Diesel_Bomber said:
Agreed Biker Bear, except I think you're still being too soft. This is too obviously stupid for any first-offense leniency. First offense remove their license and ability to own a vehicle, period. Second offense, shoot them.
I guess I am a bit soft, because that does seem like going a bit too far. Mind you, I was talking about DUIs where no one was injured or the like; I think if a drunk driver kills someone, it should be prosecuted as 2nd degree murder.
For "uncomplicated" DUIs, something like what Hendo describes would suit me; except I'd make the driving bans 1 year, 5 years and lifetime. (I'll freely admit I'm working from the "three strikes" sort of perspective.) And I'd scale the fines according to the convicted person's income, so they "hurt" a rich celeb as much as they do a blue-collar schlub.
Also - MANDATORY alcohol counseling, possibly including the most gruesome splatter film they can find showing what drunk drivers do to other people. (I don't know if that sort of thing would be useful in turning people away from driving drunk, or if it's just a revenge fantasy. I'm very much a "whatever works" kind of person, and so I'd be behind whatever approach worked best in the real world to prevent people from driving drunk again.)
I'm also fully behind VERY stiff sentences if someone who's had their right to drive lifted because of DUI is found driving anyway. (Though here I might allow a small window for leniency if there's a provable life-and-death emergency that there was no other way to handle.)
Oh, and no exceptions allowing driving to work, etc.; the whole point of the sentence is to make it absolutely crystal clear how rotten it is to not be able to drive in most of the USA. There are a handful of cities where it wouldn't be [San Francisco, Manhattan, etc.] but they're the exceptions.
Cars are tools, but in the hands of a drunk driver they're a deadly weapon. The punishment should be proportionate to that.