MADD Pushes To Make DUI Violations A Felony
By James Baxter, NMA President
MADD’s current excuse for existing is to make DUI violations a felony, the most serious of criminal convictions. A felon, along with going to prison, loses the right to vote, the right to possess firearms, any professional licenses, scholarships, and many employment opportunities. Given that two or three drinks and a typically inaccurate BAC test will yield a DUI conviction, any normal, responsible person who drinks moderately has a good chance of becoming a felon, if MADD has its perverted way.
The standard incremental approach is to first attach the felon status to persons with multiple DUI convictions and then whittle the number of convictions down to two or even one where the felon status will be assigned. The elephant in the room that no one is mentioning is that once a person has a DUI conviction on their record it’s like having a big sign on the back of their car that says “stop me, I’m a good candidate for a DUI.” A second or third DUI conviction is much easier to acquire than is the first.
Combine .08 percent BAC laws with inherently inaccurate Breathalyzers and politicized enforcement and normal responsible individuals who drink in moderation will achieve the status of “drunk driver felon,” without ever reaching the point of meaningful impairment, or causing and accident. The prohibition movement is alive and well and residing in Texas.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Funny to think…I have a neighbor who’s a defense attorney, and an alcoholic (among other things) He’d love this post. He spent an hour explaining to me how he can drive home tanked and all the best routes to avoid cops, traps and tickets.
And of course, the laws to him are all bunk (and he can work the system anyway) because he can drive JUST fine no matter how many drinks he’s had.
I just know he’s going to kill someone some day- but hey, this is America! If he INSISTS upon driving when he goes out to bars and driving home again, until he gets caught or is in an accident, I really can’t do anything about that can I?
So, I just look for him on the road and drive REALLY, REALLY defensively when I see him. Especially at night.
He’d be glad to know you guys are on his side.
From the M.A.D.D website((Enhanced/Escalating Penalties For DUI/DWI Based On Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Level
As part of the progressive sanctions approach to impaired driving and in an effort to impact the higher risk driver, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) supports legislation that would provide for enhanced or escalating penalties for drivers convicted of DUI/DWI whose blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of arrest was .15 or higher))
Although they do support more severe penalties for those convicted a second time or those convicted a 1st time with a BAC above .15, I found nothing in thier mission statements or proposals that even resembled what the NMA attributes M.A.D.D. as wanting. As stated above “1st time convictions for .08 BAC to be a felony”. Looks like the NMA propaganda machine strikes again. Hasn’t any of the NMA members and/or supporters ever checked the things that the NMA tells them? I have found so much bad information on the NMA’s website that it makes it hard to discern what the good information is telling us. You have to question an organization that feeds so much misinformation about what it is really trying to accomplish.
ummm ok… whatever.
Richard Kent writes((What bull. MADD has never advocated for first-offense drunk driving to be a felony and never will. In truth, 47 states have some form of repeat offense (usually 3rd or 4th offense) as a felony level, so it’s not like pushing for something radical to ask the other three states to get on board.
And don’t get me started on the “it only takes two or three drinks.” It might take two drinks if you weigh 90 pounds, but it’s usually more like four or five in one hour.))
Phil replies(thems fightin words! LOL)
Phil replies(I have really gotten people mad at me for pointing out lies in the propaganda that the NMA presents here.)
What bull. MADD has never advocated for first-offense drunk driving to be a felony and never will. In truth, 47 states have some form of repeat offense (usually 3rd or 4th offense) as a felony level, so it’s not like pushing for something radical to ask the other three states to get on board.
And don’t get me started on the “it only takes two or three drinks.” It might take two drinks if you weigh 90 pounds, but it’s usually more like four or five in one hour.
In 2006 there were 1,192,809 autos stolen which is a whopping 394.4 per 100,000 people.
In 1860 our nations population was about 31,443,321 which means that to have the same per capita livestock to be stolen as was automobiles in 2006 some 125,270 livestock would have to have been stolen
in 1890 or population was roughly 62,978,738 and for the same per capita livestock to be stolen as was automobiles in 2006 some 250,907 would have to have been stolen
The population of years in between consistantly grew so for any given year between 1860 and 1890 the number of livestock that needed to be stolen would have been between 125,270 and 250,907 respectively.
donleedon wrote((Practiced answers… I am not the one spouting verbatim the MADD dogma now that they have nothing to do now that ‘alcohol related’ fatalities have leveled off (also note that the total of traffic fatalities have not decreased per capita, just the ones that can be blamed on alcohol consumption in ANY amount). And yes, I read very carefully what you wrote, if that is not what you intended, perhaps you used a very poor analogy as that is the fallout of your argument. As well, to call me closed minded, in not so few words, you should look at your own posts.))
