It is quite a racket at times, for many different politically connected businesses. If you want to hit a drunk driver with criminal penalties, fine! Take his license, give him community service, hell put him in jail. It would probably be much more effective. Want to know some of the rackets? DUI schools, DUI counseling, mandatory alcohol detectors installed in cars, impound fees, and such. All are done by private businesses at exorbitant rates. Frequently it is the politically connected friends and family that get the contracts on this stuff. If you want to soak it to these people, let it be criminal fines that go to the state, or into a victims fund. Do not let private businesses reap the profits. Yes, it is a racket.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
DUI
- Thread starter Indiana Mike
- Start date
Right, things that keep people with a proven history of driving under the influence FROM driving the influence are evil.
I didn't say they are a sham, I said they are a racket. There is a difference. They know people are going to do it regardless of the law, so they are doing their best to profit off of it as much as possible. (Hence the .08 limit now). Furthermore, a cop can basically pull you over for absolutely no reason, even if you are driving fine, and bust you.
If they seriously wanted to end drunk driving, automatic 15 years in prison if convicted. I'd bet everyone would then think twice about getting behind the wheel. They wouldn't want that though. Nobody to bust = no revenue.
Blort said:
.08 BAC (or any other level) is the same for everyone regardless of weight or size...that's how percentages work
.08 BAC (or any other level) is the same for everyone regardless of weight or size...that's how percentages work
Yes, but tolerance or the persons individual reaction to alcohol isn't put into the equation. One of the guys on my dart team bought the best breathalyzer on the market for fun. I didn't even have a buzz and I blew a .09, and that was even after waiting the required 10 minuts after the last sip.
Blort said:
then you're confusing BAC with 'tolerance', and the thing about tolerance is that it is subjective--hence the people who feel they are only 'buzzed' who drive anyway and hurt someone
ok- the thing is that the state is most likely NOT making money off drunk drivers. the court system is in no way designed to make money. i understand that many states have bowed to the federal government as far as drinking age and (i think) bac, but thats a different issue. the federal government is not collecting money by funding highway construction based on drinking age and bac. some states would be even more bankrupt if they didnt get federal grants for freeway construction. this lovely state of california comes to mind. we are broke and have a **** load of highways.
what i think IS a terrible system is the way they keep extending the amount of time a dui stays on your legal record (not your driving record, which would benefit your insurance company, assuming they dont have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to replace a vehicle or pay out if you hurt someone). even if you are two days away from having it wiped off your record, and then they extend the time frame, that applies to you, and will determine your fine/sentence and how long and how much you pay for a dui school. if you so desire to get a restricted license some day.
also, at least in ca, for three years after your first dui (maybe extended for multiple offenders) you can get a second with ANY measurable amount of alcohol in your system. aa doesnt make money unless you donate. i assume community service saves the state money, but you can get out of that fairly easily.
its basically a way of saying that you drove drunk, so you cant drink a beer and immediately drive. some people just messed up, or got a dui from sleep deprivation (yes thats possible). you can get a dui at 0.00% if you fail a sobriety test. you can get one at 0.01% if you are driving poorly, or get into an accident, even if its not necessarily your fault.
so- no... the state isnt making a fortune on dui cases. its possible that there is a correlation from raising the bac to more state wide dui cases, but at the end of the day, that is probably more politics than anything else. just look at madd and their leadership getting duis.
the story is dumb though. any police officer wouldnt just sit in one place for a while to take down just this one guy. they would either go after the first guy driving poorly, or they would call in backup.
again: your state isnt rolling in dough because some people drink and drive. do you honestly believe that this is a major source of income? that is absurdly ignorant.
EDIT: oh, and i have second hand experience with people who used to be swimmers having a higher tolerance or blowing a higher bac than someone else would have. this person got an expert witness, but the state refused the testimony and he got a dui. im taking this persons word for it, but i think they are credible. bac does not take into account your tolerance, though a daily drinker may feel less intoxicated than someone who hasnt had a drink in a while. the law does not discriminate. maybe they can pass a field sobriety test, but a breathalizer trumps a field sobriety test if administered.
what i think IS a terrible system is the way they keep extending the amount of time a dui stays on your legal record (not your driving record, which would benefit your insurance company, assuming they dont have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to replace a vehicle or pay out if you hurt someone). even if you are two days away from having it wiped off your record, and then they extend the time frame, that applies to you, and will determine your fine/sentence and how long and how much you pay for a dui school. if you so desire to get a restricted license some day.
also, at least in ca, for three years after your first dui (maybe extended for multiple offenders) you can get a second with ANY measurable amount of alcohol in your system. aa doesnt make money unless you donate. i assume community service saves the state money, but you can get out of that fairly easily.
its basically a way of saying that you drove drunk, so you cant drink a beer and immediately drive. some people just messed up, or got a dui from sleep deprivation (yes thats possible). you can get a dui at 0.00% if you fail a sobriety test. you can get one at 0.01% if you are driving poorly, or get into an accident, even if its not necessarily your fault.
so- no... the state isnt making a fortune on dui cases. its possible that there is a correlation from raising the bac to more state wide dui cases, but at the end of the day, that is probably more politics than anything else. just look at madd and their leadership getting duis.
the story is dumb though. any police officer wouldnt just sit in one place for a while to take down just this one guy. they would either go after the first guy driving poorly, or they would call in backup.
again: your state isnt rolling in dough because some people drink and drive. do you honestly believe that this is a major source of income? that is absurdly ignorant.
