Is it time to change laws for drunken driving?
My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Is it time to change laws for drunken driving?” Here it is:
Sen. Alberta Darling and Rep. Jim Ott have pledged to offer bills to strengthen Wisconsin’s laws regarding drunk driving. The pair advanced similar legislation in the previous session that ended up back in their desk drawers without either house of the legislature having voted on them. It is a curious thing in Wisconsin that stronger laws against drunk driving almost always follow that same legislative trajectory.
Before living in Wisconsin, I lived in Texas. The differences in the drinking culture were quite a shock when I first moved to this great state. Texas has quite a puritan attitude toward the consumption of alcohol.
For example, there are still many “dry” counties in Texas where the sale of hard liquor is prohibited except at “private clubs.” The “private club” distinction is riddled with loopholes and the liquor stores just across the county lines make a fortune, but they are still there. Serving booze at a church function or a wedding is just not done.
Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, alcohol seems to be a feature of virtually every gathering of people. It is served and celebrated at church gatherings, fairs, fests, sporting events and even offered at many homes for the parents of trick-or-treaters at Halloween.
The differences in attitudes toward alcohol, I suspect, are a result of the historical ethnic and religious brews of each state. Wisconsin’s large populations of Catholics and Lutherans of German, Scandinavian and Polish descent have infused alcohol consumption into their traditions for centuries. Texas’ large population of Evangelical Christians (almost 65 percent) has taken a much more teetotaler view of alcohol consumption. That is not to say that either culture is better or worse. In fact, according to 2009 data, Wisconsin was second in per capita alcohol consumption while Texas was close behind in seventh place. But the public perception of alcohol consumption is reflected in the states’ drunk driving laws.
Texas has fairly strong drunk driving laws where the first offense is a misdemeanor crime with mandatory jail time, any offense with a child under 16 is a felony and the third offense is a felony. Wisconsin’s drunk driving laws are some of the weakest in the country with a first offense being akin to a traffic ticket without it becoming a felony until the fourth or fifth offense.
It is recognition of Wisconsin’s relatively weak drunk driving laws that has compelled Darling and Ott to seek change. Their proposal would make the first drunk driving offense a misdemeanor for those with a blood alcohol content higher than 0.15 percent, turn the third offense into a felony, introduce mandatory jail time in some cases and more. Such proposals are laudable and conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Jews and Gentiles will all nod approvingly and say that they need to pass. Yet one wonders if they will not find their way to the same dusty drawer as so many of their predecessors.
The stated reason that so many new drunk driving laws have struggled to pass the legislature in the past is usually blamed on cost. After all, it is no small expense to arrest, prosecute and punish more people more severely. It is a legitimate concern, but most politicos put the blame at the feet of the powerful Tavern League, which holds sway with its large and influential constituency and has historically opposed any tougher laws when it comes to alcohol consumption.
But while those traditional explanations for the demise of tougher laws have some basis in reality, it does not fully explain Wisconsin’s generational reluctance to crack down on drunk driving. Beyond the somewhat lenient laws, Wisconsin judges have treated drunk drivers with an extraordinary gentleness. No, there’s more to it than that.
The root of Wisconsin’s reluctance to strengthen our drunk driving laws is us. Drinking is a part of our culture and a part of normal life for many Wisconsinites. While many a wizened Wisconsinite may lecture their neighbor that we should strengthen our drunk driving laws, they will mutter to themselves, “there but by the grace of God go I.”
Wisconsin should strengthen its drunk driving laws to bring them in line with the seriousness of the issue. As we do so, however, let us also recognize that our laws are a reflection of our culture. It is difficult to change the former without also changing the latter.
I like the Texas approach!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0828 hrs
Owen, you’ve found something Texas does that I completely agree with.
To the rest of the country, Wisconsin is a justifiable joke when it comes to allowing people to drive drunk .
Aiming a car/ truck at others when drunk is the height of irresponsibility.
I support the Republican reps plan but I greatly prefer the Texas law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0830 hrs
Wow. Total agreement. I have to teetotal because my license is my livelihood. Still, they need to be stronger, and with real teeth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 0851 hrs
Also, bonus points for the alliterative phrase “wizened Wisconsinite.” That’s some good stuff right there.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 08, 2013 at 1028 hrs
I’ll agree that the laws are too lenient, but with a caveat: they’re also blind to science and needlessly casting too wide a net.
Drunken driving isn’t shown to be an issue for crashes until about 0.13 to 0.15 BAC rather than the 0.08 that we’ve got now. Move the limit up to say 0.10 to 0.12 again and I’ll agree that more severe punishment is in order since the behavior is dangerous. But severely punishing behavior that’s not dangerous is nonsensical and totalitarian.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1337 hrs
I agree with making drunk driving laws tougher. Good luck to Ott and Darling.
