Ignition locks are not the answer, sad to say. You can't solve social problems with technology - only divert them. Making drunk driving a felony on the first offense is NOT zero tolerance, it only increases the punishment for the crime. Every situation is unique and needs to be tried - but if you're intoxicated and driving a vehicle, then you need to be held accountable for your actions.

lets see third time a felony for drunk driving.....ummmm how many people does one drunk driver have to kill before it is a felony three or four i may be wrong but if ou get behind the wheel have been drinking to much you deserve what you get you do not just hurt your self it is the ones in the other car that usually get killed.as for the pay raises for the lawmakers screw them the working poor could use an extra boost when it comes to our income the ones that have nothing to fall back on when its still three days till payday and the kids are out of milk.......i think lawmakers should have to live like the working poor for a month before they get their raise and lets see how many of them think they really deserve it then.............

Ign.locks could be fun.How about if the drunk is borrowing a buddies car! Chances are that same buddy is not really a buddy! But then again,what is the difference btwn buddy and a real friend?

Not wanting to wade through all the comments....I will add that 5 states now are engaging the ignition locks after the first DUI.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_o...

WI needs to create new laws for DUIs. This state is way too easy on the drunks.....and yes, I know a few, so I am not without knowledge about how they are unable to know when they have crossed the line of sobriety. Maybe with new laws and technology, they can be helped...and the innocent can be protected!

John Doe,I thank you for your comment and I really hope no one treats you badly on here for it! I also really hope no one EVER walks in my shoes,I would just like some to be more understanding.Driving while drunk should never be tolerated but I would hope a friend or loved one would try to help those who cannot help themselves.

be_happy...you expressed yourself very succinctly...however,as you will soon see, most people who post here are not at all interested in walking in anyone else's shoes.
They are too sanctimonious.
.
I, however do understand what you are saying and appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Well,as an alcoholic who used to drive home after one of THOSE nights at a bar,I can safely say,DONT DO IT!!!!! 1 or 2 or even 3 drinks(depending on your tolerance) is not a big deal. Problem is,alcoholics dont know when the line has been crossed.Everyone knows that the brain is the first thing to go when someone drinks.That person doesnt know they are too impaired to do ANYTHING. D.D or not,someone needs to be there to make sure that drunk doesnt do something stupid,like---DRIVE! While it is true adults should not need "babysitters"--some do.Drunks are a lot like babies if you think about it.Yes,I know,you all think"well,dont drink or at least moderate". Alcoholics dont have that thought.I am not condoning drunks or drunk driving,im just suggesting that people try to put themselves in our shoes for just a minute and try helping instead of condemning.

But upon further review....that might not be a bad idea.

Please do....but first look up sarcasm in the dictionary.

Let me stress lessons

There will be quite a line for the week-ender program....

That's right...send all of our inmates out to Arizona...

We should all take lessons from Maricopa County, Arizona the laws and punishment.

BayMom...if I'm killed by you weaving your way home after consuming "3 or 4 beers after work", I'll be just as dead as I would be if I'd been caught in the middle of an armed robbery or drug deal gone bad."
.
You could also be just as dead if you slipped and hit your head on the icy sidewalk of someone who made a conscious decision to not shovel and sand after a snowstorm. There are laws against that too.
Should they be felons also?
Be careful what you wish for.

3 DUIs/OWIs over 40 years? How about the person with 2 over 2 months? are they felons? Give me a break. A DUI 40 years ago arguably has been expunged from the persons record.

The fact that Russ Decker cavalierly dismisses 3 DUIs should shock his constituents into removing this clown from public service.

If three counts of any other crime is a habitual offender with a felony modifier, then this should be the same. It should also be expanded to people under the influence of other substances, too. Drinking and driving is stupid no matter how much you have injested. Stay off the road if you have to drink, or let someone sober drive.

No one condones driving under the influence. But what about individual liberties and law enforecement. When the history of the 20th century is written, it will note that the erosion of personal liberties started with the "constiutionality" of sobriety checkpoints. Imagine being stopped, at random with no prior cause, just to see if you legally own the car you are driving? The ACLU would not tolerate it. However, they are mum on this. Why?