EDIT: oh, and i have second hand experience with people who used to be swimmers having a higher tolerance or blowing a higher bac than someone else would have. this person got an expert witness, but the state refused the testimony and he got a dui. im taking this persons word for it, but i think they are credible. bac does not take into account your tolerance, though a daily drinker may feel less intoxicated than someone who hasnt had a drink in a while. the law does not discriminate. maybe they can pass a field sobriety test, but a breathalizer trumps a field sobriety test if administered.
OK, as usual, I skimmed- except for the OP, which I have heard a number of times- as a joke. Like all the really good ones, it's in questionable taste. True? I doubt it/hope not...
Well, at over $6,000 in fines and court costs for a first offense, the money is going somewhere.
ok- yes... it is going to multiple entities, but i will firmly stand by the fact that the legal system is not a money maker. that would be ****ed up.
for a first offense in ca you can probably get a lwayer for 2-2.5k. you would only want one if your case is complicated and/or you need charges dropped, or need to have community service changed to something else. for a basic case, a public defender, or nothing at all is fine. if you fit the criteria for a dui, the state has evidence, and you arent getting out of it. the chances of that are infinitesimal.
then you have dui schools, which have no affiliation with the state, but a first dui can land you different course lengths depending on the case. a lawyer might be able to get you a 3 month program as opposed to a 9 month program. if you blow high enough though, you dont have any options. period.
now, i get that those private entities pay taxes, but that is also not factored in. again: come on, your state isnt making money of a dui. do you know how many people are in a court room during a day? they all make money, and plenty of people have cases delayed several times, dragging it out, in some cases, for years. the more you show up and require state resources, the more you cost the state. the fine for a first offender in ca is around 1.7k. do that math; with at least 3 visits the court and the officers that arrested and looked after you add up to more than that.
a private attorney (NOT a public defender) is not in any way whatsoever employed by the state. you are confusing the amount of money you are charged with the amount of money that the state receives. as stated, of course your lawyer fees are indirectly and partially routed to the state via taxes, but thats not at all the same.
I have a friend in this situation now. First offense he passed field sobriety but blew a 0.09 so they took him in. Impounded his car, I think like $500 in fines, 30-day suspension of his license, and a mandatory safe driver course that had to be paid out of pocket.
His second offense gets a little hairier. He fell asleep at the wheel and crashed. Got out of the car, walked home (maybe 1/4 mile) to get his roommate, and they walked back to the car. Cops were on scene and arrested him on the spot. He had a head injury (spiderwebed the windshield with his face) but they made him stay in the local jail over night and just released him in the morning. No hospital. No breathalyzer. He got fired because he couldn't be at work on time the next morning so he qualified for a public defender. So far, his case has been delayed for about a year and half - multiple hearings, evidence admittance/suppression, etc - all of which time he hasn't had a license. I don't think he's had to pay the fines or anything yet because he's contesting the charges, but it's definitely a big drain on the court system.
Gottcha. I suppose when I get a speeding ticket or a parking ticket, all that money I pay just disappears into magic dust.
Cant see your location on my phone, but I would advise your friend to immediately reapply for a drivers license. After an arrest you get a temporary license that, in ca, lasts 30 days. During this time you can apply for a license again. You have to pay about 120 bucks for it, but it'll be a completely valid, non restricted license until the sentence. You can avoid a hard suspension (not the same as a restricted license) by waiting 30 days after the court sentence date to have your dmv hearing. The court will back up the dmv and vice versa. They talk, however, just because you get a dui doesn't mean you get your license taken away (physically maybe, but on paper you are good).
I don't know a ton about multiple dui cases, but I would bet its all worse across the board. An interlock device is also costly. There is a mandatory monthly calibration. Its about 75 a month here, and some counties are test counties, so you can get it with just one dui.
Location location location. And number of duos.
I don't know a ton about multiple dui cases, but I would bet its all worse across the board. An interlock device is also costly. There is a mandatory monthly calibration. Its about 75 a month here, and some counties are test counties, so you can get it with just one dui.
Location location location. And number of duos.
Blort said:
We'll... ya- that money goes to the state, but unless you go into hours and costs of employment and gas consumption, as well as parking ticket vehicle costs, your 80 dollar ticket may not make the state a lot of cash. They also have to process that, which costs money.
One thing I will say is that I drove for a decade with no front license plate. The cars I owned didn't even have holes to attach it. A few weeks ago I got a ticket for no front plate. I've also gotten pulled over for driver side window tint. It was a rainy day, and I wasn't speeding; just the suspicion of a tint. I should have asked the cop to get a lumen's meter, which he probably would have to call in, but I didn't know it wasn't legal (friends shop did it, so I never got asked the legality thing). I also got cited for not having a current insurance card, despite being insured. He also made sure I was wearing my contact lenses. He was clearly out to violate me, but I don't think all state employees think that way. I bet he had a terrible day, or is just a sad person. I find solace in that.
You should make an effort to read what people write. I have no problem with punishing them. I have a problem with private companies with political connection being given a license to profit off them. Read carefully! Really, go slowly. I did know that somebody like you was going to have trouble understanding what I wrote and try to misquote me. Always happens.
Again, for your benefit, no trouble with punishment. Trouble with private companies being given a license to make exorbitant profits off them.
You know in Atlanta, a speeding ticket on 400, 285, 75 or 85, through any small town or city who has a license to write speeding tickets on the interstates, will cost you $400 on the average. The state can pop an additional $200 on it if you exceed the limit by 20 mph. A friend on a city council was interviewing candidates for chief of police. One explained how he could pay his salary by writing speeding tickets one day a month.
Your ticket fees are a profit center for cities, towns and counties. So the money does not disappear into magic dust. It supports the city so they can give tax deferments to various companies!
