Marketplace    Homes    Jobs    Classifieds    Coupons
[SeMissourian.com] Fog/Mist ~ 42°F  
River stage: 33.56 Rising
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Print Email link Respond to editor Read comments (5) Share link

Mo. debates ways to handle drunken driving cases

Thursday, November 5, 2009

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Officials examining how Missouri handles drunken driving cases agreed Wednesday that record keeping must improve to ensure drunken drivers get the right punishment and are less likely to repeat.

More than a dozen prosecutors, judges, activists, law officers and state officials met at a summit convened by Gov. Jay Nixon to discuss ways Missouri can improve how drunken drivers are prosecuted, punished and treated. The Democratic governor called the meeting after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch highlighted how record-keeping problems have made it difficult to know the number of times a motorist has been convicted of impaired driving.

The Post-Dispatch in a series of articles reported that many repeat offenders are not charged with felonies when that is an option. Also, courts in the St. Louis area frequently granted plea bargains that kept the cases off criminal records.

Nixon said Wednesday that Missouri's current system is unacceptable and called for changes to improve transparency and consistency and to ensure offenders receive the proper punishment. He called for proposals that would fill gaps and truly fix problems in handling driving while intoxicated offenses.

"Too often the most dangerous, chronic DWI offenders are allowed to keep driving, keep offending and keep endangering or killing innocent drivers," Nixon said.

Lawmakers are expected to consider the changes during their annual session that starts in January, and a version is likely to be filed even before the session begins. Some previous efforts by lawmakers to change Missouri's drunken driving laws have created problems, which includes new elements that conflict with older parts of the law.

After several hours spent offering suggestions and critiques Wednesday, there were few universally accepted ideas for how to fix the system. Those ideas included:

-- Promoting special drunken driving courts that help offenders deal with substance abuse issues.

-- Requiring impaired driving cases to be prosecuted in state courts by county prosecutors instead of as municipal ordinance violations.

-- Limiting the penalties able to be traded away in plea agreements.

-- Establishing a public database to track drunken drivers, modeled after Missouri's sex offender registry.

-- Towing people's cars to limit driving.

-- Using ignition interlock devices that won't allow the vehicle to be started unless the driver is sober instead of suspending or revoking driver's licenses.

The two common themes were that the system for keeping track of drunken driving offenses needed to be streamlined and improved and the conclusion that threatening the loss of driving privileges for those who refuse alcohol breath tests was no longer working.

Morley Swingle, the prosecutor for Cape Girardeau County, said improving the record system should be a priority.

"If nothing else is done, the No. 1 thing is to make finding DWI priors so easy that even a caveman could do it," Swingle said.

Drivers in Missouri are required to submit to alcohol breath tests when requested by law officers. Those who refuse are supposed to lose driving privileges for one year. Currently, that's an administrative penalty handled by the state Department of Revenue and not a criminal one.

But several participants said lawmakers should consider setting up criminal penalties for refusing a breath test because more motorists are refusing and many are not losing driving privileges.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How about a whole new approach?

Since most repeat drunken drivers are alcoholics (according to most councelors), how about throwing the old system "out the window"?

If drunken drivers are alcoholics, then lets call it an illness, just like appendicitis or any other illness, only this case the state takes over treatment!

Just as a "fer instance" lets say first time offenders get 6 weeks of "dry out time" in a state hospital (not free either) charge them the actual rate it costs the state to house mentally ill patients.

During that 6 weeks (which is not punishment, it's treatment) they are kept "dry" and forced to watch really gory drunk driving accidents, and attend counseling sessions. Make it so they can't be fired from their jobs (just like military service call ups). For second time offenders, let's make it say (6 months of the same "treatment") and for those really hard cases, 1 year of the same treatment!

If you decriminalize drunken driving, then a smart lawyer can't get you off, you are either sick or you are not, and the diagnosing tool is the breathalyzer, pretty hard to argue with one of those, if I am not badly mistaken.

Believe me, if I had to do 6 weeks in a mental hospital completely dry and forced to watch really gory drunk driving accident films and attend counseling every day, I would never even want to smell alcohol again, for the rest of my life!

-- Posted by Walkenstick on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 5:25 AM

Walkingstick;

You must have never had an alcholic problem. If a real alcholic is put in somewhere like that unless he really wants to stop he will find ways top get something to get his fix. When he gets out he will be back to the same old stuff. i'm speaking from experience I was just like this at one time but thanks to god and some really dear friends I don't have to be that way anymore.

-- Posted by newman90 on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 8:07 AM

newman90: Yes , as a recovering alcoholic I have to agree , there was no place I could not get something to drink, snort , shoot , or smoke .

Also think it should not be de-criminalized as jail is what finally made me realize I had to change (not the 1st time in jail) but finally.

Prisons now have some good treatment places as they are realizing a large percentage of their population is there on account of substance abuse. My experience & opinion..........

-- Posted by rockman54 on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 11:54 AM

I say raise the legal limit to .10

The current .08 is like 2 beers and these gung-ho sticklers around here will lock you up in a minute.

-- Posted by grandma72 on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 5:35 PM

All I know is...it works in Minnesota...maybe we need to tighten up security in our mental hospitals.

Never had an alcohol problem, but been in jail a few times...never did much to stop me...that is where you meet the hard core guys...at least in mental hospital you are not surrounded by hard core criminals who teach you how to do everything illegal!

-- Posted by Walkenstick on Thu, Nov 5, 2009, at 7:19 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com, semoball.com, or shethemagazine.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists: