Son's prom night DUI

Parents Forum
301

<p>I think both kids and adults get into DUI and accidents because:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Our teen driving education is terrible. For more than 20 years, I have not seen anything better in the California DMV teen driving education. They still use the same handbook with a a few paragraphs specifying the restrictions for teenager. We live in the digital information age but the DMV does provide any video to help the kids see and understand the danger of reckless driving. Everything is left to the for-profit driving schools or the kids to figure out. The for-profit driving schools don’t do a through job. That’s why some car insurance companies require kids to take additional training before they can offer insurance.</p></li>
<li><p>Parental supervision is not adequate. California requires parents to train teenagers 50 hours behind the wheel but I don’t think most parents take time and sincerely do this task. A lot of parents are too confident in their kid’s driving skills.</p></li>
<li><p>The driving habits of the adults on the road are bad examples for teenagers. If someone wants to be safe then that person will be cursed by other drivers on the road. I see accidents on the way to work every day. Most of accidents are caused by tail-gainting. It’s hard to tell the kids to apply the 4 second rule when they see how adults drive these days.</p></li>
<li><p>Our law enforcement agencies have a hidden agenda different than providing public safety: bring more money to their departments and cities. A lot of times they ignore reskless drivers and target innocent people. I have seen many unnecessary radar speed tracking and car stopping activities by hidden police at places that rarely have accidents and the only reason the police do this is to collect fine from people during rush hours. But the police completely ignore drunk people coming out of the bars because the bar owners pay.</p></li>
</ol>

302

<p>Mini, it’s always the case that if by a freak of chance someone is hurt or killed, the consequences go WAY up. Any number of things, and if no one is hurt, you have a good chance of going scott free but if someone is hurt or killed, even if it is totally an accident, it is possible to be up for murder charges. So is the sanctity of human life and the insignificances of the “what ifs”. We can’t go after every “what if”. </p>

<p>I was in a car accident that was such that it was a miracle that we survived, much less did not even get hurt. But that it was such a close call, didn’t matter. Back to business. Had it gone differently, it would have been a total life changer. </p>

<p>I didn’t study Laura’s Law but from what I can see, it was targeted for repeat offenders, but it also changed things drastically for first offenders in that it changed the age of the passenger and some other attributes so that if it’s an aggravating circumstance if the passenger is under age 18, up from 16. Ironic as the driver is being charged as an adult and he is not 18. Also it makes things onerous for the DA (it would likely be an asst DA,a new kid if it’s like this area) to file the paper work to reduce the charges once they are in the system. So it is much,much less likely for the DA to want to reduce these particular cases which is what is needed to avoid jail time, because the other change is that the judge has to sentence you to 30 days in jail unless the charges are reduced. The only time the asst DA is likely to reduce those charges is if there is a really good deal an attorney can offer him on some other case, it’s someone he might know or get word that someone who is someone knows, or if the judge makes him do so. One of mine in his wild days, got some charge that was hung up that way, and the judge just flat out told the DA he had to reduce the charges or he would totally dismiss the case, the way the mandatory sentencing was set up. It was frigging catch 22 for the DA who had to say he could not, and the case was dismissed. Oh, yes, i have watched a lot of NY court shows, real ones and seen how it works. Too many. </p>

<p>So the arresting officer, knew when he threw the book at the kid, that he is likely to get 30 days in jails with the charges as levied, and he pretty much bullied the kid into the breathalyzer which he could have refused and was pushed into making a statement locking him into all the charges. Had he just sat and requested his phone call and gotten his lawyer on the spot, they likely would have squat right now and have to let him go. Yes, I 've seen that. It’s the way it’s set up. And it won’t take long for the kid and others to learn this Mine all know, some from experience that it does not pay to cooperate with the police. You can go scott free, really, if you just exercise your constitutional rights against self incrimination. </p>

<p>The big question here since the judge HAS to sentence the kid or throw out the case IF the DA does not drop the aggravating charges which are all pretty much engraved in stone and indefensible, is whether the lawyer can talk the asst DA into going through the now very lengthy Pain in the neck process to drop some of those circumstance so the case can be reduced so no jail time is done if that is the crux of the situation. And it will be done in cases where the defendant is important enough to be able to have that kind of clout or has some inside line. There may be some other issues that are in the picture as well, but that all depends upon how that court is run, the asst DA on the case, and the attorney.</p>

