Do DUI offenders get let off too easy?
- Thread starter POLTERGEIST
- Start date
fuck no... i got convicted of my second 1 last month.... fuckin dumbass mistake of me but anyway...
my license is basically suspended until october of 2007 ... i gotta take that 18 month bullshit ass class, and on top of that if i want to get my restricted license next year i have to have a fuckin interlock device installed in my car... i gotta pay for installation and monthly to have that shit in my damn car.... oh yea and once you get a dui your red flagged for 10 years... so no i don't think dui offenders are let off too easy... i mean they get the book thrown at em, oh yea then you get fucked over by insurance up the wahzooo!
my license is basically suspended until october of 2007 ... i gotta take that 18 month bullshit ass class, and on top of that if i want to get my restricted license next year i have to have a fuckin interlock device installed in my car... i gotta pay for installation and monthly to have that shit in my damn car.... oh yea and once you get a dui your red flagged for 10 years... so no i don't think dui offenders are let off too easy... i mean they get the book thrown at em, oh yea then you get fucked over by insurance up the wahzooo!
Not all the time. One of my friends got a DUI and spent at least 5 g'z for court and lawyer fees, and spent 2 1/2 months in county for it. Luckily they let him do a school release or he would have had to drop out that quarter. But no, most of the time they don't just let you off with a slap on the wrist. However, I know in Europe they dont' play when it comes to DUI's. If you get one, your license it gone for good and you can't get it back. So in a sense, people do get off pretty easy here.
These are the type of stories that make me think they do get off easy.
SAN FRANCISCO
Crash suspect had 3 DUI convictions
S.F. man faces charges in deaths of cabbie, student
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Printable Version
Email This Article
The suspected drunken driver who police say killed two people when he slammed into a taxi in San Francisco has been convicted three times previously for drunken driving, authorities said Tuesday.
Prosecutors are expected to file charges today against Kevin Eugene McGuinness, 43, of San Francisco in connection with the Sunday night crash at Broadway and Webster Street in Pacific Heights.
McGuinness, driving a Toyota Tundra pickup, was fleeing from a minor accident about 10 blocks away at Polk and Washington streets when he ran a stop sign and broadsided the cab, authorities said. His blood alcohol level was 0.19 percent, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent, authorities said.
Yellow Cab driver and cabbie activist Zareh Soghikian, 76, of San Francisco, and Duke University student Tyler Brown, 21, of Marion, Mass., were killed when the Tundra hit the cab.
Two other passengers, Brown's half-brother and their friend Michael Giedgowd, were injured. Giedgowd suffered a broken leg and a hip fracture and was in stable condition at San Francisco General Hospital. Brown's half-brother, whose name was not released, suffered cuts and bruises.
McGuinness has two convictions for driving under the influence in Sonoma County and one conviction in San Francisco, officials said.
Court records show that he was arrested in San Francisco by the California Highway Patrol in August 2001 for driving under the influence and was sentenced to home detention and probation in January 2002.
The Department of Motor Vehicles suspended his license in November 2001 because he had an excessive blood-alcohol level, records show, but it is unclear whether he was ever officially notified of the action.
In December 2002, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license. The complaint was later withdrawn; records available Tuesday did not explain why.
McGuinness was driving with an active license Sunday night when the crash happened, DMV records show.
McGuinness' two convictions in Sonoma County happened within the last 10 years, authorities said. Because of the age of those offenses, records were not available.
McGuinness was booked after Sunday night's crash on suspicion of vehicular manslaughter and other charges. With previous convictions for drunken driving, a conviction carries a maximum sentence of 15 years to life in prison.
As authorities pressed their case against McGuinness, family and friends mourned the loss of Soghikian -- a longtime cabdriver activist -- and Brown, a gifted student and activist.
Brown was a double major in biomedical and mechanical engineering at Duke in Durham, N.C., and had recently returned from helping survivors on the tsunami-ravaged Indonesian island of Sumatra, according to the university.
In August, he went to Banda Aceh to rebuild shrimp hatcheries for residents from the nearby village of Lamnga, officials said.
Brown and other students, part of a group known as Engineers Without Borders, used palm fronds and fishing nets to design an aerator to increase shrimp yield and limit erosion of the hatcheries' dirt walls.
He had been excited about the project. "Seeing the villagers using the aerator, it made me feel good to be physically doing something to help," the university quoted him as saying recently. "Up until that point, I hadn't applied my knowledge outside the classroom."
David Schaad, the assistant chairman of civil and environmental engineering at Duke, accompanied Brown and other students to Indonesia.
Brown was a "bright kid with a world full of promise," Schaad said Tuesday. "He was a thoughtful person who engaged life and wanted to look for adventures."
