A law in Kansas that took effect in 2007 would make it impossible for an individual to ever become an educator with a DUI record. One drinking and driving offense could ban the prospective teacher from the classroom forever in that state. If the individual is already a teacher, the consequences were not so severe. The law appeared to only affect those who were seeking a license.

According to Kansas State Department Education attorney, Rod Bieker, a first-time DUI that did not result in a conviction for the individual would instead generate a diversion agreement. The individual would not be able to become a teacher. While it may not be what lawmakers actually intended, it is a consequence of actions by the individual.

A DUI was added to the list of things that could not be expunged from an individual’s record. The process is intended to protect children from those who have been convicted of a sex crime or other violations that could put children at risk. In the past, it took three DUI convictions to keep an individual out of the classroom. Now, some are arguing that classifying a DUI mistake with that of a rapist is a little harsh.

Another difference is that in previous laws, the third DUI conviction set a ban of up to five years and could have an effect on both licensed and pre-licensed teachers. The changes affect only those seeking a license and the consequence is permanent. It is argued that lawmakers did not intend for this type of consequence to take hold, yet some on the state board believe it should be left as it is written.

Of course the bigger question is whether or not this law will reduce the number of DUIs in the state. Individuals on both sides of the debate may also want to know whether or not it makes the classroom more safe as a result. While it is true that laws need to be in place to reduce the number of DUIs, harsh penalties need to be imposed when mistakes are made and classrooms and students safe need to be kept safe, sound judgment must also be used in these cases.

Proponents of permanent penalties argue that individuals who are charged with a DUI put a life at risk. Opponents argue that teachers are not the only ones who have been found guilty and the law should have consequences across the board, but they should not be permanent. Is there a right answer in this situation? The selection of a designated driver every time makes the question irrelevant.
 

Too often, individuals fail to accept the fact they may have consumed too much alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car. Law enforcement is working to reduce the number of individuals making the choice to drink and drive; one of the tools of prevention is a punishment of jail time.

The good news for those who want to reduce the number of DUI individuals off the streets is that laws are getting tougher in a number of states. For many, laws have been enacted that require the installation of interlock devices on the vehicles owned and driven by DUI offenders who have been caught for the first time. Stiffer fines are also being levied and the penalties for DUI convictions across the board are intensifying.

In a number of states, a minimum jail sentence is now mandatory for a DUI conviction – even if it is a first offense. While there are still some states that leave it to the discretion of the court as to whether or not jail time is necessary in sentencing, a clear trend toward mandatory jail time is easily identified throughout the nation. The only downside is judges still have the discretion to suspend a mandatory sentence if they feel it is appropriate in a particular case.

A judge can also replace mandatory jail time with community service. Some jurisdictions report time served after the arrest as adequate time served, suspending the remainder of the sentence if certain conditions are met. For those who have ever been affected by a drunk driver, such leniency may seem inappropriate, yet judges tend to have the bigger picture in mind when sentencing is handed down.

If discretion was taken away from judges in DUI cases, every offender pleading not guilty would have to come to court for a jury trial. These individuals are less likely to accept a plea deal and would likely fight their charges more often and with more diligence. An already burdened court system could not handle the added strain and an already packed jailhouse would burst at the seams.

This is not to say that DUI offenders should be given a slap on the wrist before the keys are returned. Instead, communities need to continue to narrow the focus on education and prevention. In understanding why individuals drink and drive in the first place, prevention can help to reduce the number of offenders and keep the streets a little safer for the next generation.
 

These theories make sense when applied to some types of crime, such as theft. However, when we try to apply the theories of punishment to substance-related crime, such as driving under the influence (DUI), the results are mixed. Under the theory of “rehabilitation” if we incarcerate an alcoholic, but do not include mental health treatment for dependence on alcohol, the punishment will likely not stop the person from drinking and driving again. In addition, the uncontrollable urge to drink will likely overcome any deterrence achieved behind bars. In fact, when dealing with alcoholic drivers, the only thing usually accomplished by putting them in jail is simply protecting the public from dangerous behavior during the period of incarceration. The following story is a perfect example of how the theory of incapacitation could have been applied to a real-life situation to prevent a tragedy.