But my recollection of Texas from years ago was that folks in Austin, San Antonio, Galveston and South Padre gave me the impression that the locals ( or beer drinkin’ Baptists as my neighbor liked to call them) could put away a lot of Jax, Lone Star and Shiner. Enough to challenge any Badger, for sure
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1625 hrs
severely punishing behavior that’s not dangerous is nonsensical and totalitarian.
It’s the American way. We make things into moralistic issues and then we wag our fingers at one another all day. It’s what we do best.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1632 hrs
I do not like the Darling/Ott idea. I don’t think we not need 25 new laws for prosecutors aspiring for higher office to use to punish ‘normal’ people.
The anti-drunk driving commercials running on TV and radio are MUCH more effective at changing attitudes!
Perhaps, just maybe, as nerdbert pointed out, if the legal limit was 0.1+ I would go along with higher drunkeness penalties.
As Owen pointed out, drinking is part of our culture. He also pointed out Texas has stiffer laws. If you like Texas’ laws that much you’re free to move there. I like Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1847 hrs
Miller Park
Milwaukee Brewers
Roll Out The Barrel!Face it, we are a state populated by people who, for generations, love to consume alcohol.
Not only do we celebrate it, we pride ourselves in it. We name our professional sports teams and stadiums after it. We sing gleeful songs about it (In Heaven, There is No Beer). Our college campuses are number one in binge drinking. We do it to excess, and by example, we teach our kids to do likewise.
So go ahead, write all the laws you want. It won’t stop a thing…because here in Wisconsin, and as the song says, “we’ll have a barrel of fun!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1905 hrs
Pelican,
I disagree. We had a fatal car accident near my house on Christmas Eve at about 10 P.M. (We were startled by Flight for Life hovering 200 ft above the house.)
The drunken criminal was doing 80 MPH in 30 MPH zone in the Village, texting while driving, and slammed head on into family returning from a Christmas holiday event. (possibly church). He killed one, injured 2 others.
The drunkard fled from hospital later and had to be tracked down in Campbellsport by police on Christmas Day.
Look at his CCAP record:
Had we just been stricter on one of those many criminal issues, he would have not killed anyone on Christmas Eve.
What really aggravates me is he got bail! He was previously charged with bail jumping!!!
This is a lot of crap that needs to be cleaned when it comes to social debris like this….not jut drunk driving.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 1933 hrs
There, but for the grace of God, go I.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 2036 hrs
First Offense:
$5,000 fine, caning, a day locked in stocks with a hood on in the public square, a week in jail, hypnosis, therapy, and a GPS bracelet for a year.Second offense: Two years minimum security forced labor camp.
Offense 3: hmm
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 2054 hrs
These laws needed to be tightened years ago. What are the annual deaths from drunk driving in Wisconsin the last 20 years compared to gun violence?
If you want to get smashed in the confines of your own home or college campus, go for it. But don’t get into a 4,000 pound vehicle and threaten myself and my family. As John said, there but for the grace of God go I as to not being subjected to a drunk driver causing mayhem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 2153 hrs
In MN, you can lose your vehicle on your SECOND offense. Factors like how high the BAC was factor in and time between DWI’s. A co-worker’s roommate managed to lose his brand new truck after getting two DWIs in 3 weeks with the first one being on New Year’s Eve/Day the same day the law went into effect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 2246 hrs
Face it, we are a state populated by people who, for generations, love to consume alcohol.
That right there is THE problem. Conflating consumption of alcohol or alcoholism and drunk driving.
They are not at all the same thing. I can’t figure out why intelligent people can’t draw the distinction. Drink until you’re unable to stand. But don’t get behind the wheel.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2013 at 2251 hrs
That right there is THE problem. Conflating consumption of alcohol or alcoholism and drunk driving.
They are not at all the same thing. I can’t figure out why intelligent people can’t draw the distinction.
It’s because a lot of what’s going on isn’t a sincere and thoughtful desire to make fair and effective public policy. It’s about waving a moralizing finger at your neighbor. It’s why we fight about abortion. It’s why AIDS didn’t get any official attention for so many years in the 80s. It’s why marijuana is is a schedule 1 controlled substance. We’re just too busy drawing lines beyond which the behavior of others may not cross to make sensible laws.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 0003 hrs
Scott, it’s not .
I’ve personally witnessed drunk drivers for the 32 years I’ve been sober - and it’s almost always incarceration that makes them finally consider quitting.
I have no concern whatsoever about anyone who drinks until their liver falls out in a safe surrounding.