A Much bigger problem in this state besides drunk drivers are:

a.) Elderly drivers
b.) soccer moms, who will darn near run over anyone and anything to pick up their own little snowflakes.

916 the state didnt decide on the .08, the feds did. Its the same in ALL states. 1 or 2 beers isnt gonna toss most, if anyone, over .08. But then again quite a few people bar hop after work only have 1 or 2 at each bar.

3rd time should also include a total ban from driving for life. Dont want to lose your license, dont drive after drinking. Dont have a way to get to work then, too bad. SHould had thought of that before getting hammered and driving.

Cant believe how many people are pretty much condoning dui. Maybe if you were hit by one of these losers you may change your tune. Had a 18 yr old kid blow a stop sign drunk and t-bone the passenger side of my car in Oregon (the state)15 yrs ago. Lost my wife and 9 yr old son instantly (was told that they died on impact). I ended up in the hosptial for 7 months. The kid died also. Had a bac of .12. Speed estimates when he blew the stop sign was around 70mph. Not going to go into the gory details. Think of that before "defending" the drunks.

That's the problem--the state's definition of "drunk driving" vs. what most ordinary people would consider drunk driving. A .08 would not have someone sloshed out of their mind on our roadways weaving from lane to lane running over everything from the mailbox to little Tommy's big wheel. This is someone who had a couple of beers after work and who poses much less of a threat than the elderly woman that pulled right out in front of me on 51 last week or the countless number of teenagers who I see trying to text and drive at the same time. Getting pulled over after having a few after work for a minor traffic violation and just happening to blow a .08 does not warrant a felony conviction! The punishment does not fit the crime:)

How many lawmakers have 1 or 2 OWI's already? A third would disqualify some if they became felons!

It should be an automatic felony to have a child in the car, but 1st offense with a child is only a higher monetary fine. Thank you Tavern League, keep our roads sloshed and kids unprotected. You and Planned Parenthood must have the same lobbyists.

My dad always said that politicians that want weak laws are the ones intending to violate them themselves.

On the speeding subject .............
.
3 times 15 or more over should get you a felony, as well as 3 red light runs, 3- .08s, or any combination thereof.
.

Anyone who has lost someone due to a drunk and stupid driver wants more strict laws. Anyone who breaks this law and has been arrested or hasn't yet been caught are thinking this law is overboard. Truthfully, We need to crack down on lots of crimes. This is just one of them. The problem with not making it more severe is that the offenders just don't learn. Chances are if they keep repeating it's because they have a "problem." I say, "Lock them up and treat them for there problems. Mandatory detox, counseling and completion of a both programs. Follow up with them after they complete the programs with probation, to include random breath tests, and blood and urine test. If the offender has another offense after this action, lock them up for good!" The repeat offenders after that prove they just don't care about rules and order in society. Why should we all be at risk in that case? We need to protect ourselves the best we can.

Now, I certainly will explain in graeter detail if needed. This is not a situation that people should be in. Why not put them all on trial, not even a criminal trial but a trial that will determine if cousling will help. And I do not mean cousling by some under paid under skilled state or court recommended schlup who hates his job and is just there. I mean a counsling program that works helps is closely monitored and the individual will need to complete. Then a close after care needs to be monitored to see how they progress. You see everyone wants a quick and easy fix, its not a quick easy fix. It takes work, it can happen to any of us. So lets not make light, quick stupid decisions nor ignorant comments. People are having and have been having hard times and this drunk and stupid thing is going to get worse however there are alot of good people that need some understanding and help not your ignorant lockem up comments.

