A law further penalizing drunk drivers who carry children as passengers is reasonable. Billing the general public for the guilty-party's terms of probation is not.
If you want to drive while drunk, don't have innocent children in the car! My ex was continuously driving while drunk with our son in his car. The last time was October 2009 when he dropped him off and got about a mile down the road before he ran himself over with his own car. He then drove home and went to the hospital the next day to deal with his fractured leg and other injuries. Fortunately enough other proof was in family court to get limited visitation in which he has to have a breathalizer done after visitation. We had this order before and he told the good old boys at the cop shop it was all because of his ex, etc. Now instead of facing them he has not used his visitation since. I expect when the order for breathalizers is over in November he will start expecting his routine visitation back. God help us. P.S. Thank you Genesee County Sheriff for arresting him for DWI and open container in March! You vindicated my son!
C.M., why should drunk driving be considered worse just because a child is in the vehicle? Shouldn't all drunk driving charges be just as severe under any circumstance? If a person is driving while intoxicated, what difference does it make if the child is in the same vehicle or in another vehicle? How is a child's life more valuable than an adult's? I don't see the need for Leandra's law at all. It was just another expense to tax payers and won't save any more lives in the process. The law just makes people "feel good." It doesn't actually accomplish a damn thing.
By the way, lawyers love new laws like this. They can charge more for a felony case than for a misdemeanor.
Canada considers all DUI cases as felonies, why shouldn't we? If you have a DUI conviction here, you're not allowed entry into Canada because you're considered a felon there.
The woman who was allegedly driving Leandra was charged with felony DWI and manslaughter. If convicted, she faces some pretty serious punishment.
There were news reports following the accident that she felt suicidal.
If Leandra's Law had been in effect last October, can anybody seriously make a case that 11-year-old Leandra would be alive today?
If Carmen Huertas is guilty of the crimes she is accused of, then having a DWI law didn't stop her from getting behind the wheel and having a manslaughter law didn't stop her from getting behind the wheel, and even the possibility that she might feel tremendous guilt over the incident didn't stop her from getting behind the while.
How can it possibly be logical to conclude that one more enhancement on the drunken driving laws would have save a life in such a situation.
The problem with these enhancements is that the have intended consequences without really solving any problems.
I'm quite confident in saying that Leandra's Law won't save one single life. Ever.
Look at all of the arrests being made under the law so far -- some deterrent it's worked out to be.
The reason is simple, a child, particularly one that young, is at the mercy of the adult's decision. An 11 year-old trusts completely in the adult's judgement and is unable to say 'No, I'm not going to get in the car with you,' and find another way home.
Sometimes these comments baffle my mind. The law may not save one more life, but the person behind the wheel will be penalized with far more than a mark on their license or just have their license revoked as with current DWI laws.
If the adult knows that they are intoxicated, lets children get into the vehicle and God forbid get into a fatal accident, they should have the book thrown at them.
Doug said it right. All DUI cases should be considered felonies like Canada.
Doug makes a real good point that all dui's/dwi's should be automatic felonies, but i think it should be taken one step further.....3 strikes and your out!
Pretty much everything that california stands for sickens me. Its full of secular progressives, liberals, people just like our current president that are absolutely without morals and are bringing this country down in a big way...With that being said, there is ONE thing they do in california that EVERY state in the union should do...3 strikes and your out. If you get 3 felonies (of any kind) its automatic life in prison. This would of course include dwi's if doug/canada's idea was realized. I truly believe this would make people think twice before endangering lives by getting behind the wheel drunk.
My argument isn't with laws that are designed as punishment and from that view point, I would have no argument with making all DWIs a felony.
My complaint is with "enhancements" on laws that are supposed to a "deterrent."
There is no such thing as a law that is a deterrent.
Such laws are feel-good for society, political point scoring for politicians and drive up the costs of government for no practical societal benefit.
If you read the articles and press releases related to passage of this bill, there's a lot of talk of "saving lives" and acting as a deterrent. Lyandra's Law wasn't passed to punish, but merely to score political points.
Life saving scenario: A man gets pulled over with his child in the back seat. The man is found to be driving while intoxicated. He is charged under Leandra's Law and sentenced to a 1-4 year prison term. For the duration of that prison term, he is kept from endangering the life of his child again.
Dash-mounted breathalyzers aside, there is a good argument to be made that an adult who is irresponsible enough to drive under the influence with a child in the vehicle probably isn't a first-time offender. In these particular cases, I find it hard to believe that we're simply dealing with a guy who had one too many in the beer tent at the Stafford carnival.
