TheAgitator.com
Instant Karma’s Gonna’ Get You
Wednesday, February 25th, 2004Wisconsin’s state Attorney General, who pushed hard for a .08 BAC limit in the state, was arrested for drunken driving Monday night. We don’t know what her BAC was, because she refused to take a breath test (by the nature of the accident, I’d guess it was far higher than .10).
Wisconsin is one of 37 states to adopt a measure championed by MADD that’s truly one of the most hysterical drunk driving laws on the books — the state actually imposes a harsher sentence for refusing to take a roadside breath test than it does for taking one and failing it. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the unique characteristics of the drunk driving “menace” allow for such a bastardization of the Fifth Amendment. Of course, the court cited the bloated, blatantly misleading MADD-NHTSA “alcohol-related” fatality figures in determining drunk driving’s uniquely menacing characteristics.
So instead of a first-offense drunken driving charge, which would have resulted in a fine, Ms. Lautenschlager will be automaticially convicted of refusing the breath test (which also means she’ll be automatically convicted on a second charge of drunk driving). Her license will be suspended for a year, she’ll be fined, and she’ll be forced to undergro a year-long alcohol treatment program, at her expense.
I do feel bad for her, especially if she doesn’t have an alcohol problem (of course, state government’s and MADD’s definition of an alcohol problem is probably a little different from yours and mine). But perhaps the experience will cause her to think a little more about the implications of the get-tough D&D policies she endorses, and perhaps she’ll put a little more thought into whether these kinds of laws really reduce enough harm to offset the loss of liberty they effect, not to mention how much it costs to enforce them.
Not that I’m an advocate for drunk driving of course, but I talked with a county prosecutor in my county and he said that it is a lot more difficult to convict someone if they don’t submit to the breathalyzer. Just don’t produce evidence that would tend to incriminate you (don’t act stupid, don’t be videotaped slurring your speech, etc.), and you too can say that you “fell asleep while driving.” Also, don’t fu**ing kill anyone if you’re going to drive after having a drink or two: that’s the main message in this. But, the lack of reasonable behavior is what lead our nanny state to move in this direction, not that it’s right or anything.
But perhaps the experience will cause her to think a little more about the implications of the get-tough D&D policies she endorses, and perhaps she’ll put a little more thought into whether these kinds of laws really reduce enough harm to offset the loss of liberty they effect, not to mention how much it costs to enforce them.
And maybe she’ll think about obeying the laws she is sworn to uphold.
Note her “apology”: “While driving home, I fell asleep and drove off the road, and was subsequently cited for operating a vehicle while intoxicated….”
Not: “I was drinking alcohol before I got behind the wheel and stupidly decided to drive home. I was so drunk, in fact, I passed out. Only by the grace of god did I not kill anyone or myself.”
Her apology is akin to “I’m sorry for what happened.” or “I’m sorry if anyone was offended.” Right. True politician.
the problem of drunk and dangerous driving is i think this: the pedestrian / cyclist / non – car driving party in a crash is always going to come off worse. Even if it’s not their fault. Things would be a little fairer, if we could re-design cars so that they are less safe for the occupiers – i’m certain ALL drivers would take a little more care if there was a large metal spike protruding towards their heads from the dashboards.
or maybe design cars so they are driven in a lying down, face forward, head sticking over the front of the bonnet style.
Situation 1: A friend of mine gets really drunk at an outdoor party. He goes to his car afterwards realizing he is too drunk to drive. He puts his keys in the ignition to play some music as he snoozes it off. Cops see his car a few hours later. He is convicted of drunk driving. He is fined $ 1,500. He has to attend AA meetins for 6 months. He loses his license for 1 year. He is not able to change to a 6 figure job because the company happens to have an intensive background check. He cannot (technically) rent a car for 3 years.
Situation 2: I wake up one morning and my car is stolen. A day later the cops find the two guys in my car riding around. There fingerprints all over the fucking car. The screwdriver used to break the steering shaft in my car (i actually still have that screwdriver). I miss several hours of work over the next several months going to their trial for which they never show up. I find out they are not being charged for grand theft because it is to difficult to convict on that charge unless someone actually saw them still my car. They charge them with unlawful possession of a vehcile (a misdimeanor). I have decided that I will ignore future subpeonas. The penalty for whhich is a warrant for my arrest by a U. S. Marshall. In the end I will be the criminal
Now, thats our justice system people.
Notice the extreme contrast between Situation 1 justice and Situation 2 Justice.
See the power oranizations like MADD have over our justice system and the constitution.
lol, still.
I meant steal.
She says she made a terrible mistake… uh, no, you made a terrible decision.
Michael, that’s tragic. Sorry dude.
This is what zero tolerance gets us, unreasonable penalties.
This is what zero tolerance gets us, unreasonable penalties.
Amen to that.