That attitude changes 100% when you get into a car.
screw the culture if you endanger my family and my loved ones. See Steve Austin’s note above . I started to write the same thing but have no idea what a car weighs so thanks for that
When Kevin, Locke , Steve Ustin, Recess Supervisor ,Owen and I all agree can we possibly be wrong?
In this case, the statements in defense of the current laws would be funny if it weren’t such a sad joke- on us.
PS - in my crowd Of sobriety - the consensus is that the drunk almost always survives the crash. Just the Innocents are dead.
Anyone really want to defend that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 0021 hrs
While I’m mostly in agreement, I do think there is some validity to what Scott is saying. I think there are some who aren’t arguing the issue in good faith (in general, not specific to this thread). I tend to agree that the push down to .08 was not to actually do anything about the problem, but to appear to do something about it. And in turn, often a bad or even merely ineffective solution takes away from real ones.
I don’t necessarily agree that it’s categorically about moralizing and disagree that moralizing is driving all of the issues he mentioned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 0054 hrs
Mark, I don’t see where you’re actually disagreeing with anything I said. The only thing you said that I find disagreeable is the idea that the drunk driver survives more often than the sober ones. I don’t believe you have actual data on that. I think people just make stuff like that up because, as I said, it fits in with their moralizing tendency. It feels good to say. It fuels their outrage.
I don’t necessarily agree that it’s categorically about moralizing and disagree that moralizing is driving all of the issues he mentioned.
Well, I guess I don’t mean to be absolutist about it, either. I only mean to say that it’s a big factor in why we have such kooky laws about these kinds of things. Why did we not make a data-driven policy and make .10 against the law? Why do we not legalize canabis? Why did we not treat the AIDS crisis of the 80s like the public health crisis that it was? Why do we say abortion is “murder” but want to allow it for rape an incest victims? The answer is that we make policy around our (sometimes puritanical) moral outrage instead of using our heads.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 0112 hrs
Kevin…everything that drunk did was against the law…so, what law or set of laws do you propose that would stop someone like that, who would eventually just ignore them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 0652 hrs
Pelican,
Had we been even somewhat more punishment oriented on the 8 million strikes this guy had before…
Multiple charges for driving after revocation
Multiple Battery charges
Bail jumping!!!
Even a THC charge thrown in.We need take away the ability of this kind of social debris to drive.
I like the idea of taking car away upon multiple offenses.
I’ll admit I have little tolerance for excessive alcohol consumption of any type. Even doing it at home (or dorm room) is dumb. But when someone steps into the car, then others are at risk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 0841 hrs
I think Mark is right about the drunk driver surviving and the innocents dying. Anecdotal, of course, but that is something a paramedic friend always struggled with—someone scraping a sober driver off the street while he was treating a drunk driver who didn’t know where he was. In his experience, the drunk driver had a better chance of living because of angles in a head-on crash. Obviously, I don’t have the details, but I don’t think Mark is talking out of his butt (this time
).Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1522 hrs
I’ll admit I have little tolerance for excessive alcohol consumption of any type. Even doing it at home (or dorm room) is dumb.
Oh, so now you don’t like what people do in the privacy of their own homes?
You seriously have a mental disorder that I think should be checked out.
I can read most the comments on this blog, from both sides, and generally see where that person is coming from, but the second I read some holier than thou comment with tons of “liberals” thrown in, I am never surprised to see your name at the end of it.
We all wish to be like you Kevin, I’m sorry we disappoint so often in failing to live up to that. (thank god)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1625 hrs
I like the idea of taking car away upon multiple offenses.
Yea, until they borrow a friend’s car, or buy some clunker off Craig’s list.
As I said, you can make all the laws you want…just be prepared when people who ignore current laws continue to ignore future laws.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1637 hrs
Rdub,
Drink all you want to excess in your house, What does it matter to you that I think its dumb?
There seems to be unilateral agreement here no one should drive drunk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1646 hrs
Rdub,
I can read most the comments on this blog, from both sides, and generally see where that person is coming from, but the second I read some holier than thou comment with tons of “liberals” thrown in, I am never surprised to see your name at the end of it
.
I just re-read my posts on this thread, (because of your statement) and I did not use the “L” word once…lol
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1828 hrs
I too was raised in Texas, in the dry county of Wise. There were some issues of course, teenagers just drove to the “line” but back then the drinking age was 18.
What is shocking for me, I have lived in AK, Texas and now WI and the number of offenses with little or no consequence. Every day I read in the WSJ someone with their 8, 9 11 offense. In most states, after 3 you’ve lost your license and your behind bars. Don’t forget, for every time they are got they are drinking and driving many, MANY more times.