Phil replies(I call you closed minded because no matter what I post however so slightly contrary to what the NMA’s propaganda says you immediately assign me a position in alignment to MADD. In your eyes I am either for you or against you and there is no inbetween. If you are using NHTSA stats provided by NMA I would suggest checking them for accuracy. I wonder if you would be so kind as to provide me with a link to those statistics?)
Donleedon writes((Where is the data regarding car theft vs livestock theft per capita? I have searched. Could it be that we have more accurate data today and that many times if your cattle was not branded the individual that took them could not be prosecuted as you had no proof of ownership? Perhaps it was a more sane time (for the most part) when people and government were more honest (for the most part) than now and that is why if you were in a horse and buggy drunk then you would not get cited for DWI (like you can now). I personally don’t need a law to tell me that I can’t take someone elses property, because I wouldn’t do it anyway))
Phil replies(You are asking for statistics to prove an analogy? I am sure that court records and statistics don’t exist for how many livestock were stolen per capita but if one examined the current statistics for auto theft per capita then extrapolated the results to the population of the late 19th century you’d see that the number of cattle that needed to be stolen would have had to be huge and given the punishment very unlikely to have happened. Horse and buggies didn’t weigh 3000# and didn’t go fast enough for the impending crash to cause fatality when operated by a drunk. I don’t need laws period to tell me where how to behave morally but then not everyone is of our character and if there isn’t a law prohibiting it then they reasonably suspect it ok to act in that manner. Are you suggesting we remove all DUI/DWI laws from the books and let individual moral compasses be our guide? How about providing some statistics on how many horse and buggy crashes cause fatality in the 1890′s?)
Donleedon writes((You are absolutely right, deter the behavior. Which means any behavior that has previously ended in a fatal traffic accident, especially if the numbers rival that of the supposed numbers in DWI instances (ie cell phones vs up to 0.12 BAC), they should be punished equally if that is the way that we are going. NHSTAs own statistics show that you are ’safer’ riding with someone from 0.06 to 0.10 than a perfectly sober driver, based on the statistics charts I have seen.))
Phil replies(Are you comparing partial statistic to prove your point? The use of cell phones has caused as many fatal crashes as DUI/DWI crashes with a BAC of under .12? That is a new spin on using statistics to lie. how about you compare statistics like how many drunk drivers were leaving thier 50th birthday party I bet that would really cast cell phone use in a poor light. Or how about you compare apples to apples anyone using a cell phone to anyone above the legal limit and cell phone caused crashes aren’t even close in fact speeding is the 2nd cause not cell phone use.)
Donleedonwrites((Wow, are you kidding me? So I can go out and commit multiple murders before I will have to go to jail… Starting my list right now! Just let me know the magic number so I can stop before then can prosecute me.))
Phil replies(this is a total perversion of what I said. I didn’t say that people who commit crimes don’t get arrested or even convicted but rather that there is a trend begining to prevail where it is getting harder and harder to convict people for horrific crimes (ie the case in FL with the 2year old baby) and when we do convict them they get very light sentences and don’t even have to serve the entire sentence.)
donleedon writes((Once again, ummm no, the NMA is not against prosecuting drunk drivers, they just have a much different opinion of what a drunk driver is than you or MADD have, right or wrong in either case. And LEOs routinely check license plates of drivers, even when they are not doing anything wrong (how else could they ticket anyone for merely having no insurance). As well as how in the world is having a license plate light out poor driving? They can stop you for that as well, how often do you check your license plate light? If you say ‘often’ you are one of the very rare few.))
Phil replies(If the NMA wasn’t against prosecuting drunk drivers why would they give tips on how to lessen the BAC reading of the breathalyzer? LEOs checking the plates of a driver and subsequently his driving record in order to find a previous DUI conviction is a violation of the 4th amendment. Having your license plate light not illuminated while driving at night is an equipment violation. Therefore, an officer can stop, detain and or ticket them for it. If after the officer stops and detains them he finds there is an additional offense of law that constitutes a crime he can arrest. If durring the the stop and detention the driver’s record is checked it is only for validity of driving priviledges not prior conviction for DUI/DWI. that is a completely different DMV check function and would require probable cause(ie the driver is found after stop and detention to be drunk) to be utilized. If you are saying that these 4th amendment violations are the problem then why lobby the DUI/DWI laws to solve them? That makes zero sense and if I understand what you are saying is that in order to prevent these violations of the 4th amendment we should stop arresting people for DUI/DWI.)