It is the system that is sick. Sure some of these people need to go away. No doubt. We just simply cannt allow it to continue. However it is the money making lawyers and judges that allow this plea crap to go on constantly with zero follow up and zero regulation. They override the system constantly, lining their pockets at the mis-fortune of others. That is were the change needs to occure. THEY are the ones to blame. Why allow it to continue. If a person is sick (needs AA) we have to get them to AA or treatment. If a lawyer or judge is passing these cases through their court and allowing all this Plea crap to go on and deals to continue, then they need to be removed, punished and not allowed to practice this type of law. I was involved with a local attorney. I wont name him unless the Gazzette wants more of a story. He point blank told me that he can not press the district attorney otherwise he will not be able to "deal" on other cases

Its very easy to just say lockem up and throw away the key. BUT is it that simple. Lets say your kid goes to a college party drinks, responsibly, but gets behind the wheel, he/she blows a .09, okay its wrong, but they do their part and go through the system. Now 9 years later married has kids, goes out to dinner with you and your husband has a drink or 2 maybe 3 on the way home is speeding and now has to blow again a .08, now they are a felon, now they go to jail and to treatment and thier is no real drinking problem, you are the grandparents, now your son or daughter looses their job because they can not be a felon, they lose their house cause they can not work, the kids are now being uprooted from their lives soon the divorce follows cause the wife does not want to be in this nightmare, they can not drive to a job because they dont have a licence. Do you people really think this is not going to happen. Look, its a problem but being stupid about it is not going to fix anything. Repeat offenders are definately a problem 4,5,6,7 OWIs says they system does not work. Why not get these lawyers to quit the plea agreements and make it a manditory trial for these folks and get to the bottom of it individualy. Every case is different, every person is different, so why do we allow a broken system to try and fix it.

typical politician's view. NO ACCOUNTABILITY!

mollyd5 wrote: its all about fines.the state makes alot of money off drunks and pot users.thats why weed will never be legalized.we have to keep feeding the pockets of "your" elected officials.

Um, "That's why weed will never be legalized"?!?!?!? If they really wanted revenue, they WOULD legalize weed. We could be out of debt as a country in a year's time with the revenue from weed tax. mollyd5- think before you post.

I think the guy is totally wrong!!! I agree with sarahb I come from a family of drunks and drug users who drive impaired! I believe we have to take a harsher stand. Get off your soapbox! if you're an adult, act like one. DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!! If you can't control yourself, get a nanny! It's just stupid to act like you get to drive anyway you want, Grow up!

I personally think that the OWI Laws should be WAY HARSHER in Wisconsin! If anything make them .02! That way you may have a drink, but there also should be a better taxi service in Janesville, and Rock County. There is only one, and they take forever to get to you. So lets think about this, in Walworth County the Tavern League gives you a voucher for a free ride home within limited distance. Then the driver gives the person a card to return for a fee to get that person's vehicle the next day. The law maker wants to protect his backside, because he messed up. Maybe this Law Maker should be ordered into AA and that he should change his job because obviously he can't deal with the stresses responsibly!!

Why hasn't anyone suggested that bars should be illegal? Their very concept is all wrong. A bar is a place to drive to that will sell you glasses of alcoholic beverages and kick you out in the wee hours of the morning when you are not only impaired by the alcohol, but also tired. I know that nobody would try to start legislation to remove all bars, but isn't this hypocritical? Talk about entrapment! I personally have not been a drinker since the early 70's. A couple of friends of mine were killed by drunk drivers. A few were maimed for life. I am afraid I'll have to side with the kid on this one. It is a much more responsible approach.

BayMom--So you think speeding should be construed the same way then? Trying to get from A to B a little bit quicker would be putting everyone else at risk for one's own selfish reasons. So the second speeding ticket should be a felony as well? Using your logic, 97% of the population would be sharing jail cells with the armed robbers, rapists, and arsonists! I can totally understand a felony conviction if a drunk driver is involved in a serious accident. What I will never agree with is a felony conviction for getting pulled over at a roadblock or for speeding with a little alcohol in one's system. Don't be so dramatic by equating drinking 3 to 4 beers to me weaving lane to lane down Hwy. 51 looking for my next target. Have I ever driven at a .08, I'm sure I have--3 or 4 beers will get you there. Have I ever been pulled over after drinking 3 or 4--never. Thinking about it, the only time I've ever been pulled over aside from speeding was twice for suspicion of DUI. I was coming commuting to Whitewater and stretching myself thin. Totally exhausted, the officer threw a breathalizer on me, I blew a 0 and was sent on my way both times. I guess I should have been locked up and had the key thrown away after the second stop:) I personally think the .08 limit is way too low. They could make a legitimate case for law changes if there was blatant disregard for the safety of others(seriously reckless driving and/or an accident) and if the offenders BAC was a .20 or greater. Five over for speeding and blowing a .08 should NOT be a felony......