SAN FRANCISCO
Crash suspect had 3 DUI convictions
S.F. man faces charges in deaths of cabbie, student
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Printable Version
Email This Article
The suspected drunken driver who police say killed two people when he slammed into a taxi in San Francisco has been convicted three times previously for drunken driving, authorities said Tuesday.
Prosecutors are expected to file charges today against Kevin Eugene McGuinness, 43, of San Francisco in connection with the Sunday night crash at Broadway and Webster Street in Pacific Heights.
McGuinness, driving a Toyota Tundra pickup, was fleeing from a minor accident about 10 blocks away at Polk and Washington streets when he ran a stop sign and broadsided the cab, authorities said. His blood alcohol level was 0.19 percent, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent, authorities said.
Yellow Cab driver and cabbie activist Zareh Soghikian, 76, of San Francisco, and Duke University student Tyler Brown, 21, of Marion, Mass., were killed when the Tundra hit the cab.
Two other passengers, Brown's half-brother and their friend Michael Giedgowd, were injured. Giedgowd suffered a broken leg and a hip fracture and was in stable condition at San Francisco General Hospital. Brown's half-brother, whose name was not released, suffered cuts and bruises.
McGuinness has two convictions for driving under the influence in Sonoma County and one conviction in San Francisco, officials said.
Court records show that he was arrested in San Francisco by the California Highway Patrol in August 2001 for driving under the influence and was sentenced to home detention and probation in January 2002.
The Department of Motor Vehicles suspended his license in November 2001 because he had an excessive blood-alcohol level, records show, but it is unclear whether he was ever officially notified of the action.
In December 2002, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license. The complaint was later withdrawn; records available Tuesday did not explain why.
McGuinness was driving with an active license Sunday night when the crash happened, DMV records show.
McGuinness' two convictions in Sonoma County happened within the last 10 years, authorities said. Because of the age of those offenses, records were not available.
McGuinness was booked after Sunday night's crash on suspicion of vehicular manslaughter and other charges. With previous convictions for drunken driving, a conviction carries a maximum sentence of 15 years to life in prison.
As authorities pressed their case against McGuinness, family and friends mourned the loss of Soghikian -- a longtime cabdriver activist -- and Brown, a gifted student and activist.
Brown was a double major in biomedical and mechanical engineering at Duke in Durham, N.C., and had recently returned from helping survivors on the tsunami-ravaged Indonesian island of Sumatra, according to the university.
In August, he went to Banda Aceh to rebuild shrimp hatcheries for residents from the nearby village of Lamnga, officials said.
Brown and other students, part of a group known as Engineers Without Borders, used palm fronds and fishing nets to design an aerator to increase shrimp yield and limit erosion of the hatcheries' dirt walls.
He had been excited about the project. "Seeing the villagers using the aerator, it made me feel good to be physically doing something to help," the university quoted him as saying recently. "Up until that point, I hadn't applied my knowledge outside the classroom."
David Schaad, the assistant chairman of civil and environmental engineering at Duke, accompanied Brown and other students to Indonesia.
Brown was a "bright kid with a world full of promise," Schaad said Tuesday. "He was a thoughtful person who engaged life and wanted to look for adventures."
Here's another one...peep, dude already had 10 DUI convictions! No way he should be able to drive...Montana goes big on DUI...this is a good read.
Multiple DUI offenders increasing
By KELLYN BROWN Chronicle Staff Writer
Despite 10 previous DUI convictions, 39-year-old Cresencio Galvan was once again behind the wheel of a car last Saturday morning.
When an officer pulled him over for swerving on West Main Street, Galvan reportedly had a hard time keeping his eyes open.
Later, In Gallatin County's jail, Galvan took a breath test. He had a 0.291 blood alcohol level, more than three times the legal limit, according to the police report.
His subsequent arrest exemplifies a trend in Gallatin County toward DUI offenders repeating the crime over and over again. This is occurring despite the state claiming that it is trying to curtail the problem.
Thirty-five people have appeared in Gallatin County District Court this year so far on felony charges for their fourth -- or more -- alcohol offense. That's seven more than all of last year, according to the Gallatin County attorney's office.
Some of the increase can be attributed to stricter enforcement. But the fact remains, that Montana's DUI laws don't translate into three strikes and you're out.
Galvan remains in jail on $25,000 bail, facing a felony DUI charge -- his 11th.
In Montana, the punishment is a fine of between $1,000 and $10,000, and being turned over to the Department of Corrections' Warm Springs Addiction Treatment Change, or WATCh, for six to 13 months. After that, Galvan will most likely get a suspended prison sentence, and end up on probation.