Donleedon writes((Please tell me what fairy tale land that you come from so that I can apply for citizenship there really…))
Phil replies (are you selling me the idea that every crime that is committed get vigorous prosecution and sentenced to retribution fitting the crime?? Tlak about fairy tale lands.)
Donleedon writes((Practiced answers… I am not the one spouting verbatim the MADD dogma now that they have nothing to do now that ‘alcohol related’ fatalities have leveled off (also note that the total of traffic fatalities have not decreased per capita, just the ones that can be blamed on alcohol consumption in ANY amount). And yes, I read very carefully what you wrote, if that is not what you intended, perhaps you used a very poor analogy as that is the fallout of your argument. As well, to call me closed minded, in not so few words, you should look at your own posts.))
Phil replies(I came on here and said a few things suggesting that I am supportive of punishments fitting the crime and that I hated when criminals weren’t prosecuted or sentenced with fitting punishments to thier crime and suddenly I am spouting VERBATIM the MADD dogma. Ironic how I never gave a position on where I thought the legal BAC level should be set or if it should be a felony. You just assumed that because I post alot against the NMA on these forums that this was my position. In fact I believe the BAC should be at .10 as it was for many years and that 1st offense DWI/DUIs should be misdemeanors while 2nd offenses Felonys. Of course that being escalated if the crime involved a crash with more than 1 vehicle and injury or fatality being present. I would be shot on site saying those things in the general vicinity of a MADD convention. But then my position doesn’t fall in line with the NMA who feels that drunks should be allowed to guide thier 3000# missles anywhere they choose without any forms of retribution or consequences. The NMA likes to use many different subtle misinformation tactics to get fanatics like you all riled up. Lets examine what they tell us above.
1)MADD’s current excuse for existing is to make DUI violations a felony, the most serious of criminal convictions.
1a) while it is true that MADD is pushing for DUI to be a felony they are NOT pushing for the MOST serious of criminal convictions. In my state and I believe most states there are at least 5 levels of Felony and the level they are pushing for is not, I repeat NOT the top level but in actuality the lowest level of Felony available. Therefore, it isn’t theMOST serious of criminal convictions but rather middle of the road.
2)A felon, along with going to prison, loses the right to vote, the right to possess firearms, any professional licenses, scholarships, and many employment opportunities.
2a) This is why I support the .10 BAC and the 2nd offense Felony. So that not just any soccer mom after a night out gets caught and becomes a Felon but rather must 1st be convicted of the misdemeanor offense and repeat exhibitions of the behavior would result in loss of these liberties, something potential Felons would have been warned of much ealier before they repeated the behavior.
3)Given that two or three drinks and a typically inaccurate BAC test will yield a DUI conviction, any normal, responsible person who drinks moderately has a good chance of becoming a felon, if MADD has its perverted way.
3a)Making the claim that breathalyzers are inaccurate and yield faulty results has been a tactic the NMA has used for years. They even list ways to beat the breathalyzer on thier website.
4)The standard incremental approach is to first attach the felon status to persons with multiple DUI convictions and then whittle the number of convictions down to two or even one where the felon status will be assigned
4a) this May be what MADD is trying to do but ONLY because the #s of fatalities that are alcohol related are still number 1 cause of fatality crashes. The NMA claims that this is a result of alcohol related crashes being over represented by the definition of alcohol related. which is an outright lie.
5) The elephant in the room that no one is mentioning is that once a person has a DUI conviction on their record it’s like having a big sign on the back of their car that says “stop me, I’m a good candidate for a DUI.” A second or third DUI conviction is much easier to acquire than is the first.
5a)This statement implies that if someone is convicted of DUI or DWI the cops will then be specifically looking for them and they only get pulled over as a target through use of thier previous conviction and not through the proper use of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. This passage also implies that the second conviction is ONLY a result of previous behavior and conviction and makes no mention that the driver was exhibiting the unwanted behavior a 2nd time, caught, tested and arrest for the 2nd time. Is it easier for a prosecutor to prove a pattern as opposed to a single ocurrence? you bet.