Every year hundreds of motorcycle enthusiasts take part in a New Hampshire charity ride in honor of slain policeman Mark W. Knight; proceeds from the ride are donated to a scholarship fund in his name. Forty-year-old Knight was a seven-year veteran of the Windham, NH Police Department and was diagnosed with cancer in 2006. The first Knight Ride was held in June 2007 for the benefit of his family; Knight succumbed to the illness a few weeks later. This year’s Knight Ride was held on June 26, 2010; a cookout was to follow later in Salem.

While proceeding through Hampstead at noon, however, the Ride turned deadly. 46-year-old Randall Stewart of Windham, NH plowed his black SUV into two of the motorcycles participating in the ride. Stewart’s GMC Jimmy had driven across the double yellow line.
Marceline Weaver, age 49, was riding on the back of husband William’s motorcycle when Stewart crashed into it — she died of her injuries. The rider of the other bike, James Souza, was flown by helicopter to a Boston hospital for treatment. William Weaver was treated and released.

Although tragic in and of itself, the circumstances surrounding this particular accident are truly horrifying. Police investigators allege that Steward was driving under the influence (DUI) when he struck the riders. Fellow motorists who were driving behind Stewart alerted 911 dispatchers of the problem even before the crash, claiming that he was driving on the wrong side of the road. Ironically, the procession was being led by a police escort.

If that isn’t bad enough, Stewart had been arrested and released from a Pelham, NH jail just twelve hours earlier, after being charged with DUI, operation of a motor vehicle without headlights, and failure to update his license and registration. Witnesses claim that Stewart had been driving erratically in the dark, with no headlights.

Although there is no evidence that Stewart was still intoxicated when he was released the prior evening, once cannot help but wonder if this tragedy would have occurred if police had detained him instead of letting him drive himself home. Should someone who is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence automatically lose the right to drive, even before going before a judge? Should a person’s “right to drive” trump the safety of the public at large?

Law enforcement officials involved in the incident the night before claim that Stewart was entitled to release as no one had been hurt in that incident. Under New Hampshire law, a person arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs is only subject to forfeiture of his or her plastic license upon arrest. After that, the case is referred to motor vehicle officials to begin the process of suspension. Unfortunately, the process takes thirty days and, in the meantime, the person is entitled to drive on a paper license. So, I ask the good people of New Hampshire, why bother taking the plastic license away at all?

It is also extremely common to impose only light bail in DUI cases where there was no actual physical injury. Further, in New Hampshire, the first three DUI offenses are charged as misdemeanors. Clearly, this state’s priorities need to be re-evaluated.

Officers at the scene of the accident claim that Stewart could not remember his name, had trouble speaking coherently, and could not stand up straight. During his sobriety test, he swayed and was not able to stay on the white line. He was also sweating and had constricted pupils. In his defense, Stewart denies drinking alcohol that day but claims that he had taken Flexoral for neck pain earlier in the day.

Stewart has been charged with aggravated driving under the influence (DUI), negligent homicide and felony reckless conduct. Since bail has been set at $100,000, let’s hope he remains in jail pending his sentencing so that no one else will get hurt.

Community members are already discussing measures that could prevent this type of tragedy from happening again. One suggestion is to impose mandatory impounding of the motor vehicle for a period of time in order to give the person’s body enough time to rid itself of the toxins and become completely sober. Another suggestion is to force DUI offenders to install ignition interlock devices (IID) in the cars that they drive. While this practice is now common place in many states across the nation, it appears to be a novel idea in New Hampshire.
 

What the Otoe County prosecutor did not know is that Hood, a new resident in Nebraska in 2008, was already facing charges for DUI in three other states. Hood was already on the books in South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming, yet the prosecutor had no way to pull that information, which could have kept Hood behind bars.

Now, the prosecutor for the city of Omaha, Nebraska wants to see this change. He aims to make records more accessible so when a person chooses to drink and drive in more than one state, he or she is held accountable for those actions. In Hood’s case, he simply decided he didn’t need the trouble in Nebraska and left.

