Posted on Tuesday, 27th January 2009 by Glenn D. Frankovis
This proposal for an increase in penalties for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) seems to make sense. The penalties are all increased in such a way as to provide reasonable incentives to achieve compliance with the law. Are there shortcomings? I suppose one can find some. Will the increased penalties satisfy everyone? I’m sure they won’t, but this is your chance to contact your legislators if you have an opinion.
Posted in Home | Comments (7) |
7 Responses to “A DWI proposal from the Wisconsin Senate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
This is the same bill that Decker blocked last session. Kudos to the JS for their drunk driving series that put pressure on him to get this moving. They got one right.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
What do residents of Rep. Wood’s district think of this? How do you think Rep. Wood will vote on this?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I want to be grandfathered in so I can get my 5 slaps on the wrist before the harsher penalties take effect.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Seems like a step in the right direction at least. I’m all for the third offense felony part of it. I’d also like to see the violators pay the full cost of all the elements. Bill them for the officer’s time, the paperwork processing, the court time when they are found guilty. If they can’t pay, impose some claim on all tax returns until they pay it off, or require the court to sell the car off to pay the bills. I’m sure that would have repurcussions, especially if they have a loan on the car. Banks would require OWI insurance and that could lead to mandatory insurance in the state! Hooray! I was a hit and run victim (assumed the other guy was drunk as cops didn’t catch up to him until about a week later) and he had no insurance on his $60,000.00 BMW SUV. In fact, the bank was trying to repo the car as he forged his income verification documents. So in the end I had to pay for what my insurance did not cover, as well as hospital bills for what my insurance did not fully cover. I also sued him only to get on the bottom of the creditor list after he filed bankruptcy. So, it is a start in the right direction.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any “Will” by Judges to enforce what sentences we have on the books now. Making a 3rd and higher DUI a felony will be as meaningless as what 5th and higher is today.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
No, its not in the right direction or addressing the problem. The revolving door: Judicial leniency, rich man fines, poor mans jail time, plea bargins, and exiting the building to get right back behind the wheel.
Lets make money fines for the rich man, he can afford the fine.
Jail time for the poor man, he may afford the time.
Plea bargin with empathy for the drunk driver not the victim for they need to work to support themselves, family, and pay fines.
Pretend to fix problem consuling, when they turn around and get back into car anyways.
Can’t they concentrate on the people that they caught again and again and again. Threat of felony conviction is not going to keep them away from their cars. Simply catch them and do not give them empathy and/or leniency, the penalties are already in place. If 88% of Milwaukeans drive after suspended licence, how hard would it be to catch them again and again and again.
The revolving door is the problem.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Well…Glenn…when we have an AG that believes drunk driving the first time around isn’t a crime because he knows people personally who do it and he doesn’t want them tagged with a criminal record I won’t be holding my breath for WI to do the right thing.
One thing I will be doing is exercising my right to vote for a new AG when the time comes even if that means voting for a Democrat.