Drunk driver

[Pedro]

The courts in Australia persistently let serial drunk drivers off with a fine and suspension for a short time. In California the courts hand out sentences more in line with what's expected by the public.


Drunk driver who fled from police gets 25 to life
Thursday, October 25, 2007
A Santa Clara man convicted previously of causing a fatal crash while driving drunk has been sent to state prison for 25 years to life under the "three strikes" law for fleeing from police at up to 120 mph while under the influence, authorities said today.
Stanley Barrymore Newton, 49, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.20 percent - more than twice the legal limit - when he ran two red lights July 8, 2006, while trying to evade a police officer in San Jose, prosecutors said.
The officer was trying to stop Newton for driving his Toyota Camry over the solid yellow lines at Lincoln Avenue and Lonus Street. Newton refused to stop and got onto Interstate 280, where he sped away at up to 120 mph, prosecutors said.
The officer stopped chasing him because of safety concerns but later caught up to him on a side street. Newton pleaded guilty in March to felony reckless driving while evading a peace officer and driving under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor.
The evasion charge counted as Newton's third strike. He was sentenced Monday by Judge Andrea Bryan of Santa Clara County Superior Court under California's sentencing law that requires a term of 25 years to life for any convicted felon who has previously committed two serious or violent felonies, or strikes.
"This is exactly what the voters were thinking of, a scary kind of person who can harm anyone at any point," said Kevin Smith, the Santa Clara County deputy district attorney who prosecuted Newton.
In 1988, Newton was driving with a 0.12 blood-alcohol level when he crashed a Chevrolet Camaro into a light pole on the Capitol Expressway, prosecutors said. A passenger in the front seat, 36-year-old Richard Frable was killed.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by Pedro

The courts in Australia persistently let serial drunk drivers off with a fine and suspension for a short time. In California the courts hand out sentences more in line with what's expected by the public.

What has this..


Got to do with this..

Originally Posted by Pedro

Drunk driver who fled from police gets 25 to life
Thursday, October 25, 2007
A Santa Clara man convicted previously of causing a fatal crash while driving drunk has been sent to state prison for 25 years to life under the "three strikes" law for fleeing from police at up to 120 mph while under the influence, authorities said today.
Stanley Barrymore Newton, 49, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.20 percent - more than twice the legal limit - when he ran two red lights July 8, 2006, while trying to evade a police officer in San Jose, prosecutors said.
The officer was trying to stop Newton for driving his Toyota Camry over the solid yellow lines at Lincoln Avenue and Lonus Street. Newton refused to stop and got onto Interstate 280, where he sped away at up to 120 mph, prosecutors said.
The officer stopped chasing him because of safety concerns but later caught up to him on a side street. Newton pleaded guilty in March to felony reckless driving while evading a peace officer and driving under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor.
The evasion charge counted as Newton's third strike. He was sentenced Monday by Judge Andrea Bryan of Santa Clara County Superior Court under California's sentencing law that requires a term of 25 years to life for any convicted felon who has previously committed two serious or violent felonies, or strikes.
"This is exactly what the voters were thinking of, a scary kind of person who can harm anyone at any point," said Kevin Smith, the Santa Clara County deputy district attorney who prosecuted Newton.
In 1988, Newton was driving with a 0.12 blood-alcohol level when he crashed a Chevrolet Camaro into a light pole on the Capitol Expressway, prosecutors said. A passenger in the front seat, 36-year-old Richard Frable was killed.

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...

[|||]

anyone caught drink driving should lose their car.

the system is a joke. do a burnout for a laugh and your car is gone. drive hammered and get caught and the courts dont care

[MotherNatureVer2]

That is the way the judicial system works ........ fair ... no ..... but fact of life.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by |||

anyone caught drink driving should lose their car.

the system is a joke. do a burnout for a laugh and your car is gone. drive hammered and get caught and the courts dont care

Its a difficult one though, I carry a breatho in my car (more just for the gimick of it) but a few times I have had to sit in my car because the reading was 0.04 or above, and a few times I have had others use it just to make sure and they have been over but without it they definitely would have driven home. One girl had only one drink (cruiser) and blew over 0.1 an hour after she had it.

Dont get me wrong though I think anyone that is well over should lose their car - however I do feel for the people that try to do the right thing and blow 0.05

[NAPARM]

I think the penalties are very harsh at the moment.

[Dave_au]

Yes wonderful, lets lock up more people into an Australian gaol system that costs the taxpayer around $100,000 plus per inmate per year.

And better yet, lets stuff the entire judiciary which is already overloaded by having countless appeals and parole hearings.

And let he who hath never driven with a BAC above 0.02 cast the first stone.

[pauljh74]

There certainly should be harsher penalties for REPEAT drink drivers. Especially the ones that drive whilst suspended, and are drunk at the same time. If you were sober and driving while suspended, then you may have circumstances that may make you worthy of leniency. But drink driving while already banned from driving shows the person has little regard for the law and certainly hasn't learned their lesson. Giving a suspended driver a further suspension for driving while suspended a second or third time obviously shows it is not encouraging them to improve their behaviour.

The cases that show a driver making their 10th or more appearance in court for the same drink driving/driving while suspended issue over as many years - these people should be locked up. Do it a a second time and 1 month jail and a fine. Get busted again, 2 months jail and a bigger fine, then 6 months, 12 etc. They'll either be in jail alot or stop drink driving - either way they are off the road.

[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.