303

<p>CPT, I wouldn’t want any of my kids in jail. But if I had to choose between one of my kids going to jail (not Attica or Sing-Sing, but my local county jail where they’d get visitors and three square meals) vs. risking that they are going to kill someone with my Honda CRV mixed with poor judgement and impulse control, I think I’d pick jail.</p>

<p>I get that you have seen the underbelly of the law, and I know that prosecutors and police and all those other bad guys are out to screw upper middle class kids… but you really think this kid should suffer no consequences more onerous than having to fess up to his guidance counselor and run a few seminars on drunk driving at his HS? So he should have refused a breathalyzer, invoked his fifth amendment rights, and right now be planning chapter 2 of his “party-hearty then drive and have sex” prom night plan which got ruined while he waited for his lawyer and his body to metabolize the alcohol?</p>

<p>Not buying it.</p>

304

<p>I perfectly well understand the vagaries of the criminal justice system (hey, I spent 20 years working on state alcohol and drug policy), and I know more than I ever want to know about the school-to-prison pipeline, whereby certain kids in certain neighborhoods can, quite literally, go to jail for talking too loudly or wearing their pants too low. Try writing about those on a college application!</p>

<p>The law is a blunt instrument. Compared to my state, it seems to me that North Carolina legislators did a reasonably good job in calibrating sentencing to fit the circumstances. Then, as you say, it is a matter for the legal system carnival. Heck, we’ve got kids threatened with prison for giving an aspirin to friends with a headache! This is certainly not anywhere close to the most egregious misuse of “justice” I’ve seen regularly (regardless of the outcome.)</p>

<p>It’s all relative. As things go, I’m thinking 30 days seems about right.</p>

305

<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”</p>

<p>Yes I do think that the OP was hit out of left field with no idea about this when he got the phone cal. I absolutely would say that it would be EVERY BIT MY FAULT, MY CHOICE, MY DOING, if I go drink and drive. I also want to tell you as I said before, I would likely get off, knowing what I know on how to handle it unless injuries, death, publicity get involved. </p>

<p>But this was the OP’s son. Yes, he should have been the wiser, but really, most of us are amateurs when it comes to parenting. Your kid is a great student. He never has gotten into trouble. Nor the kids he hangs around with. He is very responsible with the car. He has been very good with it in the less than a year since he’s had his license. Absolutely no reason, other than the fact that every parent should but few, very few parents are, be suspicious and not trusting about kids driving after things like parties and proms. This parent did nothing that was out of the ordinary for most anyone in his community. So, yes, he got hit. Out of left fields. As I did. Heck, mine wasn’t even driving my car when he got into trouble. had no license and I had just verified with someone who was a trustworthy adult, his whereabouts. I went right by the plan and man, did I get hit. Don’t talk to me about plans and getting hit.</p>

<p>The reality is that more parents are “donating” more money to fight these drunk driving type laws than supporting them. Also putting more effort into it. And I do not thank police officers, as we had two of them released and facing charges for lying, perjury,fraud and a number of other things. They probably beat most of the charges, the way things work, but yes, I sued and won. Thanked, the officer, my back side.</p>

306

<p>Compare “I had to pay money so my kid could go free after endangering others”
with “My sister was hit by a drunk driver and after costly medical care died anyway.”</p>

<p>Who was hit?</p>

307

<p>For all of you who think 30 days is just right, well, I will tell you that you most likely more like the parents who paid, fought tooth and nail to get their kids out such predicaments then those who said, “oh, well, to jail you go.”</p>

<p>I do not believe that the law or the police target middle/upper class young people in these situations. It’s just when they catch someone, they do everything they can to sew the case up and getting the amateurs is like I said, shooting the proverbial fish in the barrel". And really, these kids get off easy. It’s the ones without the families with resources and wherewithal that are screwed, and yes, they are, sometimes, as Mini says for looking at a cop the wrong. way. Caught one on video, we did, so yes, it happens. So what you see being done with kids that have the help to mitagate the situation, is a downright calamity, catastrophe for those who don’t. My kids got off. I paid and fought to do so, and they learned to fight and the rules of the fight from the process, and the system has a bunch of people who don’t support them and in fact contributed greatly towards undermining it. Just as the underage drinking and pot smoking is not going to stop when families/ parents do not support the rules, neither is this whole drinking and driving. I’m really not kidding when i say, it’s easier to get off many times as a second offender due to the way you are treated and what you learn as a first offender. </p>