What's unusual about this is that it's the same penalty he would have received had it been his fourth DUI -- when a drunken-driving offense becomes a felony -- or his eighth, for that matter.
Following Galvan's bail hearing, Deputy County Attorney Todd Whipple said bluntly that Montana's DUI laws are "absolutely not" strict enough.
"They don't sufficiently hold drunk drivers accountable," Whipple said.
------
While Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert agreed, he said the legal history of punishing drunken driving in Montana has traditionally hinged on balancing the state budget "as opposed to looking at crime and punishment."
In 1995, the Montana Legislature finally made a fourth, or subsequent, DUI offense a felony. The penalty: not less than one year, and up to 10 years, in prison.
The problem was that lawmakers gravely underestimated the number of multiple DUI offenders in Montana, which resulted in "hundreds of people the Department of Corrections was not prepared to deal with," Lambert said.
When the Legislature reconvened in 1997, the punishment was adjusted: not less than six months, and up to 13 months, in prison. The reason for the change was pure economics, Lambert said.
Soon, the law didn't require any prison time. During the 2001 session, again for budget considerations, it was proposed that the penalty for felony DUI be reduced from 13 months of treatment to six months.
Lambert and Bill Muhs, the former president of the Gallatin County Montanans Against Drunk Driving hurried to Helena to argue that "this is not sufficient. It's wrong," Lambert said.
Eventually, lawmakers reached a compromise, which is the penalty we have today: at least six months of treatment, but up to 13 months, followed by probation and a five-year suspended prison term.
"Nothing but six months is guaranteed," Lambert said
The year following the 2001 session, the national Mothers Against Drunk Driving gave Montana an "F" for DUI prevention, or lack thereof.
"We deserved an F from MADD," Lambert said. "We barely fought off making an 11th DUI a misdemeanor."
------
It is not unusual for a state to empty its prison to reduce costs, but Lambert said that, in Montana, it goes further than that.
"I think the culture needs to change," Lambert said. "Montana prides itself on individuality, but in regard to drinking and driving that has to change."
And it has to start at the state Legislature, which has the discretion to give county judges the freedom to lock up multiple DUI offenders -- but that hasn't happened.
Whether this is the answer to thwart a seemingly growing problem is debatable.
Deputy Public Defender Mariah Eastman pointed out that if an individual gets a third DUI, their chances of getting a fourth is 80 percent.
Yet Eastman, who worked as the court coordinator for treatment court until recently, said it is too early to determine if the state's recently revamped treatment program will reduce that number.
People are just starting to come out of WATCh, and the Director of the DOC Bill Slaughter is optimistic about early results.
He said 79 percent of the people released from the program have remained sober.
But Slaughter acknowledged, "The jury is still out a bit."
What is clear is that WATCh is cheaper and more to the point than prison when it comes to punishing drunken drivers.
"We learned (prison) is the worst place to treat alcohol abusers," Slaughter said.
And although WATCh is an intensive alcohol-treatment program where inmates spend 16 hours a day in therapy, Slaughter said it does save the state money.
"The most expensive bed is a prison bed," Slaughter said.
Besides, he said, the DOC couldn't handle 1,500 more prisoners if the law was changed to include mandatory prison terms.
------
The jury is also still out on Galvan.
Will his 11th DUI be his last, with previous convictions in Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado? Can Montana's WATCh program help a man where so many others have failed?
Eastman said she still supports treatment programs, especially since felony DUI offenders are becoming younger and younger.
But Lambert said the problem is that the current law is a one-size-fits-all approach to drunken drivers. Prosecutors and judges are handcuffed, since an individual's criminal history cannot be considered when sentencing a DUI offender, he said.
"The Legislature is more concerned about the cost of incarcerating, opposed to the risk of offenders," Lambert said.
Something has to give, unless the WATCh program is as effective as lawmakers hope.
But the jury is still out on that one, too.
Multiple DUI offenders increasing
By KELLYN BROWN Chronicle Staff Writer
Despite 10 previous DUI convictions, 39-year-old Cresencio Galvan was once again behind the wheel of a car last Saturday morning.
When an officer pulled him over for swerving on West Main Street, Galvan reportedly had a hard time keeping his eyes open.
Later, In Gallatin County's jail, Galvan took a breath test. He had a 0.291 blood alcohol level, more than three times the legal limit, according to the police report.
His subsequent arrest exemplifies a trend in Gallatin County toward DUI offenders repeating the crime over and over again. This is occurring despite the state claiming that it is trying to curtail the problem.
Thirty-five people have appeared in Gallatin County District Court this year so far on felony charges for their fourth -- or more -- alcohol offense. That's seven more than all of last year, according to the Gallatin County attorney's office.