Apparently, actions such as Hood’s are not unusual. Out-of-state convictions would hold weight in individual cases, yet without a national database to hold this information and make it accessible for prosecutors, repeat offenders taking their actions to different states can easily walk free.

Attorneys retained to defend DUI offenders generally know whether or not the individual has prior arrests for DUIs, but cannot share the information due to attorney/client privilege. Such information could make the different between receiving probation and being charged with a felony.

In a number of cases, the information is learned after a conviction has already been handed down. At that point, it is too late to go back and change the charge against the DUI offender. This is a serious problem as in most states, a first offense often carriers with it no jail time and a simple 60-day license revocation.

Prosecutors can feel like their hands are tied when they cannot determine whether or not someone guilty of a DUI has killed someone in the past as a result of a DUI or has simply accumulated a number of prior DUI convictions. A national database could make this information readily available, closing the loophole for those who decide to take their bad habits to other states.

As for those who have to share the roads with these individuals, a national database would provide additional protection. Will this campaign be met with privacy objections? It is likely this will be one obstacle to overcome, although the argument for lives saved generally holds substantial weight.
 

Perhaps the break-down is in the educational system that fails to properly educate individuals on the dangers of driving under the influence; or perhaps it is even our cocky approach to our own capabilities, believing we can tolerate more alcohol than we can before getting behind the wheel of a deadly weapon.

In the state of Texas, lawmakers continue to battle the issue, especially as the state’s system is in chaos. Heavy-handed punishment laws seem to overwhelm the courts and cause problems in delivering the necessary treatment for those habitual offenders. A close look at the state’s data shows that while the punishments are meant to be harsh to teach a lesson, they actually have done little to prevent alcoholics from returning to the driver’s seat.

A number of those on the side of deciding on and enforcing policy are in favor of a smarter, more streamlined system that would topple Texas from its first place role as the nation’s leader in traffic deaths due to alcohol. While Texas is a proud state that loves the spotlight, this is one area in which state officials would much rather come last.

According to those testifying before the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, the current stiff civil fines and mandatory punishments are prompting those who have been arrested for driving under the influence to reduce plea deals and probation. This is an issue as such agreement would include treatment and alcohol monitoring.

Many of these individuals would rather take their chances with jury trials, resulting in more expensive prosecutions, a 20 percent drop in the rate of convictions since 2005; and a backlog in the courts that numbers 125,000 cases and growing. The system is being referred to as broken and the Senate Committee is looking for alternatives.

The police force in Texas would like to set up temporary roadblocks, known as sobriety checkpoints. They note such checkpoints are generally well-publicized and heighten public awareness. As a result, the public tends to change their behavior and there is an increase in the number of designated drivers.

While this approach is used in 39 other states, Texas lawmakers are hesitant to use the practice, citing the invasion of privacy on innocent drivers who would be questioned and videotaped under the program. Arguments both for and against checkpoints continued as both sides want to see a change, but argue for different elements within those changes.

It in unclear how quickly the state of Texas will be able to make changes to the system that can actually make a measurable difference in the approach on the streets and in the court system. One thing is for sure – any change for the better will save lives.
 

However, the drunk driving problem in California is so much worse than what we hear and read about, as only a small portion of drunk drivers actually get caught. Thus, one should take the number of reported DUI incidents and multiply it by some horrifying number to get an idea of just how dangerous is it to drive in California.