<p>The kid did a stupid thing, and yes, others could have been killed,maimed, property damage. He broke the law. Maybe he did it before, but you know, you have no proof he did and he is innocent of that until proven guilty and it is pure speculation that he’s driven this way before. There are millions of people out there who have driven drunk or impaired before, and it doesn’t matter, when no harm is done, and the person is not doing it now, and hopefully in the future. Most first offenders (yes, that is what we call people CAUGHT the first time, that 's the way it works) in these situations, especially kids like this one, he’s a minor, for crike’s sake, have no idea what the direct legal consequence of all of this is. I truly think that if the money the OP is going to pay to fight the case, went towards truly preventing more of this, and if the process made it so the family and OP jump in and support this cause to avoid the jail sentence, it would be better for all concerned. </p>

<p>Like I said, I saw zero kids from families that are involved heavily in their kids’ welfare sitting in jail serving these kinds of sentences. Absolutely zero. Jails loaded with those who didn’t have that kind of family. I have no doubt what the chances are as to what side of the cell kids of parents’ on this forum will be sitting for these sorts of charges.</p>

308

<p>Folks I wasn’t expecting this pushback but I can understand it. If you had asked me a week ago about DUI laws I would certainly have said that they should be strengthened. My family has thankfully never been the victim of a drunk driver but we know more than enough families who sadly have been.</p>

<p>It just all changes when it’s your kid. I know our kid made a terrible series of decisions but if you expect me to enthusiastically send him to jail for 30 days I don’t think you understand what it means to be a parent. Your instinct is always to protect your kid, no matter how badly he screws up.</p>

<p>We have a ton of respect for the police and the justice system. I’m just trying to be honest with other parents here about the tidal wave of conflicting emotions my wife and I are going through–I admit, not all of them are logical.</p>

309

<p>NCDad – I get it. You are very honest about your feelings, and my heart goes out to you. Any parent should want to protect his/her child, and none but the most callous would “enthusiastically send [a child] to jail”. Fortunately, however, the criminal justice system does not allow parents (any of us) to judge our own children’s court cases.</p>

310

<p>^^ I completely understand how you feel, NorthCarolinaDad. We have these threads periodically and it provides a nice platform for those who KNOW their family members would never do such a thing to grandstand and tell you how your kid deserves every single consequence. Please know that there are a few of us who have been through similar situations and do understand the range of emotions and the need to protect your child. I know you are grateful that no one was hurt and will do everything in your power to make sure your son never does anything like this again, but you are the parent and will do everything you can for him.</p>

311

<p>I understand, sympathize, and empathize! I do not for one minute expect you to enthusiastically send your kid off to jail - hey, I’d be horrified if he was my kid! And I’d do whatever I could to protect him. </p>

<p>My question was theoretical, and not at all directed at you. Of course, I also understand how you could take it personally. As I said, I’m not clear myself, which is why I asked others for their opinions. </p>

<p>A totally side issue: the track coach. The kids have been drinking, apparently regularly. Does he know? Does the school board know? How is that going down?</p>

312

<p>

</li>
</ol>

<p>For #2, the parents probably teach their kids their own bad habits (#3). Examples include following too closely, not signaling or looking before changing lanes or turning, not driving a safe speed for the conditions, not paying attention to sight lines, not stopping and yielding as required at stop signs and right turns on red, not checking for pedestrians, etc…</p>

313

<p>NCDad, I agree with the law as written in this case, and I also expect parents to defend their kids to the best of their abilities. The law assumes, sometimes wrongly, that the accused will put up a good defense. That’s a good thing! It has nothing to do with whether a given law is too lenient or too harsh. Our system is designed to have advocates on both sides. As far as I can tell, all is as it should be in the aftermath of this event.</p>

<p>“Part of the difficulty with a crime like a DUI is that there is not a malicious intent as there is with other crimes of similar punishment.”</p>

