The Badger Herald: Opinion: OWI laws in need of real toughness

Opinion

OWI laws in need of real toughness

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Dan Rose:

Mayor Ryan's mistakes could be costly (September 29, 2009)
Introducing ignition device creates winning OWI plan (September 20, 2009)
Minimum markup law vital for preventing monopolies (September 7, 2009)
Wisconsin gun control in sore need of reform (June 5, 2009)
Initiative, homeless night offer ASM direction (April 16, 2009)

By Dan Rose
Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:51 p.m.

7 Vote 0 Votes

This past January, Lacey Meinel, a 14-year-old girl from Schofield, was killed in a car accident while heading home from a figure skating competition. Her car was hit head on by a car being driven by belligerently drunk Daniel Schaefer.

Schaefer left a bar that night despite a warning from the bouncer that he should not be driving home. Unfortunately, the bouncer made no attempt to stop the man beyond a warning.

Lacey was 14 years old. Schaefer was 23. He should have been mature enough to know not to drive drunk. Yet, according to Wisconsin state law, Lacey’s life and the countless others he has subsequently ruined are only worth 25 years of his. His sentence may even be reduced, depending on the trial and subsequent appeals.

Unfortunately, due to the incredibly insufficient drunken driving laws in Wisconsin, tragedies like Lacey’s will only continue to occur. In Wisconsin, a person can be released with as little as a $250 ticket for their first offense. Also, there is no required probation period or criminal charge.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen strongly believes in maintaining the non-criminal first offense status here in Wisconsin. “As it stands, a citizen’s first drunken driving offense is considered a civil forfeiture. Their license is revoked for 6-9 months and Van Hollen believes we should keep it this way,” said Kevin St. John, spokesperson for Van Hollen. What St. John neglected to mention is that a person whose license is revoked can apply for an occupational license immediately following the revocation.

Conversely, in Massachusetts, a state with relatively moderate drunken driving laws and an attorney general capable of competent thought, a first offense requires as much as a $5,000 fine, a minimum of one year license suspension, and some form of probation for up to two years.

Wisconsin’s state legislature is at least attempting to return some real relevance to the law. Senate Bill 34, introduced by Senators Kedzie, Olsen, and Cowles, would eliminate the right of a person to receive an occupational license until 15 days after the revocation. Sadly, the bill’s pathetically low standard for reform only reinforces the derisory state of our drunken driving laws.

As if this wasn’t enough, Attorney General Van Hollen’s tragically weak and egocentric argument is partially based on the fact he has “friends he’d hate to see regarded as criminals because of an honest mistake.” An honest mistake? Is what happened to Lacey, an honest mistake?

Another gaping abyss in Wisconsin law is the lack of any form of penalty for bartenders or owners who allow a clearly drunk person to drive home. Wisconsin is among a small minority of states that have no form of regulation for this issue. We prefer to instead project the image of a state that finds senseless preventable death an acceptable occurrence.

The final tragic piece of Wisconsin law is the homicide law. A drunk driver who kills someone is subject to the maximum 25 years in prison, but more often than not is released or sentenced less time. The reason for this being that most drunken driving homicide cases are typically not regarded as “real murders.” Apparently people killed by drunk drivers are less dead than victims in other murder cases.

The revolting truth here lies in the fact that many drunken murderers do not even receive or serve the maximum sentence for their actions. This only makes sense if the countless lives the drunk driver in question has destroyed are disregarded. Also, Mr. Van Hollen certainly wouldn’t want any of his “friends” to be considered murderers just because they killed someone.

If you find the pathetic and unacceptable state of Wisconsin’s drunken driving laws infuriating, you can sign this petition at: www.thepetitionsite.com/1/laceyslaw. The petition proposes tougher laws regarding drunken driving in Wisconsin. It attempts real progress, unlike the spineless Senate Bill 34. Also, consider taking a few minutes to write the DA handling Lacey’s case an e-mail: adam.levin@da.wi.gov.

If the drunken driving laws are not changed, the representatives of Wisconsin’s government will remain ignorant accomplices to countless more senseless murders.

Dan Rose (drose2@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in journalism and pre-med.

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | February 13, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply
IP hash: 07028cd4

Dan, go to the dictionary and look up two words: murder and manslaughter. Please recognize the difference.

Anonymous | February 13, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply
IP hash: 691d5afd

Let’s just ban alcohol or driving while we’re at it.

Anonymous | February 16, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply
IP hash: 28702c34

Manslaughter- the unlawful killing of a human being without malice or prior thought.

Murder- the killing of another human being under pre-meditated conditions.

Choosing, and do note the emphasis on choice, to drive while drunk is a pre-meditated action that acknowledges the possibility of killing someone.

But beyond your semantics, killing someone is still killing someone. Another person is dead regardless.

Anonymous | February 16, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply
IP hash: 43c96028

725 you forgot reckless and negligent homicide…

Anonymous | February 16, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply
IP hash: 88725b35

I continue to be amazed at the number of persons calling for the last scruple (that’s about 1.3 grams, for you pre-med majors)in the pound of flesh demanded of drunk drivers. Look at the penalties already in place and ask yourself if they are sufficient to deter any thinking individual. If so, nothing except vengeance is served by increasing the penalties, and vengeance is not the mark of an enlightened society. The law might be improved by addressing non-thinking individuals - those already drunk and too impaired to judge their own abilities, or those repeat offenders who are unwilling or unable to control themselves - but this should be done without resorting to draconian measures. This is a time for thoughtful consideration, not for waving the bloody shirt.