Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That isn't that lenient. The premeditated, intentional killing of someone will only get you 20 yrs (min) in some states. Murder 2 in FL starts at 16 yrs and those guys got nearly that much time.
Yes is lenient. In CA many have gotten life when DUI involves death.
In both cases I mentioned it took close to 3yrs for the trial, the ones who did the killing were out and about.
FL is a joke in general when it comes to crime. Unless of course someone gets caught with a bag of weed, than you're looking at hard time.
There is another case in FL where a guy has driven drunk twice and killed people both times. First time he got off scott free, second time he did it he had a car stopped at traffic light that killed all 3 passengers.
I can't imagine a struggling single Mom or something having to deal with this too.
None of us should drink and drive, but most single moms should not even be spending money on booze to begin with, much less drinking enough to be impaired.
What happens to the kids, especially if they are in the car with her when she is arrested?
Fines are harsh to make all of us fear getting a dui. I think that's a very good plan. I never have more than one drink when I go out, because I'd be sunk with a dui.
I'm old enough (69) that I can recall when drunk driving laws weren't so strict. There was a time, from age 25-35, when I didn't fear a dui. They were rare, and the penalty wasn't that harsh. I had club meetings weekly, and I almost always drove home (1-2 miles) drunk -- as did half the guys who went to the meetings. We were all lucky that none of us was ever in an accident or got a dui ticket. As dui tickets became more common, most of us quit drinking and driving.
Years ago, my brother used to go out after work and have a "few" beers with his fellow workers, then drive home. One night after one of these after work social hours he was driving home, and as he exited the interstate he ran into the back of a car stopped at the end of the ramp, pushing it across a highway and down a steep grade. (I believe this was in the mid 70s.) He happened to know the highway patrolman who came to the scene, and the patrolman sent him home. It scared the dickens out of my brother, because he knew he could have injured or killed those people he hit. He quit drinking that night. Forty years later and he's never taken another drink. Point is, it took an accident to stop his practice of drinking and driving. Were it today, he'd probably not have been drinking in the first place, because he'd have lost his job with a dui.
"A person convicted for any drinking and driving offence (which includes a refuse to comply offence) faces an automatic Canada-wide driving prohibition, and either a fine or jail sentence and the possibility of probation.
The minimum sentences are:[14][15] For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition,
For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and
For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition."
DUI laws here are too lax we need strict laws. Forget employment and other factors, if you knowingly drink and drive and hurt someone the you should get 25 years. Many drunks are repeat offenders, driving with suspend license and previous DUI charges.
The lowest should be ten years in prison.
The hell with drunk drivers who are losers and danger to society.
Yes is lenient. In CA many have gotten life when DUI involves death.
In both cases I mentioned it took close to 3yrs for the trial, the ones who did the killing were out and about.
FL is a joke in general when it comes to crime. Unless of course someone gets caught with a bag of weed, than you're looking at hard time.
There is another case in FL where a guy has driven drunk twice and killed people both times. First time he got off scott free, second time he did it he had a car stopped at traffic light that killed all 3 passengers.
That is some state.
CA law gives you anywhere from 1 yr (max; misdemeanor) to 10 years (max; felony) depending the on gross vs ordinary negligence finding. Most people would probably qualify under ordinary negligence and be out in a year or less. The people you referenced got 12 & 13 years.
Sure, it's only my opinion. But where do we draw the line? It's easy for people who aren't dealing with this/or don't know someone who is to say it's "not harsh enough". Very easy. But I see this as an unreasonable for a first-time misdemeanor DUI arrest.
And for offenders it will always be very easy to say the punishment is too harsh, no matter how lenient. There will always be someone who tests the limit no matter where the line is drawn.
Seriously. Financially ruined is just the start. There should absolutely be stiff consequences but I feel we have gone too far. Harsh feel good laws from MADD that don't stop the problem, just produce revenue and make peoples lives miserable. The punishment in many states (like here in AZ) does not fit the crime IMO.
In many states you are looking at losing thousands in fines and future insurance increases. Not to mention the cost if you choose to hire an attorney. Also, possible jail time, loss of license or months, and some other requirements. Many people lose their jobs. Or they can't get a job because of a background check. Their entire life is turned upside down... and these are often otherwise good normal people. Not alcoholics, just regular folks who may not even drink alcohol often.... just made one poor choice to drive after drinking.
A first time offender, run-of-the-mill DUI (no accident, injury) makes one bad decision and his/her life is in pieces. I have no sympathy for people who don't learn from their mistakes... but I do believe there should be a second chance and empathy barring no extreme injury or accident was caused.
A first time offender is lucky. It's not one bad decision, it's the first time they got caught.
CA law gives you anywhere from 1 yr (max; misdemeanor) to 10 years (max; felony) depending the on gross vs ordinary negligence finding. Most people would probably qualify under ordinary negligence and be out in a year or less. The people you referenced got 12 & 13 years.
Really? Someone better tell that to the 23 yr old guy who drove drunk and killed 3 people in Anaheim, CA.
He got 51 yrs. Will be eligible for parole after 49 yrs served.
That's just one example.
And unlike FL it didn't take 3yrs to bring him to trial. It was done within a year.
I have lived in both states, there is a big difference in CA vs. FL when it comes to road safety in general.
While CA is liberal on certain issues, driving impaired and killing people isn't one of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Canadian DUI penalties