With all of this dangerous behavior going on, you’d think that California lawmakers would take steps to protect the general public and get drunk drivers off the road. While recent changes in the law have intensified punishment for some DUI offenders, the changes do not go far enough. This fact is evidenced by the staggering number of DUI incidents that continue to get reported by the media. But maybe lawmakers are not the ones to blame.
The leniency of California DUI law is most noticeable when it comes to drunk drivers who cause bodily injury or death… especially death. When we hear about a drunk driver who has killed somebody, we often hear that they have gotten off with a relatively light sentence for vehicular manslaughter or some other lesser offense, when what some of them really should be charged with is murder.
I’m not saying that all drunk drivers are murderers. However, I do believe that people who have prior driving under the influence (DUI) convictions and go out and kill somebody really do have some approximation of the state of mind necessary for a murder conviction. In order to be convicted of murder in the drunk-driving scenario, the prosecution must prove that the driver had a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Nowadays, almost every person convicted of a drunk-driving incident must attend one or more alcohol education classes. It is during these classes that individuals learn the dangers associated with drunk driving; some participants are even ordered to report to the local morgue to see first-hand how drunk driving can ruin lives.
Yet, despite being informed of the dangers of getting behind the wheel after drinking, some people continue to drive while intoxicated, and the very unlucky end up killing someone. Given that these people get behind the wheel and drive drunk, despite knowing what could happen, one would think that the “intent” prong of a murder charge could be easily satisfied in the sense that the person showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others. However, at least in California, it appears almost impossible for prosecutors to get these murder charges to stick.
Prosecutor John Mayne has been trying, unsuccessfully, to convict drunk drivers in his district with murder. Elder Yupe, aged twenty-four, rear-ended Yolanda Fuentes, age fifty-four, and caused her car to roll down an embankment; she was pronounced dead at the scene. However, Yupe was sentenced to just thirteen years in prison when convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter; murder charges did not stick.
In February of this year, Jennifer Cowgill, aged twenty-four, was sentenced to fifteen years in prison after being convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter. Cowgill had crashed into a motorcyclist while driving under the influence of alcohol and pot. She fled the scene in her bare feet.
Both Yupe and Cowgill had prior DUI convictions and were initially charged with murder. They faced life in prison. At the time of the accidents they had both been driving on suspended licenses. However, when faced with the prospect of possibly losing at trial, Mayne was unwilling to take the risk that the two would be acquitted of murder. Instead, he offered a plea to gross vehicular manslaughter.
So the question remains – why are prosecutors afraid that juries will not convict drunk drivers of murder? Do juries really fail to see that habitual drunk drivers exhibit a reckless disregard for the safety of others? The short answer is, yes. Juries are typically reluctant to hold drunk drivers to the same standard that they hold those who go out with the intent to kill. This was certainly the case in the trial of Charlyn Wood, who faced second-degree murder charges for a DUI accident that killed two people. Instead of finding Wood, who had also been convicted of DUI nine years earlier, guilty of murder, the jury found her guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter; she will serve only eight years in prison. She killed two people.
Craig Nelson, age twenty-eight, may prove to be the exception to prosecutorial reluctance in DUI cases. Nelson, from Modesto, has been charged with murder after driving into a bicyclist while under the influence of pain-killers and pot. Prosecutors have yet to agree to allow Nelson to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Stay tuned.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/24/2848107/dui-murder-cases-difficult.html
 

When celebrating with friends and family members who are drinking, it is easy to indulge. For those who deal with increased stress during the holidays, they might feel a drink or two relieves pressure. The problem is when the individual decides to drive after those two or more drinks.

In the state of California, 1,029 people died as a result of such decisions in 2008. That same year, another 28,457 people were injured in drunk-driving related crashes in the state. With the widely available information on drinking and driving, why does this activity continue to occur? Why do lives continue to be lost in a completely preventable cause?

One critical issue is that people are making the judgment on whether or not they are able to drive while they are drinking. They are already in a state where they are capable of exercising bad judgment and then they are either getting behind the wheel or a car, or into a car with another intoxicated person who is driving. This has nothing to do with a drinking problem; this is purely a judgment call by someone not in the right frame of mind to be able to make sound decisions.

The study of holiday drunken driving has reached to the national level. New federal traffic safety data from the U.S. Transportation Secretary shows that the daily death toll as a result of drunk driving crashes during the Christmas and New Year’s holiday periods is significantly more than the rest of the year.

Interestingly, industry data shows the highest frequency of drunk driving fatalities do not occur on New Year’s Eve or Christmas Day, but instead on Thanksgiving. For this turkey-focused holiday, the entire weekend poses higher risks for drivers all over the country. Car travel is higher during this weekend than other as an average of 38 million Americans travel more than 50 miles for their celebrations.

Making the choice to drink and then drive is about more than just the risk of a DUI. An individual can recover from a DUI, regain their license and go about their everyday life. If the individual is not caught for a DUI and instead causes a fatality that is not their own, they could face prison time and a life-sentence of guilt over a death that never had to happen.
 

