Chicagoist: New DUI Law

johnphilips

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:21:59 -0600

Yes, I totally agree. May be I think this new dui law decrease the crime. John Philips DUI

kelvin123789

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:14:24 -0600

It is an offence to drink and drive. Drinking and driving is dangerous for yourself and other people who are walking on the street. The people should try to follow the rules and regulations of driving. =================================================== Kelvin california dui

DanR57

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:46:06 -0600

Jbud said: NO, it is not a harsh punishment for a first offense. drunk driving is not a victimless crime. Yes, it is. A DUI Fatality (a real one, not a NHTSA-quoted one, or a MADD-cited one) is a crime. No victim--no crime Besides, look at this: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/thomas-sowell-why-copy-europe-when-america-does-it/ ".........We can always learn particular things from other countries, whether in Europe, in Asia or elsewhere. But imitating Europeans when they are not doing as well as Americans makes no sense."

jbud

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:25:48 -0600

NO, it is not a harsh punishment for a first offense. drunk driving is not a victimless crime. Here's DUI penalties for other countries: http://webpages.charter.net/ricknet/duilaws.htm

InsaneNewman

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:50:15 -0600

@ Albanyparkour: "I question that "90%" statistic from MADD as well. Yup, as soon as I read that line, I asked myself "as measured how?" It's just a weird statement. If they had said that the devices were 90% effective in stopping repeat offenses - well, ok, fine - I still don't buy it, but at least the statement makes sense. It's like saying 'condoms are 97% effective in reducing pregnancy'... no, condoms are 97% effective at preventing pregnancy... the phrasing makes a difference between supportable fact and pure conjecture.

Albanyparkour

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:42:29 -0600

It's about making money, not making a difference. Like pedophilie and "online-predators" drunk drivers are easy arrests and convictions. I question that "90%" statistic from MADD as well. I'm not defending drunk driving. I had a family member who had numerous DUIs and FINALLY got sent to jail for it. People can make a mistake, or exercise bad judgment once. Once.

archie manning

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:38:16 -0600

I am with you BlueFairlane, never drive drunk at all either. I support strict laws against drunk driving. My point is related to the severity of a penalty for a first time offender vs a repeat offender. This is a bit too much for a first time offender in my opinion.

BlueFairlane

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:14:18 -0600

If it's a racket, make the easy choice not to participate. In Chicago, there's absolutely no reason to drive drunk. Take a train. Take a bus. Don't give the man a chance to get at your money. As with most things, though, one's stand on laws prohibiting this activity depend largely on one's predelection toward participating in the activity. If you're likely to drive drunk, you're likely to think laws against driving drunk are stupid.

turkchgo

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:02:26 -0600

I would agree with you 100% Archie. Having seen how the system works. It's disgusting. It's about nothing but making money. And the courts know that the public is so overwhelming biased on the issue that it borders on hysteria and they take full advantage of that. Ask a DUI lawyer. There's no defense against it, there's no getting out of it even if you're falsely accused. You're pleading guilty, you're paying money. The only question is how much money you'll pay and that amount will determine who quickly you're back in your car.

archie manning

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:54:54 -0600

I am sure my opinion isn't really PC, but isn't this a bit harsh for first time offenders? I know how terrible drunk driving is and how irresponsible and dangerous it is, etc, etc, etc,.... but I think such a penalty is more appropriate for multiple offenders. /Queue angry commenters thinking that they are bringing to my attention for the first time that drunk driving kills people.

turkchgo

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:20:27 -0600

It's not a "suspended" license. It's a "hardship" license. Offenders who have their license suspended as a result of refusing a breathalyzer or a first offense DUI conviction FOR A FEE can get a "to and from work" license. If you go and look into DUI law here you'll see it's all about making the state money and very little to do with stopping the problem. We've almost done it to cigarettes, why don't we just do what MADD really is about and reinstate prohibition again. Bars with parking lots? It's an oxymoron. Outlaw the stuff or change the laws. What we have now is abuse for those unlucky enough to get caught in the dragnet and if they do get caught, getting out of it is nothing more than paying $$$$. If you don't have any $$$, then you get the minimum they can shake out of you and they let you go. It's a racket.

BlueFairlane

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:30:36 -0600

Only Illinois would be dumb enough to legally allow people to drive on a suspended license. What's the point of suspending the license, then?