Wisconsin Democrats Support Lax Drunk Driving Law

Heh

MADISON, WIS. (AP) — The state Assembly has refused to concur with a bill that would stiffen penalties for repeat drunken drivers.

The bill would increase the minimum time in prison for a 5th or 6th offense from six months to 18 months. Prison officials estimate the change would generate $13.6 million in additional operating costs annually.

The Senate passed the bill last week. Republican leaders in the Assembly tried to place the bill on their agenda Tuesday during a floor session. But they couldn’t muster enough votes to overcome Democrats’ objection.

Democratic Rep. Mark Spreitzer told Republicans that his colleagues objected to the bill because it doesn’t include funding for treatment. He says without that piece people would just spend 18 months behind bars, come out and drive drunk again.

41 Responses to Wisconsin Democrats Support Lax Drunk Driving Law

  1. Jason says:

    >Democratic Rep. Mark Spreitzer told Republicans that his colleagues objected to the bill because it doesn’t include funding for treatment. He says without that piece people would just spend 18 months behind bars, come out and drive drunk again.

     

    Could Mark Spreitzer shows facts on how additional Tax Money spent on treatment funding alters his conclusion?    Of course not.

     

    Did Prison officials estimate the cost to families torn apart by 5th and 6th time convicted drunk drivers?  Of course not.

  2. jjf says:

    Did Jason examine the literature and ask any experts?  More importantly, did any of the Republicans?

    How are we supposed to support a government incarceration complex and private prison industry if we don’t have a reliable source of inmates?

  3. Jason says:

    Did jif velcro his shoes this morning without injury? If so congratulations.

  4. jjf says:

    It’s simple, Jason.  What kind of evidence would satisfy you, what kind of evidence would satisfy the WisGOP?

  5. Jason says:

    I don’t know jif…  the objection didn’t share any facts… why do I need to supply some?

    But just a quick look at California’s law, a 4th DUI in 10 years can be charged as a Felony and minimum 16 months.  Is that fact and supportive enough for you?

    Good enough for you?   Any insight you want to share other than some stupid troll shit about it being a ruse to ensure we have a strong source of inmates?

  6. jjf says:

    Jason, you were the one who said Spreitzer should’ve supplied facts.  Do you know he didn’t?

    Why would you assume that the state doesn’t have existing experience and expertise in this area, and then assume that treatment isn’t necessary in this situation?

    Is your objection about the potential cost of treatment – but not the cost of deeper incarceration?

    Wisconsin has a big problem with its drinking-and-driving culture.

  7. Jason says:

    All I’m getting from your comments is that it’s likely you did sustain an injury while putting your shoes on. Bummer dude, better luck tomorrow.

  8. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Drunken liberals. Awful. Just awful.

  9. Le Roi du Nord says:

    Resistance to tougher drunk driving laws has been a bi-partisan issue in WI for decades. As is refusal to link impaired use of recreational vehicles to loss of driving privileges . Other states can do it but WI refuses. Shame on both parties.

  10. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Stop soft peddling liberal moral cowardice.

    This latest legislative block is all on lawless liberals.

    Assign blame where it is due here.

  11. jjf says:

    Once you get to the fifth offense, then the WisGOP moral arbiters want to put the hammer down!

  12. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Your complete lack of comprehension skills related to the written word never cease to amaze me.  How you can accuse me of “liberal moral cowardice” based on my post is another case of your stunningly aggressive ignorance.

    I am all for throwing the book at any and all impaired operators regardless of circumstances, drug of choice, excuses, or the type of motorized vehicle.  You are just as dead when hit by a Lund boat as you are when hit by a Buick.  My youngest brother was killed by an impaired driver, and I have recovered victims of boating accidents, and it isn’t pretty.  You are truly a shameless person.

  13. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    Here the Republicans wanted to do something and liberals blocked.

    This is not a case for bipartisan blame, that is what was disgusting about your statement. Blaming those you side with on this toughing up penalty on this issue is reckless and stupid.

  14. Mar says:

    “Once you get to the fifth offense, then the WisGOP moral arbiters want to put the hammer down!”
    Umm, yeah, it actually should be the third and more that prison time is neccesary and mandatory. If you continue to drink and drive after 2 offenses, you have not learned your lesson.

  15. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    What part of “Shame on both parties” is it that you cannot understand? It isn’t a trick question.

    If you had bothered to do some research you would have seen plenty of examples of bi-partisan resistance to making driving while impaired (of any motorized vehicle) a more serious offense and with tougher penalties.  But you didn’t, and you never will, because knowledge is antithetical to your mindset, agenda, and victimhood status.   But you are more than eager to place blame.

    Ignorance can be cured by education, but you chose to remain ignorant, and aggressively so.  That is awful, just awful.

  16. jjf says:

    Exactly, Mar.  That’s why it seemed ridiculous to me.  You’d think there could be more consensus on tighter laws.

    Me?  I blame the tavern league and the liquor industry.  They know their businesses survive because of a minority of heavy drinkers, and the taverns depend on the ability to drink and drive.