Some of the increase can be attributed to stricter enforcement. But the fact remains, that Montana's DUI laws don't translate into three strikes and you're out.
Galvan remains in jail on $25,000 bail, facing a felony DUI charge -- his 11th.
In Montana, the punishment is a fine of between $1,000 and $10,000, and being turned over to the Department of Corrections' Warm Springs Addiction Treatment Change, or WATCh, for six to 13 months. After that, Galvan will most likely get a suspended prison sentence, and end up on probation.
What's unusual about this is that it's the same penalty he would have received had it been his fourth DUI -- when a drunken-driving offense becomes a felony -- or his eighth, for that matter.
Following Galvan's bail hearing, Deputy County Attorney Todd Whipple said bluntly that Montana's DUI laws are "absolutely not" strict enough.
"They don't sufficiently hold drunk drivers accountable," Whipple said.
------
While Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert agreed, he said the legal history of punishing drunken driving in Montana has traditionally hinged on balancing the state budget "as opposed to looking at crime and punishment."
In 1995, the Montana Legislature finally made a fourth, or subsequent, DUI offense a felony. The penalty: not less than one year, and up to 10 years, in prison.
The problem was that lawmakers gravely underestimated the number of multiple DUI offenders in Montana, which resulted in "hundreds of people the Department of Corrections was not prepared to deal with," Lambert said.
When the Legislature reconvened in 1997, the punishment was adjusted: not less than six months, and up to 13 months, in prison. The reason for the change was pure economics, Lambert said.
Soon, the law didn't require any prison time. During the 2001 session, again for budget considerations, it was proposed that the penalty for felony DUI be reduced from 13 months of treatment to six months.
Lambert and Bill Muhs, the former president of the Gallatin County Montanans Against Drunk Driving hurried to Helena to argue that "this is not sufficient. It's wrong," Lambert said.
Eventually, lawmakers reached a compromise, which is the penalty we have today: at least six months of treatment, but up to 13 months, followed by probation and a five-year suspended prison term.
"Nothing but six months is guaranteed," Lambert said
The year following the 2001 session, the national Mothers Against Drunk Driving gave Montana an "F" for DUI prevention, or lack thereof.
"We deserved an F from MADD," Lambert said. "We barely fought off making an 11th DUI a misdemeanor."
------
It is not unusual for a state to empty its prison to reduce costs, but Lambert said that, in Montana, it goes further than that.
"I think the culture needs to change," Lambert said. "Montana prides itself on individuality, but in regard to drinking and driving that has to change."
And it has to start at the state Legislature, which has the discretion to give county judges the freedom to lock up multiple DUI offenders -- but that hasn't happened.
Whether this is the answer to thwart a seemingly growing problem is debatable.
Deputy Public Defender Mariah Eastman pointed out that if an individual gets a third DUI, their chances of getting a fourth is 80 percent.
Yet Eastman, who worked as the court coordinator for treatment court until recently, said it is too early to determine if the state's recently revamped treatment program will reduce that number.
People are just starting to come out of WATCh, and the Director of the DOC Bill Slaughter is optimistic about early results.
He said 79 percent of the people released from the program have remained sober.
But Slaughter acknowledged, "The jury is still out a bit."
What is clear is that WATCh is cheaper and more to the point than prison when it comes to punishing drunken drivers.
"We learned (prison) is the worst place to treat alcohol abusers," Slaughter said.
And although WATCh is an intensive alcohol-treatment program where inmates spend 16 hours a day in therapy, Slaughter said it does save the state money.
"The most expensive bed is a prison bed," Slaughter said.
Besides, he said, the DOC couldn't handle 1,500 more prisoners if the law was changed to include mandatory prison terms.
------
The jury is also still out on Galvan.
Will his 11th DUI be his last, with previous convictions in Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado? Can Montana's WATCh program help a man where so many others have failed?
Eastman said she still supports treatment programs, especially since felony DUI offenders are becoming younger and younger.
But Lambert said the problem is that the current law is a one-size-fits-all approach to drunken drivers. Prosecutors and judges are handcuffed, since an individual's criminal history cannot be considered when sentencing a DUI offender, he said.
"The Legislature is more concerned about the cost of incarcerating, opposed to the risk of offenders," Lambert said.
Something has to give, unless the WATCh program is as effective as lawmakers hope.
But the jury is still out on that one, too.
Any blanket statement like yes or no is dangerous. Of course in this '3 strikes' era it is easy for us to say 'You do the crime, you do the time!'
