<p>My sister was hit by a drunk driver when she was on a bike ride. He just swerved off the road, randomly. Hit and run, but someone got his license plate number so he was caught.</p>
<p>It was pretty expensive trying to keep her alive, too. She died a week later. I have a hard time having sympathy for “the woe is us, it’s so expensive to fight a DUI” stance. It is much more expensive to deal with the damage done by drunk drivers. That’s why the laws are strict. To protect all of us.</p>
<p>around 10,000 people are killed by drunk drivers every year. 300 or so of them are children. Countless others are the parents of small children.</p>
<p>Just a month ago a very beloved 20 year old from our area was killed by a drunk driver who hit him in a crosswalk. He had a large family, younger siblings, devastated parents whose entire lives will never be the same.</p>
<p>Your son’s blood alcohol content was 2 times the legal limit and he was speeding at night because he wanted to have sex with an intoxicated girl, not very legal, by the way, and you are angry with the police? </p>
<p>the number of worse things that could have happened to your son because he took these actions, because HE chose to take these actions, is so much worse it’s unbelievable. Death, manslaughter, rape charges. You dodged a bullet, frankly. You are lucky.</p>
<p>I understand the process of acceptance means you have to be angry for a minute or a few days, but I wouldn’t stop with that. I’d continue on to “boy I’m glad nobody’s mom, dad or child was killed by my son.”</p>
<p>I’m so sorry for your terrible loss, (((geomom))).</p>
<p>I’m also a little relieved to see that I’m not the only one feeling less than sympathetic to the drunk driver or his parents.</p>
<p>You should have heard me ranting when Reese Witherspoon was all, “How dare you arrest us??” rather than “OMG, we suck for being so reckless.”.</p>
<p>Thanks, VillageMom</p>
<p>I’m glad to see others who share my viewpoint. I’m a soon-to-be 18 year old and I’m astonished this kid’s parents aren’t punishing him. If that was my mom everything and I mean everything would’ve been taken away. She’d be furious with me. All trust would be gone. All privileges would be gone. If my child did this I would not be “leaving it up to the county” to determine the punishment. They’d get a punishment from the county and from me. </p>
<p>Someone could’ve been killed. That is the most important point in this situation. I wouldn’t leave it up to my son to realize that. I’d make him know what could’ve happened.</p>
<p>There is something wrong in that we are putting way too many people in jail. No other civilized counry jails as many people as we do, on a percentage basis. Even as we do this, we are releasing those from jail who should be in there as they are truly a danger to society, and that should be the gold standard in jailing anyone. Punishment can be meted out in a lot of other ways, whereas penning up people should be reserved for those who need to be removed from the population.</p>
<p>It is a terrible, terrible problem that there are those out there who should not be driving, are not allowed to be driving, drive. They repeatedly show that they are going to drive with no license, they will also drink or be taking other substances that are illegal, and they will drive. They will take someone else’s car and drive if they are not permitted to register a car. All this stupid stinking time and money put into complex systems that outfit a car so a driver has to breathe into it to work?!? You think some repeat offender is not going to get around that? You think he cares that the license is suspended when he’s already had numerous DUIs and accidents? Those are the ones that need to be locked up, and not just for 30 days either. They need to be thrown into the hard core pen immediately when caught and then that is where they go for time upon convicion. The problem is that they probably know the system by then, and are unlikely to do the time if they get caught again. It’s the poor first time offenders who do what the cops say, that get the max up the legal whazoo through the system, not the hard core guy knows the ropes. So no, I don’t think a stupid 16, 17 even 18 year old, college bound or not, should be treated the same way. It just puts them in a situation where they are at disadvantage for anything due to what may well be a youthful indiscretion that any number of kids are doing.</p>
<p>I do agree that the OP’s son is still in a good place. Yes, the most selective schools will likely flush him because of this. HPY, for example, have more than enough candidates that they have find some reason to cull, so kids like your son are out. A “B” in Math could have had the same effect or a low test score in something, so it’s a done deal that this will do it. How it will affect UNC_CH, I don’t know. As of some years ago, UVA did not even ask, but today, I don’t know. It did not affect my son’s admissions, to have a nice big fat supplement with all of his ECs that had no space to it with his app, but we are talking about schools like NYU, UMich, CMU, and no, they did not care. Ithaca College wanted more info from the GC, and that was rather incredulous to me because I doubt that anyone would have been more thorough that what was provided there. I guess they wanted to make sure there wasn’t even more there since son was admitting to so much. As I stated to the OP, his kid cannot possibly be the first to get into this kind of trouble at his high school, certainly not in the surrounding high schools, and this is the sort of thing that GCs and administration get in service days to discuss, so there has to be some info out there. </p>
