It certainly would be just for her to be sentenced to 20 yrs in prison and a $50,000 fine, The news always reports the worst possible sentence, but I have yet to see a convicted criminal get anywhere near the maximum. I don't know why the newspapers and TV bother to report that kind of thing. Unless it looks and sounds good. This woman should be locked up and the key thrown away.

My late BIL had so many DUIs that the state of New Jersey permanently lifted his driver's license. I think many others states do the same.

Of course, not having a license doesn't stop many drunks.

The jails are so overcrowded everywhere, that many of those long sentences end up being only 30-90 days. And then they're back on the road.

There's no real solution. An addict cannot be forcibly cured.

my bil was in jail, married about 3-4 times, won't talk to dh or their dad (he was mil's son) diabetes, so bad he might lose an leg (he won't see dr) litterly "gave" away his dds when former sil remarried...(her dh adopted them)and since an aunt passed he hasn't spoken to anyone...i think if they didn't live on country roads he could have very well had a horrible accident(s)...we just don't talk about him anymore...

In Massachusetts, a person convicted of fifth offense operating under the influence would get a minimum of 2 years in jail (actually 2 years, no probation or parole) and would lose their license for life. (For earlier OUI's, you lose your license for a period of time and can only get it back if you have an interlock device installed on your car, which is basically a breathalyzer hooked into your ignition so you have to blow before you can start.)

Nonetheless, people are routinely charged with 6th offense OUI and later. As Monica_pa said, you can't forcibly cure an addict.

I was in an accident caused by a drunk driver. I was lucky. I only had whiplash. But my car was totaled. He got off without any fine.

Moni

I know a man who has been arrested and jailed and has had his driver's license revoked repeatedly. He still drives when he's out of jail. This has been going on for years and years. I think he's in jail again right now. He'll drink and drive again when he gets out, he always does.

I don't know how much it would increase the cost of a vehicle, but I think they all should be equipped with the device which prohibits the engine from starting if alcohol is detected. I don't know how it's activated, but do know there is such a tool. If even one person were saved from a drunk driver, it would be worth the cost, IMO.

I think that starting with the 1st or 2nd DUI the sentence should be the same as armed robbery. Drive drunk and spend 10 years in jail.

It's really hard to know what can be done. Although no one will ever cure an addict by force, you'd think just maybe it would be possible to persuade them not to get behind the wheel. I guess not, at least not without harsher consequences.

Mwheel, I just read your post. That's an interesting idea. Some people object to seat belt laws as too much government interference, so I imagine they'd have a few things to say about your proposal. I might go for it, though.

It might help if the laws were enforced and these repeat offenders were sentensed to more than what amounts to a slap on the wrist. My DH was head ended by a drunken woman who had hit another vehicle 1/4 mile before she hit my DH. She was obviously intoxicated, but refused a BAC when taken to the hospital. Luckily my DH wasn't hurt, but our brand new pickup sustained a lot of damage. In my area of Pa at that time there were big orange billboards everywhere screaming that "Drunk Drivers Go To Jail". Later the nite of the accident my DH and I were at the police station filing the report. I asked where the drunk driver was. The officer taking the report told me that she was at home. I said "What's wrong with this picture, we're in the police station and the drunk is at home, shouldn't it be the other way around." I think she got off with a fine and some behavior modification classes.

Mwheel, they have the those devices in many states. They have it in Wisconsin at the 2nd & 3rd OWI or DUI (whatever you call it where you are from). While the devices sound like a great idea (and they are) there are a few problems with them and the main one is that the device can be started by anyone that is sober. It is not hard for a drunk to talk someone into blowing into the device for them. The other problem is that they often borrow vehicles from their friends and families that do not have the devices. In Wisconsin, the person has to have all vehicles that they have in their possession. That doesn't stop them from borrowing a vehicle from someone else and hiding it on their property.

While I'm with you about giving someone heavy jail time, I know that there are more dangerous people out there and I also know that we can't really afford to put even more people in prison. It really does cost a lot of money to house a criminal.

Maybe instead they could institute the device on the vehicles and another device that is hooked to their telephones that is set up so that when the device calls, they have to prove their sobriety and progressive discipline for those that decide not to follow the rules.

Forget putting a device on the vehicle, take it away entirely. Clearly people like this cannot be trusted with a car, so they should not be allowed to have one. Period.

My nephew was killed 6 years ago by a drunk driver as he was walking down a road. The driver, also a young 20 year old man got 7 days in jail and $1000.00 fine. 7 days for a life!!!! There is no justice in Canada for victims of drunk drivers!

I have always felt that taking away a license means little to someone who will drive drunk. They aren't following one law so why would they care about the other?

I really think the vehicles need to be impounded. I don't care who it is registered to either. If they are convicted the car goes into impound. They pay the storage or they forfeit the vehicle. Period. None of this but the wife needs it, the kid needs it etc. You should lose your license and the vehicle.

Get caught driving another vehicle drunk or not lose that one too. After they serve their time and pay the fine they can have it back. most won't be able to afford to get it back. No great lose.

Jail is not the answer, gotta hit them where it really hurts. Leave them out to work off their fine and let them take the bus.

I think second or more time drunks should be punished in a meaningful way. I don't think losing their license is enough. Anyone can get in a car without one. Their punishment should be financial-first, they should pay their victims' medical bills. Then increased insurance rates. And a big fine ($100,000 or more)per accident or per person. I don't think jailing them would help-it just costs us innocent taxpayers to build, staff and maintain prisons.My daughter was in a DUI accident when she was 16-she hit a tree, property damage only. She spent one night in jail, then paid a hefty fine of $2000, her car was trashed,got two years probation,including random drug and alcohol checks, had to attend MADD meetings and lost her license until age 21- had to rely on cabs or friends or her parents to drive her around. The judge who sentenced her told her if she ever got in any trouble of any kind, she would spend time in jail. It was a good punishment for a teenager. She is now 22 and has turned her life around-she works full time and is in college. But it should be FINANCIAL PUNISHMENMT FOR ADULTS!

What do other nations do to combat drunk driving?

The reason that all the deterrents to drunk driving don't work for a habitual offender (alcoholic) is because the nature of the problem causes that person to make poor decisions, feel invincible, and have a total disregard for the consequences of their actions.

Put an alcoholic in jail for 30 days and they will dry out physically...but will soon be back with their buds, sharing a few drinks while they console him for how badly the world has treated THEM.