<p>Intent is a funny thing. Some crimes carry a legal definition of malice aforethought. Then there are ethical judgments that don’t depend on the law. Consider young people who are are having heterosexual intercourse but “didn’t intend” to get pregnant. If you DID intend to get pregnant, you would have done the exact same thing, so I have a lot of trouble seeing a lack of intent there or awarding any points for it. I view a deliberate, knowing choice to drive drunk as indistinguishable from a deliberate, knowing choice to fire a gun into a crowd. But you didn’t intend to kill anyone! So what? The reckless disregard for the lives of others is the moral equivalent of intent in my book. I disagree with the Buddha (and Jesus) on this one: when we’re talking about harming others, it’s your actions, not your aims, that matter. If you have hate in your heart and don’t hurt anybody else, that’s fine with me.</p>

314

<p>I doubt that the track coach knew. These kids are smart and are good at hiding things. My son taught himself how to drive by taking our cars out in the middle of the night. We had an alarm system which he defeated by putting magnets on one of the windows. We had no idea, and we are not stupid people. He totaled a car (actually 2 by the time all was said and done). Yes, people were at risk and we did take the step of sending him somewhere where he and everyone else would be safe. It wasn’t jail, but it was pretty close in his opinion. So, yes, I get the need to balance safety of the kid and the community (and the assets of the family) with the love for a child.</p>

315

<p>While people are arguing about the appropriateness of jail sentences for DUI, what is the length of driver’s license suspension in NC for DUI?</p>

<p>Of course, even if the state does not take his license away, the insurance companies may effectively do so, by raising his liability insurance rates to even higher levels due to the DUI on his record.</p>

316

<p>I actually don’t feel judgemental towards anyone who finds themselves in this situation. I’ve seen and empathized with the heartbreak on both sides of this for a lot of years, now. And, Dad, I know that the anger and frustration is a part of the process you will go through with accepting this.</p>

<p>Also, I don’t think any parent can believe their kid couldn’t get caught in a situation like this. Unfortunately. Which is why I don’t believe in mandatory sentencing and am not a big fan of zero tolerance policies.</p>

<p>At the same time, it’s hard to deny that 10,000 people are killed by drunk drivers every year. How do you balance the rights?</p>

317

<p>

</p>

<p>Nice ad hominem attack on those who think consequences are appropriate, MomofWildChild.</p>

318

<p>

Having the parents supervise and document their child’s hours really only works when the parent is a good driver. My mom documented everything. She was able to tell the DMV when I hit the required 40 hours and my total hours driving if they wanted it. (I thought it was excessive…but hey.) </li>
</ol>

<p>

I agree with this. It’s pretty easy to get your license without knowing the majority of the rules. First hand experience, I failed my permit test the first time. 5 minutes later retook it after the examiner let me skim the book, and I passed with a 9/17 or something. Basically, I got 9 right and 8 incorrect. For me to get my license all I had to do was drive. I had to take a 4 hours alcohol awareness course online, but it was open book. </p>

<p>

There’s a four second rule? I just count the way the Allstate guy counted. You know that commercial: One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Leaving four seconds of space between you and the driver in front of you is only going to get you cut off.</p>

319

<p>I totally get where you are coming from, NCDad. Thank you for starting this conversation.</p>

320

<p>Of course, most of those going up for trial are guilty. We are not that corrupt as a system…yet. The issue I have is that the rights are not emphasized other than the quick Miranda, so the first time offender who often times is a supporter of causes like MADD, the police funds, etc is very cooperative and get the book thrown at him. Gone are the days, in most areas, where the cops know the kids and families and use discreton. I think I mentioned that it’s gotten so bad, that nearly every kid going into the military and getting background checks have some legal problem–my brothers have been involved in some of this, and they are appalled at what gets put on the records these days. </p>

<p>Nice that you are fine with the nice local clink but not Attica, Blossom. Hope if one of yours ever lands there that it is up to your standards, not that you can pick and choose. You have no idea what kind of jail any given kid can be placed in at any given time, So it’s either you get to choose what consequences your kid gets, or you let the law decide, and it’s not in your control. Maybe your kid will hang himself before going to such a place, one did that around here. Good student, stupid situation, poor family, to jail he went and he couldn’t take it, and you know what. I can understand. You all think that we DON’T jail enough people in this country given the stats? </p>