I live in Madison and I can’t stress enough that there is a drunk-driving cult in Wisconsin. I have never heard anyone other than myself (who grew up in Pennsylvania and bought his first car while living in Maryland) refuse a drink on the grounds that s/he would later be driving. Absolutely the only reason that this is news is because she crashed. Thousands of people get home from their Wisconsin jobs every night, drunker than Peg was, without incident. That, not the potential legal consequences, is the scandal.
I hope Radley would agree with me when I say that the most effective way to prevent stupid decision-making in the presence of alcohol is lifelong education of the effects of alcohol. That means no legal drinking age. That means parents taking responsibility for educating kids about alcohol rather than punishing them for using it. That means still stricter drink-driving laws, enforced less frequently because people will better understand their own limits and only the worst offenders will try to drink and drive.
Until then, too many Wisconsinites make a living from the production and consumption of beer to expect anything different. It’s a little futile to criticize the drunk-driving laws when so much else about our relationship with alcohol is broken.
Ha Haah!!!
Maybe she’ll think about not being a hypocrite. Maybe she’ll hand over her keys next time, or call a cab. She’s damn lucky she didn’t kill anyone.
The laws as they are now are ridiculous and completely ineffective, I agree – But – people need to have some protection against such blatantly dangerous behavior. The drunken fool who killed my 14-year old cousin (not that age matters) and maimed my aunt and uncle got nothing more than a license suspension. I find that offensive and wrong in a way that I don’t even have words for.
There’s a solution somewhere, I just don’t know what it is.
File This Under HA!
Coons will appreciate this one… Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager stated to police that she fell asleep while driving, and ran her car off the road. Lautenschlager then declined to take a breathalyzer test on the spot, which changes her…
Perfect karma. Perfect!
She’s a lawyer, she’ll look for (and probably find) a way to weasel out of it. That’s another problem with these nanny style laws….they usually only apply to people who don’t have the resources to avoid them.
MP -Drunk driving laws focus on prevention not responsibility.
So after a drunk driver has killed someone we can do something. A cop shouldn’t stop a potentially fatal accident by arresting a drunk driver, instead the courts should really punish him/her after the fact. I’m sure the victims loved ones will get a lot of comfort from that.
Bob,
Perhaps you should start by reading Radley’s paper on the subject…
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-501es.html
Otherwise, it is simply a matter of philosphy. You’re willing to force the great majority to give up their liberties in order to allow the nanny state to pro-actively “prevent” irresponsible actions of a minority. I’m not.
Bob, Think about it. Her prevention law couldn’t even work on her! AND she will try to get off lightly! avoiding responsibility. Lets go to the prevention extreme and make more laws that even the lawmakers ignore because they know they can lawyer thier way through the justice system. Of course a cop should stop a drunk driver! But how about a sliding scale here. .08 is a joke, I am sure the BAL’s are much higher for the average alcohol related accident. You get a higher penalty for speeding 30 MPH over the limit vs 10 MPH because you are more reckless. I can go to dinner with the wife, have 2 beers and get penalized as hard as a staggering drunk. That’s not right.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the government is not the only entity that can take away liberty. Drunk drivers take away my liberty. Period. If the government randomly killed thousands of people a year just because they chose to be too close to a road, I would hope libertarians would have a problem with this.
With drunk driving, it’s not the government taking away liberty- it’s the drunk drivers who kill or maim others. Just because private citizens are taking away the liberty of others, somehow libertarians don’t see this as a problem.
I was hit by a drunk driver when I was 22. I had whiplash for about 6 months, and a concussion. I still occasionally feel neck pain (7 years later). This was certainly not a major DUI accident. However, I feel that the amount of liberty that driver took from me is greater than the effect of the government’s coercive Social Security system. I want the government to use its power to protect me from drunk drivers. I have more liberty because the state prosecutes drunk drivers. Drunk drivers have less liberty. That’s not my problem, it’s theirs.
Steve,
That’s the exact same logic behind the anti-smoker’s crusade. What you are advocating for is a nanny state, where instead of punishing people for their actions, we “prevent” things from occurring. Well, prevention is impractical and leads to a large erosion in freedom, as it involves giving the state enormous powers over your life to proactively “prevent” you from doing something stupid.
Remember that many drug warriors aren’t necessarily against drugs, but they are trying to prevent people from doing the “bad things that drugs lead to”, since supposedly most drug users turn to crime. Look where that has gotten us.
We’d all like a perfect world where nobody f*cks up or makes bad choices. It is not practical to expect the gov’t to proactively prevent this without having a police state. Thus, you setup a society of consequences for actions, and let people live their lives.
I say we eliminate all dui/dwi laws. You just make the punishment for vehicular manslughter the death penalty. We could have a 0 recidivism rate.
