no Huber, no bail, enter jail on day of conviction
4th offence 6 months in jail, no Huber, no bail
Don’t pose the problem as not enough jail space as with this punishment there will be very few getting to the 3rd or 4th offence.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Jim, I couldn’t agree more. There are obstacles to be sure, but the focus must be on what CAN be done rather than why we can’t do it.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I’ve been seeing this on the front lines for years and the problem is that we’re really not serious about this.
Numerous times the legislature WEAKENED our driving after revocation laws. Talk tough governor actually cut 15 prosecutor positions and refuses to fill the 132 or so needed positions statewide. (The 132 is the number the state says we’re down statewide BEFORE any changes in the law. Since the state admits to 132, you can imagine that the real number is greater than that BEFORE any legislative changes.
If we’re going to talk tough we have to have the ammunition to back it up. Madison likes to talk up a storm but they don’t deliver.
But comprehensive reform is needed across the board, not knee-jerk reaction.
First, licenses should be suspended or revoked only by acts of unsafe driving or repeated driving after suspension or revocation. (In other words, you can get “points” against your Wisconsin driver’s license for having a burned out license plate lamp. That stupidity has to be erased. Same for suspending licenses for other things unrelated to bad driving.) This needs to be fixed first so that we can identify the truly bad drivers and not waste time with the others.
Second, we need enhanced penalties for those who driver after revocation during the active period of their OWI revocation. In other words, if you were revoked for one year in January after being convicted of OWI and are caught driving in February or March, the penalty needs to be more severe with no amendment possible.
Third, we need to enhance the OWI penalties but you can’t do that without properly funding law enforcement and prosecution. I could go on and on but let me give you this real world example. In Wisconsin, if every person accused of OWI had a one-day jury trial, every judge, every courtroom, every prosecutor in the state would be tied up exclusively handling these cases. That’s how bad our system is!
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE GO EASY ON IMPAIRED DRIVERS!!! It’s just to say that if you want to go gunning for them, then you need to have the ammunition to do it. Right now we don’t.
I’m on board with you IF THIS ISN’T A SILLY UNFUNDED MANDATE DESIGNED TO FEATHER THE BED OF POLITICIANS WHO TOUGH TALK ON CRIME BUT DON’T DELIVER AND TO PROSTITUTE THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF VICTIMS. There will be a cost to do this and if you want it done, you’ll have to pay it. If not, don’t bother.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:52 am
RAG, I agree with everything you wrote. I would also support higher pay for D.A.s. I think people serving in that professional capacity need to be properly compensated to recruit and keep competent prosecutors. One can argue the pay scales of government employees, but those in a professional capacity as D.A.s are salaried and, if you broke down the hours many salaried people put in against their actual pay, you’d likely find that they actually get paid less per hour than others who are eligible for overtime pay.
Just as I would be willing to pay more to build more prisons, I’d also be willing to pay more to properly staff and fund that portion of the Criminal Justice System responsible for keeping us safe. I’m also sure that some of those additional costs could be covered by trimming fat from other parts of the budget.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Good post RAG
Currently there is not serious fear of first offence DUI. Therefore enforcing first offence
impounding of vehicle will be daunting but… as it begins to sink in drivers will begin to reconsider. To have a 5th offence you have to have a first.
Stop the first and you stop the 5th. Another issue that should be reevaluated; let’s separate the “a drinking” problem” and “driving while
impairedâ€. One may be a medical issue, the other is a choice. Punish the choice.
They are separate, don’t combine a single solution as nothing will work.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Why do people have to drink alcohol to have a good time? Are they so insecure that they can’t be their true selves. Many families have suffered because of alcoholism. And the alcoholic always say “what did I do wrong”. Wrong – they hurt people and they don’t even know it or feel any of the pain. Why should the innocents be the only ones suffering. It’s time these people be held accountable and suffer some real consequences for their actions. Definitely no driving every again and jail time to dry them out if nothing else.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I find it interesting how so many blame the Legislature, blame inadequate funding for prosecutors, blame judges, blame vehicle manufacturers for making their cars “too big”, but everyone still avoids the obvious blame – our Wisconsin drinking heritage and culture.
In my earlier post (#33), I listed a number of cultural problems that no law, no prison, no prosecutor, and no judge will ever be able to correct.
Wisconsinites love their beer and alcohol. We stink of it.
We love our tailgating parties. We start drinking at 9:00 a.m. and stop at about 1:00 a.m. – then, our vehicles are right there waiting for us.
Our bars and taverns provide us with incentives, prizes, and awards to drink as much as humanly possible.
We love our community festivals, which are nothing more than huge drinking fests: Mifflin Street Party, Halloween on State Street, Oktoberfest, Summerfest, Corn Festivals, County Fairs, Butter Days, Dairy Fest, etc. More events to drive to and more opportunities to get really, really drunk.
We’re the only state to that has a professional sports team that honor beer and beer brewing. The lure of Lambeau field is intertwined with fried cheese and beer swilling. Visit Regent Street on UW football Saturday and you’ll thousands and thousands of red and white faithful getting drunk.
Even our former Wisconsin “top cop” did not know when to say when. Perhaps 10% of the current state legislators have at least one DUI charge. And our former, and most popular, Governor was famous for his propensity to get nice and liquored up.
