Drunk Driving Reform Headed to Senate

"Mandatory Ignition Interlock Devices"

Great! As you know, we here in Brookfield have led the way in unemploying our local mechanics by converting their garages to indian run seven-elevens with gas pumps. As a result, there are in Brookfield loads of under-inflated tires and lots of guys out of work for no apparent reason.

But your bill will create a demand for these guys anew by providing a service to local drunks who opt to have their Interlock Devices disabled.

Another great idea by one of our own.

Kudos Sully!

Well, your are off the hook if you have no child under 16 in your car after becoming intoxicated. It is more logical to set the benchmark at .20 for a 1st offense to be a misdemeanor. As the new law reads you can test out at .30+ w/no child passenger and escape jail. Same with a child over 16.

Senator Sullivan:

It's been reported that your colleagues in the Legislature had VASTLY underestimated the cost of implementing these changes aimed at dealing with repeat drunk driving. As a result, the quick decision was made to jack up yet another one of the taxes that law-abiding citizens pay for liquor.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/63602022.html

Why is it apparently totally unreasonable to even suggest that the state confiscate the vehicles of those drunk drivers? Then, the state could sell those vehicles at auction to help pay for these new initiatives. Furthermore, if the drunk wants to drive again, he/she'd have to buy a replacement car our of their own money. I didn't think that felons could vote (er, excuse me, LEGALLY vote), so you really shouldn't worry about alienating them with a tougher stance on DUI than you presently have.

Do you support putting a new tax on beer to pay for this? Why or why not?

I've long been a supporter of building more prisons. I guess it's too much to expect the Wisconsin Legislature to require that assets of the criminal should be used to help offset the cost of his incarceration. That's the taxpayer's job, I guess. ;(

It's my opinion that reducing the BAC threshold from 0.1 to 0.08 years ago did nothing to address drunk driving except to clog up the court system and make defense attorneys richer. At that time, no legislator could really object to the 0.08 proposal because it would make them look bad to future challengers. The problem is NOT the person who blows a 0.09, it's the REPEAT offender who's always in double digits.

P.S. You still haven't answered my question about the Zoo Interchange reconstruction that I've asked and repeated in a few of your past blogs. I'm sure it was simply an oversight on your part.

It seems like every week we hear about some multiple offender of our current drunk driving laws. Why are these people still driving drunk? We're missing something. And these are just the ones we catch. It just seems to me that the legal system is failing to appropriately sentence these dangerous criminals. Are we enforcing existing laws? I don't think the repeat drunk driver cares about various/new laws. They have a bigger problem. I think a third offense justifies incarceration (But any drunk driving offense that results in property damage or injury/death to another should result in jail time). Why do we need a new tax to enforce or implement any law?

If you are going to enact a new tax to pay for this will the law be written that the tax is for the prisons and not go into the general fund? What about the counties who can only raise property taxes for the additional jail times that this bill will create. Will this bill do anything to help them out? Why don't you have higher fines to cover the increased cost of incarceration?

I am not in favor of building more "hotel like" prisons. Good old fashioned jails with several prisons in one cell BEHIND BARS rather than private rooms with doors and common areas with TV, etc. My son had several DUIs and spent time in Waukesha and he said "It's not so bad". It should not only be bad...it should be horrible. Tent city in summer and igloo city in winter!

The cost of this program should be borne completely by the drunks through fines and by confiscation and sales of their vehicles for the third offense. Family jewels for fourth and their life for fifth.

Actually I believe that we ought to adapt the muslim approach to this thing. Whenever a guy is caught DUI it ought to be assumed that his wife is doing something wrong, hence the poor guy has to go out and get polluted every night.

We could publicly cane the wife and lock her away for 5-10 years.

What a concept!

My mom is currently serving 18 months for her 5th DUI with my daughter in the car. They took my daughter off because she was six months away from being 16.

A problem I have seen with the laws is not so much what is written down, but how it is enforced. My mom's judge even said " others have let you go, but now you were on MY roads and I won't have this".

Comment about the prisons. Like El Gato said, they are hotel like. My mom describes Taycheedah "college like with beautiful buildings and great food!". She has a private room with her own tv, what is that? The only think killing her is not seeing her grandchildren.

We need to look at a state with low DUI's and do what they are doing.

I agree with groovyone26 and El Gato about the Hyatt Regency-Wausau. I've never had any reason to visit any prison for any reason since I never have done anything so incredibly stupid that society thinks I should be there. I spoke to a cop-friend of mine and he told me basically the same thing you guys are telling me about how nice the prisons and jails are.

It's too bad that we can't get a guy like Sheriff Joe here in Wisconsin. David Clarke's not bad, but Joe Arpaio makes it a mission to ensure that the 'guests' at his prisons don't want to come back.

http://www.mcso.org/

Senator Sullivan: Wouldn't it be a very effective use of the revenue that Madison confiscates from us dumb law-abiding citizens if you were to advocate building CHEAP, SECURE prisons? Nah, that would be totally unfair and inhumanely brutal to the the repeat drunk drivers and other criminals there, wouldn't it? We all know how Democrats feel about punishing people who break the law.

If these prisons "need" cable TV, do what Sheriff Joe did: The only channels the prisoners could watch is THE WEATHER CHANNEL. His theory is that he wants the prisoners to know how nice it is on the outside so that they don't every want to come back. There's a lot of logic to his actions.

Groovyone26: Any chance you'd care to share the name of that judge with the rest of us. He/she needs to be re-elected. Heck, I might even vote for that judge more than once since the Democrats have proven that they don't care how many times people vote fraudulantly (i.e. refusal to adopt photo-ID when they had the chance in 2006).

We ought to follow muslim law!

If it's a guy, neuter him publically. If he's already neutered, lop his head off in front of city hall.

If it's a gal, stone her in back of city hall.

Drunken driving is virtually unheard of in saudi arabia!

I would love to see sheriff Joe Tactics here Make Prison a bad place to be and maby people would not want to go back

There is a misconception that the so-called "country-club" prisons are more expensive than what we would typically think of as "hard core jail", and that we could save money by locking up DUI offenders in tougher jails. Actually, I've been told that the opposite is true. The extra corrections personnel, more stringent construction specs, etc., all make hard-core jails (you know, cement slabs with thick, metal bars) more expensive to construct and operate.

It's a pretty simple societal decision - balancing our desire to punish repeat DUI offenders with the cost of doing so. You can't punish them without paying for it . . . and incarcerating people costs more than the value of most used cars (and taking ownership of cars and then selling them comes with its own set of costs.)

Padraig,
Part of the problem is that taxpayers are paying a larger percentage of the cost of incarceration than the offender. Raise the fines that are being slapped on the repeat drunk driver to help offset his costs. the current proposal would tax every person who buys alchahol and that money would probably go into the states general fund. The majority of reoffenders will probably go to a county lockup and huber rather than prison... The counties will have to raise property taxes to pay for this and the state will have a new source of income that it will bnot use for what it was intended for.

Padraig,
Part of the problem is that taxpayers are paying a larger percentage of the cost of incarceration than the offender. Raise the fines that are being slapped on the repeat drunk driver to help offset his costs. the current proposal would tax every person who buys alchahol and that money would probably go into the states general fund.

I think the solution is to make all the cars out of nerf.