<p>But right there, the kid is going to be pretty much excluded from any jobs that require driving a company vehicle for a very long time, probably the rest of his life, since penalties for a repeat DUI are such that no commercial insurance is going to want. Jobs that are truly competitive and require back ground checks will eliminate him for the same reason that top schools will. Anything looking for reason to eliminate too many candidates will lop him because it’s there, and can show up forever. Again, being lucky enough to be from the family he is, and having the advantages he has, and having college on his radar, the consequences are not going to be as they will be for som e poor kid who doesn’t have these things who was foolish enough to have a few drinks and drive,. I know such kids, saw them in the courts, pretty clear their family beat the tar out of them and then the legal system throws the book at them. End of job opportunities, ever driving, anything, because of a one time mistake while still a minor. Yes, I saw them in court, as I, the fat cat rich mom, paid a fat cat rich lawyer to get my rich spoiled privileged kid off, and I had to throw all of my weight and resources to do this. I did not agree with the consequences those poor kids suffered, many of them unable, I am sure to recover from this blow that they had to take, any more than what my sons faced which was why I was fighting the very system I would have liked to have been supporting, and seeing all of this made me support the system less, and yes, it turned my sons as well. Had the consequences been less harsh and onerous, the police, the courts, the whole system would have gotten total cooperation from the family which is what you want in these cases. I think the way it works turns more of these first time offenders into true criminals as it throws them into jail and cuts out a lot of their meager options. And I am not talking about my kids here. They got off pretty much scot free from the courts. </p>
<p>I’ve seen a turn in these consequences, these “zero tolerance” laws and mandatory sentencing, and mandatory jail that make the punishments too severe for families and those caught to swallow and support the cause, Not just in DUI either, but in all sorts of situations, and it concerns me. There is also a disregard for rights in this whole process that bothers me as well. I don’t even see how a high school can treat a student as guilty until he is so found. What happened to the whole "innocent until found guilty"thing that is a fundamental premise of our entire legal system? When my kids got into trouble, I had to go from supporting many things that I truly supported and believe to outright fighting them, and that included the school which got slammed when I went after them (yes, I did for a number of reasons, and won) and in subsequent situations, got two police officers dismissed because they just were bad apples that took the power and crossed the legal line, they loved that high too much. When a process and consequence is such that someone who is an avid supporter is turned into an adversary, it kicks the system in the teeth, because that system really is not perfect and there are some very stupid people involved in it, which is particularly onerous as so much is at stake, and those fighting it are often smarter and stronger. What happens is that those who can’t fight get trounced, and yes, I resent the whole thing very much. What the heck benefit is there to put a 17 year old first offender of drinking too much on prom night into a jail for 30 days, when you are tight on jail space anyways? It’s not going to leave the family or the kid grateful for lesson learned. Will dong this teach him not to re offend any more than losing his license for a few years and having to pay astronimical insurance rates as a result? I’m sure his attorney will teach him the ropes,by the way, if he is worth his salt, as to what to do if he is EVER pulled over for possible driving under the influence so the likelihood of a future conviction is much lower if he ever should do this again, than it is for the first offense. That is the reality of the situation.</p>
<p>Drunk driving isn’t a victimless crime.</p>
<p>It’s not the same as putting someone in prison for something which could potentially hurt nobody.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how I feel about mandatory prison sentences for anything, but let’s not mistake drunk driving for a victimless crime, either. It’s not like you have to be on your second or third offense to kill someone. Any time anybody drives drunk, they could kill someone, injure someone for life, die themselves. More people are killed because of drunk drivers every year than die in the military, than are killed by gun violence.</p>
<p>I mean, we have to be clear at least on what we are talking about.</p>
<p>Drunk driving is like carrying around a loaded weapon with no safety.</p>
<p>Ironmaiden, when it’s a kid who is out at the prom who just got his license less than a year ago, and who does not go out much at all, 17 years old, I doubt he was a flagrant drunk driver that was finally caught. Very much doubt it. </p>