In 2001, nearly 10 years ago, alcohol-related deaths among college students were on the rise. A study showed this increase, as well as a rise in the number of students driving under the influence. While such figures should have given college administrators pause, what is even more surprising is the number of teens drinking long before they ever graduate from high school.

In addition to examining the drinking behaviors of teenagers, studies are also beginning to focus on young adults who have gone directly into full-time employment.

Currently, studies are aiming at the non-college population as much as they are at new students. In fact, some reports show that the number of 18-24 year olds not in college vastly outnumbers the college population and as a result, this population accounts for more alcohol-related problems than college students do.

According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), nearly half of all high school students report they consumed alcohol in the previous 30 day periods. A number of high school students, 34 percent of those surveyed, report they had at least five drinks within a two-hour period in the previous 20 days.

One of the key problems among teens is that the average age of first drink is declining. In fact, of those high school students who do drink, 29 percent report that they began drinking alcohol before they reached the age of 13. Is this a case of high school students trying to appear “cool” to their peers by reporting an early starting age or is this a true problem?

All things considered, it is much safer to assume this reporting is accurate or risk allowing this age to continue to decrease and the number of alcohol-related deaths to increase. The risk is real, as the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) reports that alcohol-related injury deaths and drunk driving are both increases among college students.

The NIAAA suggests the problem of drinking and driving could be mitigated if greater emphasis is placed on the enforcement of the drinking-age and zero-tolerance laws. They also suggest an increase in the tax on alcohol, wider implementation of screening and counseling programs and community interventions that are comprehensive in nature.

All injuries and deaths that are sustained through drunk driving activities are completely preventable. Authorities need to understand how the drinking starts and implement effective education and prevention programs that can reverse the increasing rates of drinking while under the influence among the college and non-college sect.
 

When this is broken down, there is one death every 45 minutes as a result of drinking and driving. The associated cost for alcohol-related crashes reaches more than $51 billion every year. These costs tend to be spread over a wide range of individuals, government agencies and commercial entities.

The problem with intoxicated drinking reaches further into society, touching those who may never have had an alcoholic drink on their own. According to the Dept of Transportation (US), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Traffic Safety Facts 2008, 11,773 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2008.

Such crashes that year accounted for almost one-third – or 32 percent – of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. That same year, there were 1,347 traffic fatalities among children ages 0 to 14 years of age. Nearly one out of every six – or 16 percent – involved an alcohol-impaired driver. Of the 216 children who died in alcohol-related crashes in 2008, roughly half were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.

That year also saw more than 1.4 million drivers arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. Drugs other than alcohol are involved in nearly 18 percent of motor vehicle driver deaths. In many situations, these other drugs are used in combination with alcohol before the intoxicated individual gets behind the wheel of a car.

As this is certainly a measurable problem in the United States, the CDC set out to determine those who are most at risk. The first identified group is young people as at all levels of blood alcohol concentration (BAC), they are most at risk of being involved in a crash than older individuals.

In addition, among drivers with BAC levels of 0.08 percent or higher, when they are involved in fatal crashes, more than one out of every three were between 21 and 24 years of age. The next two largest groups were 25 to 34 and 35 to 44.

Motorcyclists are also at a greater risk. Of those killed in crashes, 30 percent had BACs of 0.08 percent of greater. Nearly half of all alcohol-impaired motorcyclists killed each year are 40 or older and motorcyclists aged 40-44 have the highest percentage of fatalities with BACs of 0.08 percent or greater.

Drivers who have already had a prior DUI or DWI conviction are also at a higher risk for a alcohol-related, fatal crash. In fact, drivers with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher involved in fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have had a prior conviction for DWI than were drivers with no alcohol.
 

Police had responded to the Kennedy home twice in the week before the arrest, but no arrests were made, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. In one visit, Kennedy reported a dispute between children, Lt. Jeff Dickan said. The other visit resulted in a state domestic incident report, but there were “no crimes committed, no report of assault, no arrests and no need for follow-up,” Dickan told the Chronicle.

Robert Kennedy Jr. is the son of former Sen. Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.