I know a number of you blogging enthusiasts often get together at local taverns to tip a few back and talk current events and politics – and then probably climb into your car and say to yourself, “I’m okay to drive.â€
The hypocrisy of all this “let’s get tough on drunk drivers†is staggering. We are a state of heavy drinkers – we lead the nation. And then, when a tragedy such as this one hits, everyone points the finger at the Legislature, or the Governor, or the Judges and screams “you’re to blame!â€
Enough already. If you want things to change, I mean really change, you need to stop celebrating this culture of alcoholism and start acting like responsible human beings. You act as if a few law changes are going to solve the problem. Change the law, fund a few more positions, and then let us get back to our favorite Wisconsin pastimes: Green Bay Packers (with beer); Milwaukee Brewers (with beer); bowling (with beer); festivals (with beer); grilling out (with beer); the Union Terrace (with beer); fishing and hunting (with beer); UW football (with beer); oh yea, and of course, driving (with beer).
May 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
You’re going to think I’m being flippant, but the only way to eliminate over a hundred years of drinking culture is to go back in time and stop thousands of German, Polish, Russian and Scandinavian immigrants from entering the state.
Those people drank, and their children drank, and so on until today. One of the defining tenets of conservatism (Classical Liberalism) is that culture is culture and should not be changed unless a culture more is morally wrong. Examples of this: Slavery, suffrage rights, equal protection. Somehow I don’t think imbibing is up there with that class of cultural behaviors.
Some of the people on here sound like the Temperance League.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
People won’t stop drinking but the goal of a tougher law is to make them think twice about driving.First offence, impound the vehicle for 30 days on the date of an DUI conviction and as it sinks in with the public you will see the “drinking/driving” decline. Call me idealist, but if I my car would be locked up for 30 days I would be with a designated drive.
Someone, anyone tell me why this won’t work see post 51
May 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Fine, I agree, Jim.
But let’s have some media coverage and public awareness so that people make the mental transition from “First Offense is nothing” to “First Offense means something.”
Until that (cultural) transition is accomplished, you’re not doing anything but punishing people after the fact…and the goal is to stop people from getting behind the wheel after drinking.
I doubt Channel 4 is going to be showing up in Hales Corners Municipal Court or Circuit Court and covering OWI-1 plea hearings — they’ve got too many consumer protection stories to investigate and air.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I would like to see the first offense automatic $10,000 fine. The punishment has to be so severe it will be deterrent to ever do it again. The second offense if you are that stupid is immediate jail, confiscating the vehicle and $10,000 fine. The third and final offense immediate jail, no Huber and a minimum 10 years. If our punishments were severe enough criminals, drunks, drug user would be less likely to commit crimes.
And I don’t agree that prison should be place for an inmate to get his life together get an education and new career. What about their victims, what do they get? What do their children get? Certainly not child support.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I would like to see the first DUI offense an automatic $10,000 fine. The second offense if you are that foolish to do it again, immediate jail, vehicle confiscation and a $10,000 fine. The third and final offense immediate jail, no Huber release and a minimum of 10 years. The punishment has got be so severe it is a deterrent not to commit that crime again.
I would also like to add that I don’t believe that prison should be a place an inmate can get their life together, get an education and a new career. Prison shouldn’t be glamorous.
Food and necessities should be provided by their families and not the tax payers. The spouses and children inmates leave behind get nothing, no support, no education. Let’s educated their kids and teach them early of the consequences of your actions!!!
May 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Alicia
I thought my proposal was tough but yours….
Do you see an issue collecting the fines. The Brookfield News can out Thursday and the police section had 5 DUI stops last week.One week, one community. Your idea of making the first offense very painful makes lots of sense. Let’s work on a median on first offense; impounding car for 30 days or a 10,000 fine
May 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I had a chance to speak with Tami Hughes from Fox 6 News. I wasn’t able to do an on-camera interview, but I hope they still take a moment to publicize this. We are up to almost 11,000 signatures, proof positive that Wisconsin voters do care about this issue and demand action.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Hopefully everyone who has signed the petition has also taken the time to e-mail or otherwise contact their legislators to emphasize their feelings. Patrick, you and Bruce have set in motion a means to address a problem that many people have only talked about. I salute you both.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
[...] Glenn D. Frankovis: Hopefully everyone who has signed the petition has also taken the… [...]
May 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Jim, No, I don’t see a problem collecting fines. Again our laws need to be tough. If you don’t pay your fines you go to jail end of story. No second chances.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am
See post 47 for my stand;
Read an IL newspaper talking about a sound ordnance where if a driver is stopped for loud music the car will be impounded.(wow, what an idea). Man arrested (1st arrest) in WI for having child porn on computer may get 10 years in jail. Currently, a driver stopped for DUI, first offence, gets a slap on the wrist and sent home with the warning not to do it again. Wondering how many people have been killed by having child porn on their computer. I do not advocate child porn, just posing a question.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Erica…
I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have websites & blogs so I know what I am talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great w…
September 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
[...] that poured forth in the days following caused over 30,135 of you to sign BadgerBlogger’s online petition demanding a change in Wisconsin’s drunk driving [...]
October 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
[...] 30,000 of you signed BadgerBlogger’s online petition in the name of Bukosky and her family, demanding that our state legislators work to bring much needed change to this state’s repeat-offense [...]
November 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Hey, there are wrinkles that needs to be iorned..this discussion should help out at least a little. Good work…keep going!