6)Combine .08 percent BAC laws with inherently inaccurate Breathalyzers and politicized enforcement and normal responsible individuals who drink in moderation will achieve the status of “drunk driver felon,” without ever reaching the point of meaningful impairment, or causing and accident. The prohibition movement is alive and well and residing in Texas.
6a)This passage implies that the driving public is targeted and railroaded to a DUI/DWI conviction even though they never reached the point of impairment. Hello! If this person didn’t exhibit signs of “impairment” durring the field sobriety tests they would not have been arrested in the 1st place. In some states there are 2 separate offenses driving while impaired and driving while intoxicated. Those statutes have different levels of statutory BAC levels such as .07 is impaired and .10 is intoxicated. The NMA is implying here that innocent people get arrested for DUI/DWI without even being guilty of the lesser offense of driving impaired.
Why would the NMA misstate issues like they do? They know that you’ll get inflamed about innocent people being arrested for doing nothing and support them. It is a manipulation tactic called propaganda. Although I don’t support MADDs efforts on this issue I find I can’t put my support into an organization that is using propaganda to gain support either. In my eyes the NMA is every bit the same type organization that MADD is, just with a contrasting agenda.
I’ll comment on you actual post later when I have more time. However I will say you have wrongly assigned positions, took things out of context and outright changed what I said to benefit your argument. Now that you see my positions aren’t what you assumed maybe you can alter what you meant before I point out your apparent reading comprehension problems.
huh? what? ummm no…
Pretty much insert any of the 3 to any of those comments on the previous…
Please tell me what fairy tale land that you come from so that I can apply for citizenship there really…
Practiced answers… I am not the one spouting verbatim the MADD dogma now that they have nothing to do now that ‘alcohol related’ fatalities have leveled off (also note that the total of traffic fatalities have not decreased per capita, just the ones that can be blamed on alcohol consumption in ANY amount). And yes, I read very carefully what you wrote, if that is not what you intended, perhaps you used a very poor analogy as that is the fallout of your argument. As well, to call me closed minded, in not so few words, you should look at your own posts.
Where is the data regarding car theft vs livestock theft per capita? I have searched. Could it be that we have more accurate data today and that many times if your cattle was not branded the individual that took them could not be prosecuted as you had no proof of ownership? Perhaps it was a more sane time (for the most part) when people and government were more honest (for the most part) than now and that is why if you were in a horse and buggy drunk then you would not get cited for DWI (like you can now). I personally don’t need a law to tell me that I can’t take someone elses property, because I wouldn’t do it anyway
You are absolutely right, deter the behavior. Which means any behavior that has previously ended in a fatal traffic accident, especially if the numbers rival that of the supposed numbers in DWI instances (ie cell phones vs up to 0.12 BAC), they should be punished equally if that is the way that we are going. NHSTAs own statistics show that you are ‘safer’ riding with someone from 0.06 to 0.10 than a perfectly sober driver, based on the statistics charts I have seen.
Wow, are you kidding me? So I can go out and commit multiple murders before I will have to go to jail… Starting my list right now! Just let me know the magic number so I can stop before then can prosecute me.
Once again, ummm no, the NMA is not against prosecuting drunk drivers, they just have a much different opinion of what a drunk driver is than you or MADD have, right or wrong in either case. And LEOs routinely check license plates of drivers, even when they are not doing anything wrong (how else could they ticket anyone for merely having no insurance). As well as how in the world is having a license plate light out poor driving? They can stop you for that as well, how often do you check your license plate light? If you say ‘often’ you are one of the very rare few.
donleedon writes((Barbarism, that’s great! Let’s go all out with this and start cutting peoples hands off for stealing… why just go back to the wild west. And while we are at it, let’s put a futuristic spin on this, Judge Dredd anybody? We can add a little twist of the Minority Report and start locking you up because this little machine said you were going to do something (which they are indeed working on right now for airports based on emotions).))
Phil replies(That isn’t anything close to what I said or implied. so I can see you don’t want to discuss the issue you just want someone to assign a position that you have all your practiced answers ready for.)
donleedon writes((Sidenote: hanging cattle or horse thieves must not have been much of a deterrent as it happened quite often back in those days.))
Phil replies(Not nearly as often as automobiles get stolen even if you examin the frequency with respect to per capita.)