As far as the breath-test equipment goes, I agree with the majority of folks here that say the taxpayer shouldn't foot the bill. Much like child support, I think the cost of the equipment should be garnished directly from offenders wages, if he/she is unemployed then they're welcome to mow lawns or pick up trash for their municipality until the debt is paid off. I also have a beef with forcing close friends and family members of the offender to be degraded and imposed upon because of a single person's behavior.
WHOA! Too many threads for me to keep up with. I didn't know this conversation was going on when I commented on this other thread.......Ranzenhofer and Hawley support Leandra's Law, but recognize new burden on county.
It's true I can never go to Canada again, I'll miss it, I've always had fun there. I made my choice though, I'll have to live with it.
Doug, the standard is not premised on value differences between adults and children. The difference is consent. Can a child independently choose whether to ride with a drunk adult or not? No.
Will the law save any lives? The law is only as effective as any deterrent might be in reaching an intoxicated adult. A three-time loser? Likely not. Someone who had a beer or two and forgot the hot-dog rolls? Probably.
Was the bill unanimously voted into law because a no-vote would have been politically suicidal? Sure.
Will lawyers and insurance companies have a field day with it? Certainly.
Would it make more sense to charge drunk drivers with murder or armed-assault when death or injury result from the choice to drive under the influence? Sure. Take the drunk's license away for EVER? Absolutely.
I'm not sure what prevents our lawmakers from being more severe with drunks. Either they are afraid of depriving drunk drivers of a livelihood- resulting in a new class of unemployment/SSI recipient... Or perhaps it reflects their own fear of being in the docket.
Posted by C. M. Barons on April 21, 2010 - 12:53am
I'm not sure what prevents our lawmakers from being more severe with drunks. Either they are afraid of depriving drunk drivers of a livelihood- resulting in a new class of unemployment/SSI recipient... Or perhaps it reflects their own fear of being in the docket.
I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive. Regardless of whether they have children in the car or are driving, alone.
I had to shake my head in horror when I heard, recently, of someone who did a good deed by following an intoxicated driver home to make sure that person made it safely.
The ironic thing is that they were both drunk.
Even if one or both had been stopped, one has an in with the county, so it would have been swept under the rug.
The problem with people who are habitual drunks is that they can't see that their logic is flawed. Where is the logic in calling a drunk and asking them to call you in ten minutes to make sure you made it home? Is the other drunk suppose to get on the road and find the other driver if the phone isn't answered in ten minutes?
Multiply that incoherent logic by the number of drunks on the road in Genesee Co. and the risk to sober drivers is staggering.
C.M., this law is not a deterrent at all. Of course children can't choose to ride in the vehicle or not. Children also can't choose a lot of thing such as religious beliefs or political beliefs that their parents impose upon them. As they grow older they can choose, of course. They can't choose not to eat red meat, high fat snacks or sugary drinks, either.
I'm still miffed why a law needed to be legislated to placate the simple minded. It's okay to destroy a child's health slowly but having them in a vehicle while impaired is somehow different? Where do we draw the line? I know these are absurd parallels but I'm trying to point out the absurdity of Leandra's law.
We already HAVE laws that can be put to use if only they were enforced. We don't need more laws like cell phone laws or texting laws. They're already covered under the reckless driving law. We don't need Leandra's law because we already have DUI laws, endangering the welfare of a child laws and vehicular homicide laws.
Quote Howard Owens: "There is no such thing as a law that is a deterrent.
Such laws are feel-good for society, political point scoring for politicians and drive up the costs of government for no practical societal benefit."
AMEN, I could not have said it better. It's raw common sense.
Doug, the pain you feel is the helplessness that arises in every citizen once-aware politics is a self-perpetuating fraternity party. The members, drunk on power and special interest money, are cloistered in the shell of government. They are clueless about the real world, yet constantly try to demonstrate benevolence. Their efforts are sophomoric like floats in the Homecoming Parade. Each has a sponsor, pledge-pin and sweetheart (deal). And they are the darlings of lawyers who profit in the aftermath.
By the way... The taxpayers are the parents in this metaphor- paying the bills.
A law further penalizing
A law further penalizing drunk drivers who carry children as passengers is reasonable. Billing the general public for the guilty-party's terms of probation is not.
