Will this case lead Kansas to tougher DUI law?

In Wichita, one of the big stories is about the four-time DUI offender who ran over and killed a mother and her 4-year-old girl. People are furious the guy was driving around, but Kansas law doesn't take away a driver's license permanently until the fifth conviction, the Eagle reports.

In fact, the punishment for a fourth DUI is the same as a second or third -- one year's suspension, followed by one year of a restricted license.

There might be obstacles, though -- the last time people wanted a crackdown, law enforcement balked because they don't have room in the jails. And some legislators aren't sure if lifetime bans are always fair:

Journey said he also expects to hear from those who think it would make sense to impose lifetime license suspensions on all third-time DUI offenders. He said he couldn't support such a proposal.

"It's easy to be mean on criminal justice issues; it's much harder to be smart," he said. "No change in the law is going to change what happens in this case."

Journey said he has had clients who picked up two DUI convictions more than two decades ago, then were arrested a third time after having a few drinks with dinner.

Comments

[Quad Kings]

Wow. Do you think this guy follows the law? You don't suppose he'd drive, even without a license, do you?

Notwithstanding, our setencing guidelines are all screwed-up. Long sentences for drug users is crazy. No wonder there's overcrowding in jails and prisons. We need a total revamping of sentencing systems.

[k]

I think laws against first time offenders are too tough - just hit people in the pocketbook with a huge fine - and then go to the suspension/diversion stuff if they offend again. The way it is now, it's just a money maker for insurance companies and law enforcement.
Serious drunks don't care if they have a license or not, and it's expensive to lock them up. I don't think you're ever going to be able to completely control this. But sentencing guidelines do need to be revisited.

[Truth Teller]

Just say no.

[Sasquach]

The only way to completely end drunk driving is to require ignition interlock systems on all vehicles (and even that isn't foolproof). I really think that the penalties for a first or second offense in KS are reasonable as they are, but anything above that and the penalties really do need to go up quickly.

I also think they never should have gotten rid of the look back limit on old convictions. Up until about 2000 in KS, if you went more than 5 years without getting a DUI, prior offenses were not considered in determining how many DUI's you've had. Maybe kick the time out to 7 years. Someone who had a dui when they were 22 and then got another one when they were 50 is not a pattern offender though (which is what that law was meant to address).

MADD money. That's all it is.

[Nemesis]

First time offenders, it should be diversion and a fine. Second a minimum of $1000 fine and community service and court mandated substance abuse counseling. Third time, prison and a minimum of 3 yrs probation and additional courtmandated dependency counseling. The first priority of government is to protect it's citizens. The person who cannot control them selves and get to the third offense should also get the tag "substance dependent" and have a court mandated breathalyzer starting system installed at their expense in any vehicle they may own for the duration of probation and dependency counseling. Anytime a person causes injury or death, they should face vehicular assault and vehicular homocide.

[Shawn Redmond]

I think that DUI offenders need to place magnets on their vehicles identifying them. That way when a police officer spots them they can pull them over. I think it would discourage repeat offenders. You would have to of course put it in the Computer that the vehicle is supposed to have one. And fine them hefty if they leave it off.

[Kevin]

Ya let's put a bullseye on the back of people that screwed up once and make them pay for the rest of their lives. I've been there and learned my lesson, I was younger and bolder then I've matured since then and now know what impact it has on your life. I do not like to even have a beer with the guys and get behind the wheel. I always make a plan now. People screw up thats a part of life, I do feel that the repeat offenders should have something done to them though. The ingition interlock would be a good thing for anyone over 2 DUI's to have to have it on there.

Think smart, don't drink and drive. Pass the keys.

[Lock Them Up!]

What is really sad about KS DUI penalties is that whether you are looking at your 3rd DUI or your 13th DUI you are only facing a year in jail. (For a 4th or subsequent DUI you will also have 12 months of DOC aftercare but you are still only looking at a year in custody.) The only way to protect people from these habitual repeat offenders is to incarcerate the offender. They aren't going to stop themselves and they pose a huge public safety risk.

[Bill CK]

Make the punishment worse. People do not need to be driving around drunk. Call a cab. Call a friend. No one wants someone drinking then driving. Serious offenders need monetary punishments to go along with losing their license. Have their wages garnished. Then they cannot afford to drink. Force then to go go to AA meetings for a long time. AA isn't a course you graduate from its something that needs to be incorporated into the alcoholics lifestyle.