Ignition locks don't always work. A person was killed in Rock County this year, in August of 2007 they were charged with (sentence for that after the charge):

346.63(1)(a) Operating While under Influence (4th) Misd. U =Dismissed on Prosecutor's Motion

346.63(1)(b) Operating with PAC .02 or More (4th) Misd. U =Guilty Due to No Contest Plea

343.44(1)(b) OAR (1st - Rev. due to OWI/PAC) Misd. U =Guilty Due to No Contest Plea

======
In February of 2008 this was their sentence:

Ct. 3 No contest plea entered, Costs $80.00 due 4-24-08, 5 days RCJ with Huber, jail diversion program, concurrent with Ct. 2,

Ct. 2 No contest plea entered, fine $3491.00 due 4-24-08, RCJ 120 days with Huber, jail diversion program, DL revoked 34 mos, Ignition interlock, Assessment ordered,

Ct. 1 dismissed

======
Count 2 should have keep them from driving at the time of their death.

916WI, if I'm killed by you weaving your way home after consuming "3 or 4 beers after work", I'll be just as dead as I would be if I'd been caught in the middle of an armed robbery or drug deal gone bad. Driving under the influence is the same as any other type of attempted murder, it's making a deliberate choice to put others at risk for the driver's own selfish reasons, and it should be a felony earlier in the process.

What about speeding then? Statistics show that excessive speed plays a role in almost as many car accidents as alcohol. Should we also consider a second speeding ticket within a 40 year time span a felony as well? It only makes sense using the logic exhibited in this thread.....

If I lived in Weston, I'd be circulating a recall petition.

From WI DOTs website for 2005;

"Of the 801 persons killed, 41% died in alcohol-related crashes. 34% died in speed-related
crashes and 18% died in crashes that involved both speed and alcohol.
• Of the 536 drivers who were killed and tested for alcohol concentration, 190 drivers (35%) had
an alcohol concentration of .08 or above.
• 59% of persons killed in passenger car and light truck crashes (for instances in which safety
belt use could be determined) were not using safety restraints.
• 76% of all motorcyclists killed in crashes (for instances in which helmet use could be determined)
were not wearing helmets."

It would appear that speeding should perhaps be a felony at the third offence, as well as not wearing a seatbelt and motorcyclists not wearing helmets should also become felonies at the third offence.

Next, perhaps cell phone use and driving is certainly very dangerous, a prime candidate for a felony.

How about driving while stupid? Certainly dangerous and reeking of a felonious crime.

SarahB, You need to get off of the soapbox:) So, if I stop and have 3 or 4 beers after work and get pulled over for doing 5 over the speed limit--the cop smells alcohol, I blow a .08--my life should be ruined with a felony conviction? Get real! We'll put "stopping for a few drinks after work" right up there with armed robbery, drug trafficking, or arson--you have to be completely ignorant to say believe that makes any sense. I'm more worried about the 16 year old driver, who is trying to drive, send a text message, and find a song on their i-pod all at the same time. Can we propose a law that would make "driving while texting" a felony too? That would make a lot more sense to me.......

cardtrader:

Way to go!!! Congratulations on your 19+ years of sobriety! Keep up the VERY difficult decision of keeping sober!

You rock! I hope that there is at least one person you know that is learning from your choices!

I can only say as an ex drinker I to am guilty of driving when legally drunk I can only Thank God that I never hurt anyone or anything not to mention killed anyone, I do wish now looking back that I would have been caught because then maybe I would have quit drinking sooner. I now have 19+ years of sobriety I know there is no easy fix for the problems that drinking and driving cause for everybody has there own reason why the laws should or should'nt be changed, some for financial reasons some for just lack of good common sense. But I do know one thing the laws need to be fixed the Senate Majority Leader is Wrong!!!!!

The ones without common sense are the ones for zero tolerance laws.
.
Zero tolerance laws take all common sense out of the equation.