  17. Mar says:

    Le Roi is right that this is a bi-partisan screw up. How many times do you read in the papers aboit someone getting arrested for the 6th, 7th or 8 or more DUIs? Heck it’s not even news if someone gets their 4th DUI.
    The GOP could have done something when they had the power a few years ago, but they didn’t.
    The Democrats are holding this for such a moronic reason, more funding for treatment. The drivers may be booze hounds, but that

  18. Mar says:

    Continued… The drivers may be booze hounds but beibg a drunk is not an excuse to get behind the wheel of a car or truck. They are not being punished for being drunk, they are being punished for driving while drunk. They don’t need treatment for that. They need prison.

  19. dad29 says:

    Resistance to tougher drunk driving laws has been a bi-partisan issue in WI for decades. As is refusal to link impaired use of recreational vehicles to loss of driving privileges . Other states can do it but WI refuses. Shame on both parties.

    LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy is absolutely correct.  Precise definition of ‘linking impaired……privileges’ should be out there–but that’s the only caveat I have with his statement.

    Tavern League Rules!!  Second-most powerful lobbying bunch (after RoadBuilders, Inc.)

  20. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    This instance is not a bipartisan problem! It is a liberal problem.

    Nord wants to take focus off bad liberal behavior here.

    The article was not talking about past attempts. That is a Red Herring to the problem of liberals in this instance siding with reckless, repeat drunkards….the norm for liberals.

  21. Le Roi du Nord says:

    What part of “Shame on both parties” is it that you cannot understand?

    It is never too late to get help with your reading skills.  Unless you are afraid of knowledge.

  22. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    What shame is on Republicans in posted article?.

    None?

    Thought so.

  23. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Since you continually refuse to read for comprehension there is nothing I could say to satisfy you. But hope springs eternal, so try reading the article again. Or read it for the first time. The answer is in there.

  24. Jason says:

    Rather than read the article which is exactly the same as what Owen posted here… I looked at the voting record for Senate Bill 6.  Very enlightening and shows you didn’t when you said “Shame on both parties”.

     

    Not one D voted “Aye”  One R voted “Nay” .  Yes, Shame on both parties sure is an eloquent response from our Northern Troll LeRoy.

     

    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/related/votes/assembly/av0069

  25. Le Roi du Nord says:

    So j, your reading and comprehension skills are no better than k’s.  And that is a pretty low bar.  Try again.

  26. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I’ll ask again: “what shame is on Republicans on this particular proposal?”

    Why do Republicans have to take unfair crticism from you on this vote? They are doing what you want. You should focus your criticism to liberal embrace of criminal evil on this vote.

  27. jjf says:

    Kevin, if the Dems were asking for funding for treatment, why didn’t the WisGOP simply add that to the bill?  Isn’t that a good step in the right direction, too?

  28. Le Roi du Nord says:

    jjf:

    Correct, but unless k figures things out for himself he will never learn anything new. Let him and j do their own homework.

  29. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    jjf,

    Why don’t Democrats introduce a bill?   If Republicans oppose mandatory treatment for criminal drunk drivers during and after their prison sentence, I will rip the Republicans.

     

  30. jjf says:

    Kevin, I’m sure Vos would love to cooperate with the Democrats and let them bring forward anything they like!  I’m if the Dems say “here’s what we want” then Vos would say “here’s what we want” and they’d compromise and work on something together!  Golly, it’s so simple!

  31. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    Are you as clueless as you seem?  Or just a died-in-the-wool hypocrite?

    https://www.wbay.com/content/news/State-Senate-gavels-in-gavels-out-special-session-on-gun-bills-564639701.html

  32. Jason says:

    Leroy, your comprehension is lacking. That example you linked to is shameful for both parties.

  33. Le Roi du Nord says:

    No it isn’t.  But spin it however you want.  The facts won’t change.

  34. Mar says:

    jjf, why would you put in treatment money when they are sending people to jail for driving while drunk, with the emphasis on driving.
    No amount of treatment will solve that problem.

  35. jjf says:

    And tweaking it from six months to eighteen does what, exactly, for that repeat offender?

  36. Mar says:

    Keeps them off the road.

  37. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    That has nothing to do with this story.

    Shame on you.

  38. Le Roi du Nord says:

    k:

    You asked, “Why don’t Democrats introduce a bill?”.

    So when I provide a factual response you deflect in a blatantly transparent effort to hide your mistake.  Awful. Just awful.

  39. Mar says:

    Gee, Le Roi, are yoi telling me that the Wisconsin legislators have only been in session for just 1 minute in the past sevetal years?
    I never knew.

  40. jjf says:

    “We introduced a bill, we gave you none of what you wanted, look at that side, they’re terrible child-haters, we’re so much better” is a really stupid game.

  41. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    Nord,

    I was talking about drunk driving, you were not.

    Eliminating chronic criminal drunk drivers should be bipartisan issue.

    But we all know you libs side with criminals.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.