Since the prisons are overcrouded, put them on house arrest for one year and fine them $2000. Only let them leave the house to go to work. Have the employer give a report on attendence and if they break that then send them to prison for the rest of the year long sentence. The fine paid would easily fund the worker that monitors them.
By doing this the tax payer doesn't have to pay for him and if he drinks it will have to be at home or he will then see the inside of the walls.

[D-man]

I think if you are convicted of a DUI then you should be forced to orally gratify the chairmembers of MADD. because that's what they want all along and it would make you think twice before doing it again.

[Truth Teller]

D-mann - proposing a fate worse than death...

[T]

The quote in the article--Journey said he has had clients who picked up two DUI convictions more than two decades ago, then were arrested a third time after having a few drinks with dinner.--shows part of what it wrong with lawyers, judges and lawmakers.

It doesn't matter how long ago a previous conviction was, nor does it matter that the person got drunk with dinner, rather than at a football game or bar.

He's still driving drunk now, and is a danger to others now.

There is no excuse for driving drunk a second or third time. There should be serious fines, at least $10,000 and confiscation of the vehicle along with jail time. It could be served on weekends to allow the person to keep a job if he happens to have one.

Likewise, driving w/o liability insurance should be confiscation of the vehicle and 30 days in jail. (Proof of a simple lapse, such as a policy which has been expired less than 10 days, can be a defense.)

People are dying because of the stupid games lawyers and judges play. They should be liable for damages in these gross instances, and then you'll see a reversal of their attitudes. Everyone else in society is liable for errors, and the legal industry should be no different. It's solely money driven.

[Susie]

There's a HUGE difference between getting a DUI and murdering a mother and daughter with a 3,000-pound weapon. That should be charged as first-degree murder. He knowingly and willingly got behind the wheel of a car after he'd been drinking. AGAIN.

why dont they just label him a terrorist and detain him indefinately

[NuffSaid]

I believe they should have stiffer laws for DUI's . But that's not going to happen because the main offenders are the law makers.

[KC CIcero]

DUI laws have NOTHING to do with public safety and everything to do with money for insurance companies and posturing by legislators for ill-informed media.

Thirty-five years ago, .15 was the BAC for presumption of intoxication. Thanks to the insurance industry lobbyists -- manipulation the pain of those who lost loved ones in accidents and the ignorance of the sensationalist media -- the presumptive level at which you can loose your license and go to jail is .08 -- just over one-half the old figure.

So, you would expect a decrease in alcohol-related traffic deaths, right? And there is. BUT NO MORE THAN IN NON-ALCOHOL RELATED TRAFFIC DEATHS! (Check out NTSI numbers. Of course, you have to do the math yourself. Nobody gets funded bucking the politically correct.) There have been great advances in safety -- i.e. airbags & seatbelts -- and in emergency medicine. All the misery and expense associated with Draconian DUI laws have had ZERO impact on public safety.

Why? Because while seriously drunk folks are in fact dangerous, a guy blowing .08 or .10 is no more impaired than a tea-totalling Baptist minister talking on his cell phone, or a MADD Mother adjusting the radio.

Hannibal was a great general. But what he found is that after the initial surprise, the Romans learned to turn his war elephants agains him, trampling his own troops. Kansas needs tougher DUI laws like Hannibal needed more elephants

[LJ]

If on the first conviction, DUI offenders are forced to watch a Chiefs game and 24 hours of lowlights, via Clockwork Orange type viewing. DUIs would cease.

[Tom K]

Since "society" doesn't know how to deal with any such thing in an intelligent manner, I don't give a rat's ass.

[retiredgy]

I've always been frustrated that Kansas isn't serious about DUI. I lived for several years in North Carolina where a first DUI will cost you your license for a year, a fine possibly community service. If you're caught driving under that revocation then the local school district gets to auction off your car. How's that for a red neck state.

[D-man]

I'm all for standard punishment for standard crimes. no lawyers bargaining, just if you did this... you get this. that kind of clarity can make someone think twice as long as the punishment is just.

[Tom K]

The people who are caught under revocation are often trying to feed their families. When did Americans become so harsh? When we got the opportunity? When someone egged us on to exercise our worse impulses against other human beings?