C'mon SarahB, give us a break. There are enough dopers on this website crying about how the jails are already too crowded with their pot-smoking buddies. Now you want to start rooming them with those who choose to have a drink with dinner? I'm all for stiffening the drunk driving laws, but have a little sense.

That's right. If you're impaired, don't drive. Go ahead and have your one glass, but then you must also give your body time to metabolize the alcohol.

A glass of wine or a beer after work and I am impaired and I need a DD to get me home? Under the law by SarahB if I drive myself and some teen texting runs a red light and hits me I am now a felon for blowing a .02 after the officer smells a little merlot on my breath.

Ridiculous.

If the impairment is there, why should we hold off on charges? If there is that much alcohol in one's cold medicine, maybe one shouldn't be driving after ingesting the medicine. I am also very much against people driving while taking some types of prescribed medications, such as opiates, benzodiazepines and barbituates. The warnings about operating heavy machinery are on those bottles for a reason.

tjncj - well put.

I think the third in any time frame shoud be the felony. Zero tolerance is a ridiculous suggestions that would punish every responsible person out there and make potential felons of millions of people. I also think the fines and penalties should go up for higher BAC readings. Someone driving at .09 is not the hazard someone is at .15.

Yes, and 1 is well past sufficient leeway.

I would for sure set the bar (no pun) at 3 for a felony regardless of the duration. One is a mistake (unless a fatality occured), two is rediculous, three should be: your out (felony).

ZERO TOLERANCE? Perhaps you should educate yourselves on the zero tolerance laws gone awry in other arenas (such as the middle school student arrested for drug delivery for handing out cough drops) before calling for that. Before you know it, you wouldn't be able to drive after a spoonful of cough syrup. Not far fetched at all in a zero tolerance society.

Sarah, and that is my point. Since he has an OWI, he doesn't want to be turned into a felon himself! No wonder he thinks it's 'too severe!'

I totally agree with you that there should be ZERO TOLERANCE! In fact, I've made family made at me for being adamant to my driving after they've had one vodka on the rocks or whatever their beverage of choice is.

In fact, I just told my family why I don't go out after 7 or 8 pm on New Year's Eve.... I couldn't knowingly get myself killed on one of the biggest, if not the biggest drinking night of the year. I couldn't do that to my family and friends... to identify my mangled body. Extreme? Not-so-much anymore.

Decker knows which side of the drunken driving fight his campaign funds are buttered from.

Wisconsin Cooperative Campaign Finance Database
http://www.opensecrets.org/wdc/interest....

Central Beer Distributors
Midwestern Wisconsin Beverage
Miller Brewing
Oneida Liquor Co
Miller Beer of the Northwoods Inc
Capitol-Husting Wholesale Liquor
Park Ridge Distributing
Edison Liquor Co
Badger Liquor
Hellman Distributors
General Beverage
WOW Distributing
.

Campaign 2002
http://www.wisdc.org/big02decker.html

Capitol-Husting Wholesale Liquor
Baers Beverages of Central Wisconsin Inc
Miller Brewing
West Wisconsin Distributing
Office Tavern
The Bar
Edison Liquor Co
Location Bar
Haverland's Bar
Bootleggers
Palms Supper Club
Oneida Liquor Co
General Beverage
Miller Beer of the Northwoods Inc
Badger Liquor
.

Campaign 2006
http://www.wisdc.org/pro06money-102641.p...

Tavern Industry PAC
WI Wholesale Beer Dist PAC
Capitol-Husting Wholesale Liquor
KJ's Eureka Bar
Baers Beverages of Central Wisconsin Inc
Buckshots Circle B Saloon
Relocation Pub & Eatery
Loppnow's Sports Bar
Golden Frog Saloon
Miller Brewing
Chatter Box
Elk Lake Tavern
General Beverage
Miller Beer of the Northwoods Inc
Kris' Pheasant Inn & Sports Bar
Central Beer Distributors
Arrow Bar
Witt's End

I would like to see a ZERO TOLERANCE law. If you're caught with any alcohol in your system while driving, it would result in a felony arrest. Research now shows that impairment begins with the first drink. Also, I think the Wisconsin State Journal noted that Mr. Decker has one OWI on his record.