If you want to drive while
If you want to drive while drunk, don't have innocent children in the car! My ex was continuously driving while drunk with our son in his car. The last time was October 2009 when he dropped him off and got about a mile down the road before he ran himself over with his own car. He then drove home and went to the hospital the next day to deal with his fractured leg and other injuries. Fortunately enough other proof was in family court to get limited visitation in which he has to have a breathalizer done after visitation. We had this order before and he told the good old boys at the cop shop it was all because of his ex, etc. Now instead of facing them he has not used his visitation since. I expect when the order for breathalizers is over in November he will start expecting his routine visitation back. God help us. P.S. Thank you Genesee County Sheriff for arresting him for DWI and open container in March! You vindicated my son!
C.M., why should drunk
C.M., why should drunk driving be considered worse just because a child is in the vehicle? Shouldn't all drunk driving charges be just as severe under any circumstance? If a person is driving while intoxicated, what difference does it make if the child is in the same vehicle or in another vehicle? How is a child's life more valuable than an adult's? I don't see the need for Leandra's law at all. It was just another expense to tax payers and won't save any more lives in the process. The law just makes people "feel good." It doesn't actually accomplish a damn thing.
By the way, lawyers love new laws like this. They can charge more for a felony case than for a misdemeanor.
Canada considers all DUI cases as felonies, why shouldn't we? If you have a DUI conviction here, you're not allowed entry into Canada because you're considered a felon there.
The woman who was allegedly
The woman who was allegedly driving Leandra was charged with felony DWI and manslaughter. If convicted, she faces some pretty serious punishment.
There were news reports following the accident that she felt suicidal.
If Leandra's Law had been in effect last October, can anybody seriously make a case that 11-year-old Leandra would be alive today?
If Carmen Huertas is guilty of the crimes she is accused of, then having a DWI law didn't stop her from getting behind the wheel and having a manslaughter law didn't stop her from getting behind the wheel, and even the possibility that she might feel tremendous guilt over the incident didn't stop her from getting behind the while.
How can it possibly be logical to conclude that one more enhancement on the drunken driving laws would have save a life in such a situation.
The problem with these enhancements is that the have intended consequences without really solving any problems.
I'm quite confident in saying that Leandra's Law won't save one single life. Ever.
Look at all of the arrests being made under the law so far -- some deterrent it's worked out to be.
Doug, The reason is simple,
Doug,
The reason is simple, a child, particularly one that young, is at the mercy of the adult's decision. An 11 year-old trusts completely in the adult's judgement and is unable to say 'No, I'm not going to get in the car with you,' and find another way home.
Sometimes these comments
Sometimes these comments baffle my mind. The law may not save one more life, but the person behind the wheel will be penalized with far more than a mark on their license or just have their license revoked as with current DWI laws.
If the adult knows that they are intoxicated, lets children get into the vehicle and God forbid get into a fatal accident, they should have the book thrown at them.
Doug said it right. All DUI cases should be considered felonies like Canada.
Doug makes a real good point
Doug makes a real good point that all dui's/dwi's should be automatic felonies, but i think it should be taken one step further.....3 strikes and your out!
Pretty much everything that california stands for sickens me. Its full of secular progressives, liberals, people just like our current president that are absolutely without morals and are bringing this country down in a big way...With that being said, there is ONE thing they do in california that EVERY state in the union should do...3 strikes and your out. If you get 3 felonies (of any kind) its automatic life in prison. This would of course include dwi's if doug/canada's idea was realized. I truly believe this would make people think twice before endangering lives by getting behind the wheel drunk.
My argument isn't with laws
My argument isn't with laws that are designed as punishment and from that view point, I would have no argument with making all DWIs a felony.
My complaint is with "enhancements" on laws that are supposed to a "deterrent."
There is no such thing as a law that is a deterrent.
Such laws are feel-good for society, political point scoring for politicians and drive up the costs of government for no practical societal benefit.
If you read the articles and press releases related to passage of this bill, there's a lot of talk of "saving lives" and acting as a deterrent. Lyandra's Law wasn't passed to punish, but merely to score political points.
Life saving scenario: A man
Life saving scenario: A man gets pulled over with his child in the back seat. The man is found to be driving while intoxicated. He is charged under Leandra's Law and sentenced to a 1-4 year prison term. For the duration of that prison term, he is kept from endangering the life of his child again.
Dash-mounted breathalyzers aside, there is a good argument to be made that an adult who is irresponsible enough to drive under the influence with a child in the vehicle probably isn't a first-time offender. In these particular cases, I find it hard to believe that we're simply dealing with a guy who had one too many in the beer tent at the Stafford carnival.