<p>That sort of attitude is what makes people not support the system and fight it, a system that needs support in order work.</p>
<p>If and when one of your kids is facing a consequence like that, you can make the decision to smile and nod and let the legal consequences rip, have to fight it tooth and nail. Looking at which way almost every single parent who has the resources and the wherewithal to deal with this reacts, it does NOT have support at all. I was in the courtrooms and saw more cases than I care to have ever seen, and talked to those who are pros in this area, and absolutely, it pits the family against the law. So those kids with family support and money, tend to get off, and those without get ground up. </p>
<p>In the meantime, the very offenders that these laws are trying to target, too often walk! By fighting the law from the instant you are caught, you up your chances drastically in beating it, so the kids and families who support the law get hung to dry, while those who fight it win. Really smart thing to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t see a lot of people fighting against the DUI laws. It’s not really happening.</p>
<p>The guy who drove into my sister had already been in a fatal DUI accident. The parents of the kid who died told me that the were sure this guy had actually been driving in that accident, but had switched their dead son into the driver’s seat. No idea whether I believe them, in their grief, but that would definitely count as cleverly working the legal system.</p>
<p>In any case, he was out there, driving again. I suppose driving off and leaving her by the side of the road was a pretty good strategy, too, because it was only a slim chance that someone would be able to identify him.</p>
<p>Despite all that, he got three months jail time, and then parole. I don’t know why so little. Maybe he had a good lawyer.</p>
<p>But three whole months in jail! I’ll bet he’s mad at the system, too.</p>
<p>Cptofthehouse-</p>
<p>In high school my friend and I made quite a bit of money being designated drivers. Almost all of the people we were called to pick up were 16-19 year olds who only had their license for less than three years. Some were in the top 10% of the class. One was even the valedictorian. Many of those had driven drunk and/or high multiple times but they were finally at a party where the host cared enough about his or her own liability, the safety of the drunk and/or high driver, and the safety of the public to call us to pick those teenage drunks up. </p>
<p>As others have stated, when a drunk driver is pulled over, it’s almost never his or her first time driving intoxicated. Given that the OP thought he could drive after drinking (btw, I still call B.S. that that was his first time actually getting drunk despite what he may have told the substance abuse counselor), and planned the night so that he knew he would have to drive drunk, he’s likely done it many times before. Also who cares that more people drive drunk than burglarize a home? The former crime is actually far more deadly than the latter. While I’m all for prison reform and reducing mandatory minimum sentences for what I perceive to be relatively victimless crimes, drunk driving is not one of those crimes. If the OP’s son had swerved, hit a tree, and killed his girlfriend, would you still argue that 1 month in jail is too much time?</p>
<p>And if you’re wondering, no I’m not an angle. Though I never drove under the influence, it’s a miracle that I managed to survive high school.</p>
<p>Careless driving is dangerous. Speeding also kills. Texting, cell phones, watching tv while driving also causes accidents. Stomping out of the house in anger and going behind the wheel can cause accidents. You want to do the numbers? A lot of dangerous things out there that do not carry a mandatory 30 day jail sentence for MINOR who is likely cooperating fully with the law when he gets caught as is the family, until they hear the sentence. Then it’s a fight. This is really what you want to do? Turn those who support a law into someone actively fighting It? You can’t think of something other than jail time as a consequence, something that the family and the guilty party will support? </p>
<p>You want to know who the most likely repeat offender is? Not the first offender like the OP who is likely not going to do 30 days in jail, despite NC"s rules and the aggravated parts of the charges. The one who already is the repeat offender and the one who doesn’t have support and money to fight the charges so he does the time. Yeah, the one who pays the full consequences are the ones who are more likely to repeat than the one who beats the system. And,yes, I checked out the numbers. I was just sick that there are wretches doing this jail time just because they don’t have the money and access and knowledge and family/adult support for a good lawyer to bat the rap. They are so screwed after all of this, they tend to throw their hands up and say, “what the heck”. This is one small area I know very well as i spent a lot of time having to be in this arena with a top criminal attorney who specializes in this. He drives a Mercedes, yes he does, owns 2 boats, sail and motor, and at least two mulitmillion dollar homes all from fighting these kind of charges, and being very, very good at it, as long as you can pay his exorbitant fees. Took one look at the fact that I have a slew of boys, and invites us to his parties on his yacht and at his club, and, no, I am not kidding. I’m sure we paid a few monthly bills for his stuff with what we laid out. And we did it gladly to fight the law. Better we have donated the money, which we would have done even more gladly to victims of such accidents and to those who need to rebuild their lives after doing something stupid so they don’t become career criminals and a drain on our system, which, yes, happens. Odds are not so great around here for young people whose families are not in good shape anyways. Something like this can be an early knock out punch.</p>