You can be sure that when there's a death caused by a 3 time DUI driver, Senator Decker will be impossible to find for a comment.

It's actually sort of odd that he's using this 40-year example. There is already precedent in statute for limiting the second offense to within a ten-year span. There is no reason that the legislature could not strengthen the penalty for a third offense with a reasonable time limitation (say, 20 years).
.
That said, I'm concerned that unless Wisconsin begins a concerted effort to limit liquor licenses statewide, supply will continue to drive demand.

truecitizen: sry if i bother you. help me legalize marijuana/cannabis/hemp an ill go away. promise:)
.
i agree w spikesmom. ill add that you lose your license and right to own a car a year for whatever offense it is. 2nd offense its gone for 2 years. 5th offense 5 years.

Pwrtrip, if these are 'responsible' people going to bars or wherever to drink, they should then be responsible enough to not drink or get their own designated driver. Everyone knows someone that would do the crappy deed of putting up with idiots who drink just to save the life of innocent people who are responsible to not drink and drive.

1st offense, no injuries or death and it should be a misdemeanor. If an injury or death occurs, a felony. 2nd offense, whether anyone gets hurt or not, should be a felony. Why does it need to be more difficult than that?

Oh, the great state of WI! The ones that are against it, obviously haven't been affected by it at all! And/or they like their drinks and to drive with it all in their system. I have ABSOLUTELY NO sympathy for drunk drivers... first offensive is a felony despite what he says!

give the drunks a pass. go big red (eyes, nose, and ears.)

No one wants to talk about the fact that some drivers could be sober and poor drivers, some could be technically drunk and an okay driver. No one also wants to talk about the absurd way in which the police enforce drunk drivers, how they rig statistics, for example, by saying an accident was alcohol related even if the driver only had one drink and it was clearly the other person's fault. In this way, they get everyone to say again and again that drunk driving is horrible and absolutely wrong. It makes the person, who says it, so sanctimonious.

Three OWI's should be a felony. Be responsible when you consume alcohol. Make arrangements for a ride, consume a little alcohol if you plan to drive, or abstain from consuming alcohol. Harsher penalties for OWI's need to be establshed or nothing will change with the amount of OWI's we have in this state.

Obviously this jerk has never lost anyone to a drunk driving accident!!! I lost my father when I was 2, my cousin when i was 13, and a good friend of ours was hit when she was 17, lost her leg, broke the other leg, and was in the hospital for a very long time, it was NOT the guys first offense!!!! Why should those who've lost their lives and those who've lost limbs and their future pay the price .. these jerks shouldnt have even been on the road.. if they would have been felons after the first offense they wouldnt have been drunk and crashing into innocent people!

BALONEY! It only takes once to drive drunk to kill someone. If a driver doesn't learn the lesson after once OWI they will continue to drink and drive. The laws are too lax.

'kid'--at least you seem to imply that 3-OWI's should be a felony. So I agree with that. So you're right, the comparison would be 'messed up'.

Here we go again. Look everyone knows you are all for marijuana. Give it a rest! Drugs suck! Okay. I don't care about the different levels of severity of each drug....they suck. They destroy lives and this article is talking about OWI's. You can get an OWI for being under the influence of marijuana also.

3 owis shouldnt make you a felon?? but possession of ANY amount of pot TWICE makes you a felon?? yeah, thats not messed up at all.

I'm not as intolerable as "Jasonth", but I agree that the politician is wrong. "Three OWI's over 40 years"....is still bad enough. In that hypothetical example, the person can't learn even in a 40 year period. Time should not mitigate (lessen) an offense in my view.
*
Besides, how many times bewteen these OWI arrests, are these people driving drunk and just don't get caught?!!!! Go figure it's a Democrat that wants to go light on these people. I know I'm sick of reading about injuries and death--caused by OWI!

No, he's totally correct - it should't be thee oui's. It should be one. People who are irresponsible enough to drink and drive should be ready for harsher consequences. Wisconsin is nortoriously the worst state for drunk drivers - it's time for our well paid political leaders to stop making excuses and drop the hammer on those who disregard the lives of other drivers and passengers out on the roads. A first time offender can kill people just as easily as a three time offender.