Donleedon writes((And while we are at it, why stop with DWI; since speeding, cell phone usage, etc all also cause traffic fatalities, lets lock these guys up as well for just doing it even though no one was hurt that time. I can see the commercials now, Run a Stop Sign – Go To Jail. In fact, since we will have so many people violating, lets wall off a city and make it a maximum security prison. Urinating in public used to not be a big deal, now we gotta get those pesky nose pickers.))
Phil replies(If there is no retribution for exhibiting a behavior then don’t expect to deter the behavior was my point)
Donleedon writes((With prisons overflowing I hardly see how this country downplays crimes. They are, however, quite adept at manufacturing crimes and continue to do so every day. Watch your mouth or you will be guilty of hate speech and never once utter a racial or sexist epithet.))
Phil replies ((are you kidding me? you litterally have to commit several serious crimes in order to get sent to prison. Then when you are sentenced to 25 years you only have to serve 16))
donleedon((I reread the article, twice, and I don’t seem to see where it states that they are against someone being punished for being at fault in a traffic fatality, genius. If you were to go out today, stone cold sober, and plow into a carload of people and someone dies, you go to jail for vehicular manslaughter, which where I live is not a misdemeanor. MADD is pushing for first violation no injury or accident DWI to be considered a felony. This is like hanging someone for looking at your cow, because they just might steal it. Then again, on second thought, perhaps making DWI a felony would grant you the right to a jury trial, which you aren’t afforded unless jail time exceeds 6 months in most areas.))
phil replies((That would be because they are against the prosecution of people who drive drunk period. They are more worried about how a conviction will look on the drunk drivers record than how many people he put in danger while driving drunk as evidenced by this statement “The elephant in the room that no one is mentioning is that once a person has a DUI conviction on their record it’s like having a big sign on the back of their car that says “stop me, I’m a good candidate for a DUI.” And how would an officer know he has a previous conviction unless he stops him for exhibiting bad driving?))
More later.
Barbarism, that’s great! Let’s go all out with this and start cutting peoples hands off for stealing… why just go back to the wild west. And while we are at it, let’s put a futuristic spin on this, Judge Dredd anybody? We can add a little twist of the Minority Report and start locking you up because this little machine said you were going to do something (which they are indeed working on right now for airports based on emotions).
Sidenote: hanging cattle or horse thieves must not have been much of a deterrent as it happened quite often back in those days.
And while we are at it, why stop with DWI; since speeding, cell phone usage, etc all also cause traffic fatalities, lets lock these guys up as well for just doing it even though no one was hurt that time. I can see the commercials now, Run a Stop Sign – Go To Jail. In fact, since we will have so many people violating, lets wall off a city and make it a maximum security prison. Urinating in public used to not be a big deal, now we gotta get those pesky nose pickers.
With prisons overflowing I hardly see how this country downplays crimes. They are, however, quite adept at manufacturing crimes and continue to do so every day. Watch your mouth or you will be guilty of hate speech and never once utter a racial or sexist epithet.
I reread the article, twice, and I don’t seem to see where it states that they are against someone being punished for being at fault in a traffic fatality, genius. If you were to go out today, stone cold sober, and plow into a carload of people and someone dies, you go to jail for vehicular manslaughter, which where I live is not a misdemeanor. MADD is pushing for first violation no injury or accident DWI to be considered a felony. This is like hanging someone for looking at your cow, because they just might steal it. Then again, on second thought, perhaps making DWI a felony would grant you the right to a jury trial, which you aren’t afforded unless jail time exceeds 6 months in most areas.
It also doesn’t help that someone at 0.08 is convicted at the same level as someone who is 0.10 which incidentally is the AMA definition of intoxication impairment. But lets not stop there, someone at 0.08 is considered the same as ‘insert any amount over the limit’, which is like saying someone traveling one mile over the speed limit is as bad someone traveling 50 over.
I am pretty certain there are people in this country who will not be happy until we have a Hitler running our country, minus killing all the ethnic minorities of course.
Increasing retribution for the crime gets potential violtors to think twice before they commit the crime. I think anyone involved in a crash as a result of driving while intoxicate either by alcohol or drugs should go to jail. We downplay way too many crimes in this country. Remember when stealing cattle was a hanging offense? I bet there was a deterent present for those who thought about stealing cattle. Who is the idiot that authored the above article? He apparently knows very little about the subject.
Waiting for the kooks to come out of the woodwork that think the above is a good idea…
THE PERPIFICATION OF AMERICA CONTINUES….
RICK GOLD