<p>A huge problem here, by the way, are those who drive with no license, no insurance. And I know a lot about that, unfortunately as well. You know the ropes, you can get away with it, by the way. Find a way to throw some of those folks in jail–you know some of them are still out there even after multiple accidents having hurt and sometimes killing someone, and STILL driving. They are harder to nail than the stupid 17 year old first offender who cooperated so fully, you can throw the book at him. Hell, he probably provided the breath, the story, admiited the amounts he drank, gave his urine and would have given them his blood if they asked for it. Shooting fish in the barrel to convict him and throw him in jail. Right now he is sorry, sorry, sorry and will do a lot to atone ,and will likely not do this again if given the chance. Stomp on him, corner him and Mama and Papa bear and the attorney, and they WILL fight the system and learn how to fight it if there is a next time. This law is stupid as are the consequences, and they go after the easy cases.</p>
<p>If the system doesn’t provide for a 30-day sentence, not for a DUI, but for a DUI with three aggravating circumstances, what do you do for those with only one aggravating cirucmstance, or none at all? It doesn’t seem to me that anyone is “out for blood”.</p>
<p>(The case is not being adjudicated under Laura’s Law, which is only for repeat offenders.)</p>
<p>Was it really a first offense? The court won’t know, but how did he get to and from the track meet parties?</p>
<p>I’m not sure how I feel about it. It always seemed odd to me that if the perp committed the same offense, with the same motivations, and same aggravating circumstances, but hit somebody, s/he could be spending up to five years in prison.</p>
<p>
Three months of jail time for what I consider to be murder! Unbelievable! I am so sorry for your loss. </p>
<p>And to the OP – do check out the thread already mentioned where it’s debated whether or not any suspension needs to be mentioned in college applications (Common App, in particular). Yes, indeedy, there was a case of a lying gc and a parent fully backing that gc up. Her snowflake had been punished enough, so she thought condoning the gc’s lie was just fine.</p>
<p>As good old Mike Tyson, said, “everyone’s gotta plan, until they(sic) get hit”. I love that quote as much as I don’t care for him or his sport. Because it is so right on. </p>
<p>Everyone is on board with DWU/DUI, MADD, SADD, and all of these programs, rah, rah, rah, until they get hit. Let them take your first born and threaten him with jail and the other penalities that a DUI that he cooperated full over and you the parent are supporting fully, and see how much you support this. If you got the money, and even if you don’t, you’ll be fighting it probably full force. I did it myself, the OP is going to be doing it and so has every single person I know who got caught in the situation. Talked to a judge whom i know well and others, and you realize that more money goes into fighting thise that supporting it? How much have any of you donated towards these causes? Probably no where close to what I have in fighting them in the court cases. So yes, you all support until your skin, literally your flesh and bones, fruit of your womb is in the game, and then all of a sudden the side shifts. I’m telling you, I’ve looked at the actual numbers and the whole racket just enriches those defending those who can pay. </p>
<p>And yes, I believe that the OP’s son was either a first offender or has not offended many times at all, and that a 30 day jail sentence will do more harm than good. </p>
<p>I know many, many, many repeat offenders who have not been caught yet, and when they are they won’t be doing any jail time most likely–I guarantee you that if should drink, drive and get caught, the liklihood would be about zilch unless I kill someone in an accident or it’s a high profile makes the national news event, that I would walk, as would my sons, as we know how to handle the situation. The ones ripe for the catching and making into an example is the OP’s son. His case is classic, Prom, girlfriends, hormones, peer pressure. They probably are right there as examples on drunk driving attorney’s web sites to catch the parents looking for an attorney to fight the law as OP has done, and yes, as I have.</p>
<p>So support away, and I challenge you to send me check to those Fight DUI funds in the amounts I have paid to thwart them. Better yet, sock the money away for when you might need it for your kid when he does something stupid like this and gets caught. You go count how many middle class/upper middle class college bound kids are sitting in jail doing that time vs those caught. Then look at who is sitting there doing the time. I did the head count. I did the research. I paid the money to FIGHT the consequences of all these rah rah rules and fundraisers, and paid more than anyone I know who donated towards them, including some millionaires, with the exception of companies, foundations involved with those who had a loved one maimed or killed in a drunk driving accident. And few of them paid penny one to such causes until they were hit. </p>