However, I believe you need to look at every case individually and JUDGE accordingly. Should the .09 college student with no record recieve the same punishment as the 37 yr. old wino with a prior DUI who blows 2.0? (simply as an example)...
However, I believe you need to look at every case individually and JUDGE accordingly. Should the .09 college student with no record recieve the same punishment as the 37 yr. old wino with a prior DUI who blows 2.0? (simply as an example)...
I believe they get off too easily there is too much of a risk when getting behind the wheel of a car when under the influence. Its not fair that people die because of other peoples recklessness. I know that accidents are always possible even when not drinking but if thats the case then why would you want to increase the chance of injuring someone or yourself. I know that its a risk everytime you get in a car but driving under the influence is irresponsible and if you cant handle the responsibility of being a safe driver or at least as safe as one can be then you shouldnt be driving at all. period.
^^^or if u wanna live...two kids that i know just died saturday from drunk driving. they were doing 70 in a ford f-150 and hit a tree. the driver and the passenger died. two kids in teh back were in critical condition, and one of the kids in the back had just been in another accident with his best friend, who died after being thrown from the bed of a pick up truck.
^^^yeah, it is, but im not too sure aobut that jumping out of the window...i heard that from a close source, but the local paper said he was "hanging" from teh window...like, when they found him, he was half in and half out. and thats the same kid whos best friend died from another drunk driving accident.
Man DUI is way to fuckin dangerous man its not that fuckin important to get home that night if you that drunk ...SHit pisses me off...i let my friend drive home drunk by himself cuz I aint about to get in a car with his slurrin ass and risk my or anyone elses life for wanting to get home that night ..shit can wait it aint that fuckin crutial to go out get drunk and make it in the same night....what is that risk really being taken for?
FUN? yah reall fuckin fun to be splattered on the side of the road...but still hella people gonna do it...why ? cuz they are too fuckin ignant to take some real responsibility in thier lifes or the lives of others around them.
FUN? yah reall fuckin fun to be splattered on the side of the road...but still hella people gonna do it...why ? cuz they are too fuckin ignant to take some real responsibility in thier lifes or the lives of others around them.
there will never be no right or wrong answer to this...its such a duble standard its sick..honestly I dont know how this should be dealt with....I wish there was no liqor ever made
i got a dui(high not drunk) bought a lawyer..pleased to wreckless took a fine....$1000.....$1500 to lawyer...$2500 so far and 2 years probation equaling to $4500..enough not to get caught again..I think it was harsh but who wouldnt
but then again if someone who was drunk or under the influence killed someone i loved id want that fucker ripped into shreds..who wouldnt right?
Im just grateful that Ive never heart or killed anyone under the influence while driving,will that stop me everytime when I go to drive...recently is has but I know it wont always..I wish there were automatic cars that could take a person place to place with no problems but thats dreaming
I hate this world..but I think people should be shot for DUIs just to set an example and make people not do it..its not worth it...you could hurt someone or you couldnt..its just luck/fate/god(or whatever you want to call it's choice)
i got a dui(high not drunk) bought a lawyer..pleased to wreckless took a fine....$1000.....$1500 to lawyer...$2500 so far and 2 years probation equaling to $4500..enough not to get caught again..I think it was harsh but who wouldnt
but then again if someone who was drunk or under the influence killed someone i loved id want that fucker ripped into shreds..who wouldnt right?
Im just grateful that Ive never heart or killed anyone under the influence while driving,will that stop me everytime when I go to drive...recently is has but I know it wont always..I wish there were automatic cars that could take a person place to place with no problems but thats dreaming
I hate this world..but I think people should be shot for DUIs just to set an example and make people not do it..its not worth it...you could hurt someone or you couldnt..its just luck/fate/god(or whatever you want to call it's choice)
i got a dui in february, and i deserved it. i drove around drunk like every day for about 4-5years, never drove recklessly because i was tryna avoid being caught, but i placed hella peoples lives at risk being selfish an irresponsible. i crashed a couple times (into a fence, a ditch) but never hit anyone else, but imagine the impact it would have had on my life if i killed a little kid or somethin. The fines class and all that shit was wack but it was aenough of a pain in the ass,to keep from drinking and driving at all. I blew .13 and was on my way to the bar, just before last call,when i was pulled over. when your bent you dont really consider the consequences. About the people who kill someones and have like five prior dui's, how can you physically stop an adult,from buying alcohol,and driving? These cats are alcoholics that drive without liscence,insurance,etc. If you can buy alcohol legally, how do you stop that person from driving,if they are hell bent on doing it? (besides breath lock car thingie?) a lot of these people mob buckets that cost like 200 bucks so if they get stopped and their car gets impounded they just buy another and drive and drink some more.