<p>And, I don’t get your point, Geomom. Yes, I paid so my kid did not go to jail for something he clearly did. Paid more than anything I have ever donated to any drunk driving fund including to those victims with hefty medical bills and funeral expenses and survivors. Paid more than any donation I have made towards any cause, and you know what, I would have paid even more, 4, 5 times more, mortgaged the house more. And I would have paid it towards those victims and families of drunk drivers instead of to the fat cat attorney, had I had that choice. And the OP is doing the same as are many, many other such families in the same case. Craxy isn’t it? And this money comes straight from family funds, not insurance proceeds. It hurts more to pay that than to pay most law suits involving drunk driving damages since that is usually paid by insurance.</p>

<p>But still, I don’t get your statement. The person who hit the sister who died, if he had the money, probably paid the attorney more than what he donated towards the sister. The insurance usually covers the damages. I do know a few damages cases, and those with umbrella coverage have ended up not paying a dime. When our insurance company was involved in a major law suit on our behalf, we weren’t even permitted to pay for an independent lawyer. The ins company took care of the entire thing. </p>

<p>But no one was hurt in this case. No one was hit. Just like no one was hurt when this and that kid texted or drover carelessly in many cases. In the cases, where someone did get hurt, it’s a whole other story, just as it is in any circumstances where true harm vs potential harm is involved.</p>

<p>I fully support the law in underage drinking and have intervened a number of times, where it was probably not a good idea personally, it terms of refusing to let someone drive who were drinking and underage, and who just didn’t look like they should be drinking. Anyone convicted of drinking and driving should lose the privilege of driving and if caught doing so, even just driving, should be jailed for a lot longer than 30 days. Any who has lost his license through the law and driving should be jailed, and when the driving privilege is revoked, the person should be told that he will be jailed if he drives. Make it a frigging 3 year sentence mandatory. </p>

<p>But a first offender to jail? The aggravating conditions here are the high alcohol level, which could be due to the breathalzyer itself–by the way, my kids always flat line on that, they know how to breath as swimmers, as do a number of kids, and other factors, that he has a minor in the car, but he’s a mnor himself,and when they changed the law last year they decided the passenger is a minor until 18, but the driver is not at age 17 which makes no sense to me, and he was speeding, something a lot of people do a lot of the time including yours truly here. He was also hot to trot, which was why he was speeding and you guys out there are so dead down there, that you don’t know how that feels? So those are the three aggravating circumstances. And it’s set up so there isn’t much one can do about them. I think one used to be able to balance mitagating with aggravating, things like a good drivers record, cooperation with the police and good references on behavior from schools/work/ – no other criminal complaints, plus immediate participation in counseling/ alcohol treatment programs. Those three things would have somehow knocked the charges so that he still lose his license for a long time, have the DUI on record for the rest of his life so that ANY time he ever does this again, it’s a second offense that should have mandatory jail time, he’ll have to pay insurance premiums up the whazzooo for this, he’s got a huge blotch on his disciplinary records, probably lost his chances at certain jobs, schools, awards appointments, cost his parents a boatload of money and aged them 10 years, and he’s probably very sorry, beating himself up, devastated and if prone to depressions and other mental demons, maybe even suicidal. The talk at the school centers on him and this, I’m sure, and this is a kid not used to being in trouble. Not like some who are used to it. He’ll spend the summer, and maybe the rest of the next year working on these drunk driving projects (not driving those who need rides, however, ha, hal)</p>

<p>So,yes, I think he is gong to be punished enough for a long time. That DUI is going to be on there for the rest of his life, you know. The 30 days in jail is what is pushing things over the edge where parents are going over to the others side to fight rather than join the team on the consequences and causes of drunk driving , and to pay a lot of money towards the profession that helping those get free and not suffer the consequences. There is that tipping point, and I think it is stupid to have that. More people fight these cases, more lucrative to be a lawyer to fight them. Work’snot so good for the law professions these days, so this is a ripe field. Make it so these son of aguns can’t make a living doing his, by having that money go to victims/families of drunk driving and to prevent more drunk driving. I can think of a hundred different ways that money could be better spent to cut down on such incidents and instead its going into the pockets of someone whose profession is to get drunk drivers off. You think THAT makes sense?</p>