I have three teenagers, new drivers,......it is very frightening to let them drive on the weekends or really anytime…I fear their ability less than I fear the drunk idiots on the road in WI. I agree with Owen wholeheartedly. There is a cultural here but common sense needs to come into play.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1859 hrs
Funny, my experience in Texas is different. I never lived there, but I did travel to the Houston and Dallas areas for work somewhat frequently in the late 80s through early 2000s. The standing joke when I was there (admittedly a number of years ago) was that Texas was the only state in the Union where one could drive with an open beer and loaded gun. They served beer (Schlitz!) in a shoe store I visited in Houston! Maybe things have changed over the years (haven’t been there in quite a few years).
That’s not saying we’re puritans up here in Wisconsin. Far from it.
I pretty much agree with Locke. To me, the guy that blows a .09 after leaving the Brewers game isn’t the problem. The totally blotto professional drunk with 7 priors is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 1957 hrs
the guy that blows a .09 after leaving the Brewers game isn’t the problem. The totally blotto professional drunk with 7 priors is.
This.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 2122 hrs
And that’s where increased penalties come into play. I believe that the deterrent effect of criminalizing it would make a difference. I think the stigma along would force more people to take it much more seriously. And having gotten caught multiple times, perhaps real time served in prison might provide the wake up call that finally opens their eyes.
But even if there is not a greater deterrent, and even the time served doesn’t prove enlightening, the fact of the matter is that we’re safer having repeat offenders in prison than on the streets.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 2157 hrs
I say make the limit something real. LIke .12. First offense you lose your license for six months and have to go to some counseling. Second offense within ten years, you lose your license forever and spend six months in jail. The end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2013 at 2354 hrs
I am not against what you are saying there, Scott, but the number of drunk driving without a license is significant now, what is the penalty for the 3rd offense? Here are a couple of thoughts:
Option 1: I would modify what some of Europe does. First offense, a fixed percentage of your annual income, say 2% and lose your license for 6 months. The second offense, 4% of income or loss of all benefits for six months if unemployed. Every offense increases the percentage and all offenses include a loss of all points(mandatory suspension). If significant enough, the pocketbook (no matter how much you make) is often a good inhibitor.
Option 2: After the second offense, the offender must have a new driver’s license issued whether it is expired or not with a stamp (or just a totally different color)not allowing the purchase of alcohol. I am 49 and usually have a white beard. I have been carded in the last year. Make carding mandatory for all ages, they virtually do it now anyway. Sure, they can still get alcohol at a friend’s, but if they are friends, they will also be driving him home or having him over for the night. They could also forge, but that will always be a way to break so many laws.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1259 hrs
Tuerqas - I think the fines - especially for multiple offenses - are fairly significant now and they don’t seem particularly effective.
I actually like issuing a special license plate after a first offense though. Something to not only stigmatize people who do it, but to help the rest of us recognize them on the roads so we can avoid them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2013 at 1513 hrs
I do like the idea of the penalty being a portion of a yearly salary. 10% of your yearly income should hit everyone a bit more equally than a straight number that is petty cash for one, but 3 months of paychecks for another. In this type of case, how the law affects people, I fully believe in equality.
I like a driver’s license better to prevent legal alcohol sales, but a special driver’s license and a special plate would be even better. It is more of a stigma thing than a warning, though, as the majority of crashes are coming towards one another and it would be no warning at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1152 hrs
Tuerqas - I’ll admit that the license plate is more of a stigma than a safety issue. I know some people argue that it’s archaic or whatever - I’m fine with that accusation. It’s a willful action that places people’s lives at risk - there’s a very simple way to prevent receiving such a badge.
You’re right, that a license plate isn’t going to do anything to protect you if a drunk crosses over the center line coming at you. I’m thinking of the preventative effect prior to that. If you driving down the highway & see a car in front or behind you driving erratically, and you see the license plate of a “convicted” drunk driver, I think most people would be more likely to call it in. I’m all for doing anything we can to help the police nail multiple offenders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2013 at 1526 hrs
I think most people would be more likely to call it in. I’m all for doing anything we can to help the police nail multiple offenders.
Good thought, I didn’t think of that angle(I don’t own a cell phone). I like both. We say that ex-cons can’t own a gun, presumably because they cannot be trusted with it. It is true that over half of all homicides are repeat offences (I have heard figures as high as 80%). Why ever should drunk drivers, who are just as dangerous and untrustworthy as any ex-con when it comes to considering other’s lives, not have alcohol taken away from them? At least after the third time, if not the second.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1146 hrs
Drink and drive is like riding a vehicle on fire. People who do drink and drive so not care about others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2013 at 0455 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 44
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2013 05:17 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).