As far as the breath-test equipment goes, I agree with the majority of folks here that say the taxpayer shouldn't foot the bill. Much like child support, I think the cost of the equipment should be garnished directly from offenders wages, if he/she is unemployed then they're welcome to mow lawns or pick up trash for their municipality until the debt is paid off. I also have a beef with forcing close friends and family members of the offender to be degraded and imposed upon because of a single person's behavior.
Howard, Have you received any
Howard,
Have you received any comments from Hawley regarding this?
WHOA! Too many threads for me
WHOA! Too many threads for me to keep up with. I didn't know this conversation was going on when I commented on this other thread.......Ranzenhofer and Hawley support Leandra's Law, but recognize new burden on county.
It's true I can never go to Canada again, I'll miss it, I've always had fun there. I made my choice though, I'll have to live with it.
Doug, the standard is not
Doug, the standard is not premised on value differences between adults and children. The difference is consent. Can a child independently choose whether to ride with a drunk adult or not? No.
Will the law save any lives? The law is only as effective as any deterrent might be in reaching an intoxicated adult. A three-time loser? Likely not. Someone who had a beer or two and forgot the hot-dog rolls? Probably.
Was the bill unanimously voted into law because a no-vote would have been politically suicidal? Sure.
Will lawyers and insurance companies have a field day with it? Certainly.
Would it make more sense to charge drunk drivers with murder or armed-assault when death or injury result from the choice to drive under the influence? Sure. Take the drunk's license away for EVER? Absolutely.
I'm not sure what prevents our lawmakers from being more severe with drunks. Either they are afraid of depriving drunk drivers of a livelihood- resulting in a new class of unemployment/SSI recipient... Or perhaps it reflects their own fear of being in the docket.
Posted by C. M. Barons on
Posted by C. M. Barons on April 21, 2010 - 12:53am
I'm not sure what prevents our lawmakers from being more severe with drunks. Either they are afraid of depriving drunk drivers of a livelihood- resulting in a new class of unemployment/SSI recipient... Or perhaps it reflects their own fear of being in the docket.
I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive. Regardless of whether they have children in the car or are driving, alone.
I had to shake my head in horror when I heard, recently, of someone who did a good deed by following an intoxicated driver home to make sure that person made it safely.
The ironic thing is that they were both drunk.
Even if one or both had been stopped, one has an in with the county, so it would have been swept under the rug.
The problem with people who are habitual drunks is that they can't see that their logic is flawed. Where is the logic in calling a drunk and asking them to call you in ten minutes to make sure you made it home? Is the other drunk suppose to get on the road and find the other driver if the phone isn't answered in ten minutes?
Multiply that incoherent logic by the number of drunks on the road in Genesee Co. and the risk to sober drivers is staggering.
C.M., this law is not a
C.M., this law is not a deterrent at all. Of course children can't choose to ride in the vehicle or not. Children also can't choose a lot of thing such as religious beliefs or political beliefs that their parents impose upon them. As they grow older they can choose, of course. They can't choose not to eat red meat, high fat snacks or sugary drinks, either.
I'm still miffed why a law needed to be legislated to placate the simple minded. It's okay to destroy a child's health slowly but having them in a vehicle while impaired is somehow different? Where do we draw the line? I know these are absurd parallels but I'm trying to point out the absurdity of Leandra's law.
We already HAVE laws that can be put to use if only they were enforced. We don't need more laws like cell phone laws or texting laws. They're already covered under the reckless driving law. We don't need Leandra's law because we already have DUI laws, endangering the welfare of a child laws and vehicular homicide laws.
Quote Howard Owens: "There is no such thing as a law that is a deterrent.
Such laws are feel-good for society, political point scoring for politicians and drive up the costs of government for no practical societal benefit."
AMEN, I could not have said it better. It's raw common sense.
Doug, the pain you feel is
Doug, the pain you feel is the helplessness that arises in every citizen once-aware politics is a self-perpetuating fraternity party. The members, drunk on power and special interest money, are cloistered in the shell of government. They are clueless about the real world, yet constantly try to demonstrate benevolence. Their efforts are sophomoric like floats in the Homecoming Parade. Each has a sponsor, pledge-pin and sweetheart (deal). And they are the darlings of lawyers who profit in the aftermath.
By the way... The taxpayers are the parents in this metaphor- paying the bills.
C.M. and Doug:" I feel your
C.M. and Doug:" I feel your pain." You hit the nail square on the head