<p>Everyone has an opinion until s/he is hit. Then you know precisely what side you are on. I would be a frigging hypocrite to support most any drunk driving causes out there, given where I have put my efforts and money.</p>
<p>VillageMom – I do feel bad for the parents. While I agree that it was awful for the father to be initially mad at the police, I took that as more of a sign of general anger and frustration. He said that he was wrong and has since thanked the police for stopping his son.</p>
<p>However, I, like you, feel absolutely NO sympathy for the drunk driver. He knew what he was doing before he did it, and being subsequently drunk doesn’t negate his knowing that what he was doing could ultimately kill someone. I’m in NC and know that driver’s ed classes here emphasize, re-emphasize, and then do it again, the dangers of drunk driving. If people truly feel that 16-18 year olds should not be punished harshly because they don’t really understand the potential consequences of driving drunk, after having had it drilled into their heads over and over, then those people would have to agree that 16-18 year olds are too dumb to be driving motorized vehicles of any type.</p>
<p>One of my bright and wonderful high school friends has been institutionalized for 30+ years, a mental and physical invalid, because of a drunk driver in another car. As I said before, death would have been a blessing. The OP’s son is very, very fortunate that he is not dead or facing a vehicular homicide charge.</p>
<p>captain, you are up there on a very strange and rickety soap box.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>I have huge sympathy for the parents, and some for the kid. But I go back to the fact that the kid is not facing 30 days in jail because of a DUI. I think that’s important to remember. If it were just a DUI, the sentence would likely be probation, or a program, or community service and a fine. He is being threatened with jail because of a DUI plus three aggravating factors. Usually, he’d be threatened with jail if he had just two, so he is well over the legal line. </p>
<p>I’m not a fan of jails. Not at all. At the same time, the law being a blunt instrument, it seems to me that the law is calibrated, and pretty well, to fit the circumstances of the offense. Far from throwing the book at him, the law takes into account the specific circumstances of the offense. I’m not sure what more I could expect from the legal system.</p>
<p>I have a relative in law enforcement, and one who is a public defender. Everyone is innocent, it’s always a first offense, there are always mitigating circumstances, everyone is always just at the wrong place and the wrong time. And yet 8 year olds are mowed down by drunk drivers, small children are hit by a gunshot intended for another person, someone who is high decides to clean his gun and it goes through an open window and hits an old lady on her way to church.</p>
<p>Do you really want to live in a society where there are no consequences for really, really dumb actions and decisions which end up hurting other people?</p>
<p>The public defender by the way- after almost 30 years in front of a courtroom, pretty much believes that everyone he defends is guilty. He offers vigorous defense, because it is their constitutional right; he frequently gets them off- not because they’re innocent, but because the police screwed up or the chain of evidence was tampered with, or a piece of machinery was malfunctioning (BAC test, blood test, tainted DNA). And yet even he knows that most of the time- his alleged first offenders are just lucky people who haven’t been caught until their arrest. Why? because they tell him after they’ve been exonerated.</p>
<p>I am of the camp that this young man has likely driven impaired before. Perhaps not to this extent. So he’s been lucky; now his luck has run out. This is the brand new beginning to the rest of his life- he screwed up, he’ll take his medicine (jail or no jail) and he will not have the death or maiming of an innocent person to deal with for the rest of his life. He gets to push the re-set button after he serves his sentence, and doesn’t have to go to bed with the vision of the 8 year old kid he might have killed had he not been stopped by the cop when he was.</p>
<p>I think this is good news all around.</p>
<p>Cpt - you use the phrase “until you get hit” like you think getting a DUI is something that happens to you randomly, from the outside, that it is out of your control. I think that says a lot about your view of responsibility. Drinking and driving is a decision. It seems that the OP’s son planned his evening to involve both drinking and driving. He was responsible.</p>
<p>If a person is responsible for something that endangers the rest of us, then punishment makes sense. We hope that will cause them to make different decisions in the future. If the person claims that they are not responsible, then it is clear that they are going to continue the behavior. Under this second scenario it seems reasonable to remove them from civil society.</p>