77° Thunderstorm Light Rain Fog/Mist
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Fill in the blanks**
Should there be a “lifetime lookback” when courts consider sentencing for those with repeat ____ convictions?
7.Stop sign violation
slippery slope it is when you give up civil liberties
Yes, with considerations. If it's only one and it was years ago and no other issues since, then consider that. If it's 3 or 4 and more recently, then consider that. If it's 10 or 12 over the span of several years, then consider that.
I had a DUI 27 years ago right after I came home from Vietnam. Back then it was a DWI. I have had nothing since. Not even a parking violation. That DUI from 27 years ago has zero reflection on me today. If, and I won't, were to get a DUI today, would I be considered a repeat offender?
"I know I could have killed a bunch of people, but that was 15 years ago! You're going to hold that against me just because I was driving drunk tonight?"
Would that there was a "lifetime lookback" for those who woke up Jan. 20th and discovered that the government had spent, and more importantly was committed to continue to spend, money far beyond the level of prudence! There's nothing like wisdom gained once the horse is out the door and the barn has burned to the ground.
While I see what you mean, I disagree. I don't see this as a civil liberties issue. There are no rights being violated. If anything is being violated, it is the safety of bystanders. Most of the other crimes you listed are in no way comparable.
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Remember these are accusations there still has been no trial, nothing has been proven fact.
The current update is the prosecutor is now claiming they are mentally incompetent to stand trial, so she can get out of having to take them to trial after 5 years and no trial there are a lot of questions probably too many questions......
How about if each and every one of us looked back at our lives to see how we got to where we are now?
I don't see how this would change the number of drunk drivers. If you are drunk your reasoning is impaired and you probably don't think you will be caught.
If this is court ordered, is the state going to pay someone to talk to the repeat offenders and so get to the root of why?
BigAl (Anonymous) says…
"I had a DUI 27 years ago right after I came home from Vietnam. Back then it was a DWI. I have had nothing since. Not even a parking violation. That DUI from 27 years ago has zero reflection on me today. If, and I won't, were to get a DUI today, would I be considered a repeat offender?"
This is a perfect example of why there shouldn't be a lifetime lookback.
Driving isn't a God-given or even a Constitutional right.
For those who have made mistakes in the past, if you learned from them, this wouldn't be a problem as you would not be likely to repeat your crime. The poll doesn't say that the court would "throw the book" at someone with prior(s) either, it suggests that the penalty for a current offense MAY differ from that which would come from a first-time-in-lifetime offense.
I worked briefly with someone with several DUI conviction who spent time in El Dorado (whatever that facility is called) because of them, who can still, somehow, drive legally. That doesn't quite seem right either.
What percentage of the (now) 27% who said NO have had DUI convictions (or diversions) in the past?
How does this compare to other "drug" laws?
Not unless you do it with ALL crimes/offences! Stealing, assult,rape,drugs,tax/money crimes, dog beatings... ALL CRIMES!
Roger_o_thornhill, it would come back to haunt you, if car insurance companies can also do the look-back. I'm not sure if that would be the case or not. But I just purchased a new policy, and almost all car insurance companies asked if I had had a DUI or other other moving violations in the past 3 years. If the DUI portion were increased to "lifetime," it's possible insurance companies would follow suit.
With any moving violation, there is a potential to kill someone. Anytime someone runs a red light, there is a potential for danger to other drivers. Anytime someone speeds excessively, there is a potential for danger to other drivers. Anytime someone practices inattentive driving, there is a potential for danger to others. So if DUI is increased to lifetime, why not just increase all violations to lifetime?
Hey Be3, So you think a person with a DUI should go to jail the rest of their life if they get 2 of them. What do you think you should go to jail for? Lets PROHIBIT ALCOHOL before such harsh penalties. I mean really you drive to a bar and what, You take a cab home. Yeah Right! Lets get the bars closed down first and then deal with drinking and driving. The BAR is the source the driving is the symptom.
This is an interesting article from my hometown newspaper. I recommend it to anyone that feels strongly about this issue.
THAT IS THE DUMBEST POST I THINK I HAVE EVER SEEN.
I'm with TOB on this one.
I did not understand the question at all. I thought they were asking if people with DUI's should look back at their lives to see where they went right.
Okay, so it means look back at previous offenses in that area.
Yes, of course they should.
There should be a "lifetime lookback" for all crimes, as long as the suspect is of an adult age.
Practicality (Anonymous) says…
There should be a “lifetime lookback” for all crimes, as long as the suspect is of an adult age.
I would like to know other people's opinions on whether a "look back" would violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
If a person already suffers a penalty once, isn't "looking back" punishing them again for a previous crime?
I don't think so. Let's say someone is convicted of two felonies ( any crime) and commits a third. Under the habitual offender law the felon would recieve a harsher sentance based on the two previous felonies. I suspect that is how they would apply this DUI penalty.
I doubt the courts will abuse this law. My guess it they plan to apply it where those driving drunk have a documented history of violations. I doubt that any prosecutor would nail someone to the cross if he had two offenses with decades between them.
What TOB said.
was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says… "Fill in the blanks** slippery slope it is when you give up civil liberties"
The only blank that needs to be filled in is your brain. There is no right or civil liberty to drive drunk. Of the items you listed, not one matches the carnage of DUI. This isn't some victimless crime.
On average, someone is killed by a drunk driver every 40 minutes in US. Each day 36 people die and almost 700 more are injured in vehicle crashes that involve a drunk driver. The total cost of alcohol related crashes is roughly $51 billion. In 2006, out of 1,746 fatality that included children one out of six was killed by an alcohol impaired driver. Half of all teenage fatalities is due to drunk driving. In 2007 alcohol related fatalities were 15,387 which is 37% of all automobile fatalities.
The saddest thing is drunk drivers don't just kill other drunk drivers.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.