Karma ran into her dogma
“Wisconsin’s state Attorney General [Peg Lautenschlager], who pushed hard for a .08 BAC limit in the state, was arrested for drunken driving Monday night. We don’t know what her BAC was, because she refused to take a breath test (by…
Forget the ‘don’t take the test and claim you fell asleep’ thing…
There are different statutes for DUI (at least in PA).
One just states that the person was under the influence to the point where he/she was incapable of safe driving (No BAC needed). A crash is considered to be prima facie evidence of this if a driver is at all suspected of being under the influence.
The other charges deal with different levels of the BAC.
Here is the way that you get out of DUI combined with a traffic crash: You carry in your vehicle a 1/4 full bottle of Gin (hide it under your seat or something).
After you crash, in the presence of witnesses (wait for them if you must)you get out of your vehicle with your bottle, open it and put it up to your lips and pretend you are guzzling it.
Continue holding that bottle, and don’t say a word to anyone unless it is something to the effect that ‘I’m so worked up… I need a drink to calm my nerves.’ Of course, remain OUTSIDE of your vehicle from the time you do this until the police arrive.
When interviewed, you fell asleep and didn’t have a drink until after you got out of the vehicle, etc. etc. Also, take the blood test so that you don’t automatically get penalized for a refusal.
You will be found not guilty as there is a reasonable doubt as to if you were at all intoxicated while in control of the vehicle.
Of course, this is all if you don’t mind being a cheat and a liar who doesn’t want to take responsibility for your actions.
Boris
I ride a motorcycle. What’s a fender-bender to you is a death sentence to me.
I’d like to see everyone with a BAC over the legal limit (whatever that limit may be)–or who refuses to take the test–take a quick bullet in the back of the head. No trial required.
I don’t drive after more than two drinks in my state. It’s not hard.
I took my car into the garage the other day, and they had in one of the brand new Audi S4 4.2. This car has been electronically limited to 155 mph by audi – are they infringing your freedom by limiting speed like this??? Maybe boys with their toys actually do need a nanny like this?
Michael, your bullet in the head for refusal to take a breathalizer agenda is just a wee bit overboard, don’t you think? Here’s a more practical solution: buy yourself a car.
I get a real kick out of you people who have all these opinions about things you know nothing about. The drunk driver who kills someone doesnt kill the person on purpose. Its an ACCIDENT and if you dont believe me look up the word ACCIDENT in the Websters dictionary. You have all these people who loose a loved one to some drunks careless actions and they want to put them away in prison like they did it on purpose. Get a grip! There is a saying that friends dont let friends drive drunk. Now wouldnt that mean that people obviously realize that these drunks are in no condition to make a rational decision on there own? I would have to say yes! But then they kill someone and we want to treat them like they intentionaly killed them. A person can be speeding or on the phone and we dont put them away for a long time. Do you think they dont realize they are doing something that could kill someone,or are we just so brainwashed by groups like MADD that we cant see beyond the truth of what happened? These people dont intend to kill someone! You people would just like to think this way because it helps you sleep better to look at them as killers and not someone who made a decision while under the influence of something besides themselves. There are things like ignition interlock devices that could be put on these cars to prevent the drunk driver from killing someone. We just dont use them because the state makes way to much money off of tickets and im sure the insurance companies would be a little upset if we started to use them. Not to mention MADD who made $44,000,000 last year. You can not leave a decision to drink and drive up to a person who cant even say there ABC’s or even walk a straight line. Its just plain stupid to keep over crowding our prisons with these people who obviously have a problem. For those of you who need to be better informed of this situation go to Getmadd.com you will be very surprised at what you will read. Or you could go to RIDL.com its also a good site to get some real facts from. Dont get me wrong a person who causes the death of another person should be put in prison for awhile but lets be realistic. There was a man named James Washington who was just sentenced to 10 years for shooting a guy TWICE and killing him. There was another man named Lorenso Amos who just got 7 years for stabbing a guy and killing him in a drug deal gone bad. Now we come to Eric Stearn a drunk driving attorney who got 13 years for killing a 6 year old little boy. This man not only has to live with the fact he killed a little boy but he also gets to sit in a prison cell and think about it for 13 years. All I have to say now is IGNITION INTERLOCKING DEVICES! Think about it now because once someone kills your loved one while driving drunk it will be to late. And for the men and women at MADD who think giving these long prison sentences are going to deter people from drinking and driving. I just have to ask, hows that going? Not so good from what I can see. Maybe its time for a different strategy. But God for bid we use those interlock devices thats to darn simple. Where would all the money come from to make sure your president made that $200,000 a year salary. You people really need to go to those sites I mentioned it will make you want to be sick!!!!!!!!!!
This site is excellent!!! No one had to read my post before it got to be on here. Its about time someone stood up for the freedom of speach. Keep up the good work Radley!!