Drunk driver

[fmc351]

First offence, and say between .05 and .08, current system is adequate and could be understood as an innocent mistake, not recklessness. Second offence, its woeful, its not like you could say they learned their lesson is it? Its becoming reckless, not an innocent mistake.

However there is no excuse for anyone over .1. First offence should cost you your vehicle and a lot of community service. Second offence, they should be doing time. Yeah they'll lose their job and possibly more, tough luck, better than someone else losing their life or limbs. Get it right first time, no second chances. Its no-one elses fault they tend not to learn lessons until its too late, if at all.


$100k a year so we shouldnt lock em up? What are you nuts? Its what the jail is for.

The guy in the article didnt get 25 for DUI, he got it for 3 strikes, would have been the same if he murdered or raped.

Originally Posted by nugget378

What has this..


Got to do with this..
While this guy most probably got what he deserved,I dont think throwing every person pulled for DUI into gaol is going to fix anything.
Most charged for DUI are only just a little over and dont cause an accident or even break any other road rule,just picked up at a random stop.
I know my expectations are a fine and short suspension is enough,making harsher penalties for the majority will not stop people like that..
Serial offenders dont get off with just a fine and short suspension,no matter what the telegraph tells us..
Community expectation,its what the media tells you it is...

Nonsense, an old neighbour of mine lost his licence for a total of 6 years, never learned. Never went to jail either. DUI, lost licence, drives drunk anyway. DUI and driving wile disqualified, fines, and further loss of licence nothing more. He got done 3 or 4 times, after the first, never went to jail.

He has a licence back now, still drink drives.