<p>Cptofthehouse the kid already admitted to having been drinking other times after track practice. Want to wager about how he got home. And in my experience kids admit to only a small percentage of what they have done. </p>
<p>Rationalize softer penalties for “first time offenders” all you want. It’s time we stop making excuses for our kids and actually parent them.</p>
<p>The North Carolina law, in its wisdom, DOES differentiate between first-time and multiple offenders. That’s why the penalty - with two aggravating factors - is only 30 days. </p>
<p>The legal system makes lawyers money. So, what else is new? You design a system which is adversarial, you have adversaries. (The only way around that would be to have the public pay for all defense attorneys, and have them selected through random draw.) The same would be true if the defender was a first time ax murderer.</p>
<p>NCDad, you and your wife are in my thoughts all the time. As parents, I can only imagine how difficult this must be. I can understand the struggles, conflicts, range of emotions, etc. I think you are doing a great job. Keep being strong for you, your wife and your son.</p>
<p>As for your son, he must face the consequences of his choices.</p>
<p>
I think that’s why some people are really squeamish about this - even people like myself, who narrowly missed being killed on the roads by a drunk (or homicidal) driver. When you make laws that almost anyone can break, and impose massively harsh penalties, you end up with a corrupt system that targets people almost randomly. </p>
<p>I do not disapprove of jail time for people who are caught drunk driving, even for the first time, but the Virginia system makes much more sense: toss 'em in immediately for 24 hours. Twenty-four hours will scare the living daylights out of a kid just as much as thirty days will, but it’s a punishment that is well-tailored to the crime. (You’re sober when you leave. You immediately lose all of your autonomy, and if you had a big important appointment to make, well, stinks to be you.) </p>
<p>Thirty days for what could have been a stupid kid mistake (a very, very stupid kid mistake, and potentially deadly kid mistake) seems almost excessive, and the fact that you can get it plead down really makes the whole system seem unjust. Which is entirely contrary to the point of a justice system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I was learning to drive, it was the 2 second rule, although that was new and they used to say “one car length for every 10mph”. However, I doubt most people understand what these distances mean.</p>
<p>60mph = 88 feet per second.
A typical car is about 16 feet long, although there is some variation.</p>
<p>“One car length per 10mph” = 96 feet at 60mph, or a little more than 1 second.
2 seconds = 176 feet.
3 seconds = 264 feet.
4 seconds = 352 feet.</p>
<p>Putting it into perspective, compare these times and distances:</p>
<p>Best reaction time for a driver expecting a sudden stop = probably about 0.5 second.
Typical reaction time for a driver expecting a sudden stop = probably about 1 second or more.
Typical reaction time for a driver not expecting a sudden stop = probably a lot more than 1 second.</p>
<p>So if the driver in front of you hits the brakes hard, then you need to be behind by as many seconds as your reaction time.</p>
<p>But if the driver ahead changes lanes to unmask a stationary object (e.g. stopped cars in a traffic jam), or crashes to a stop into something stationary, then you need to have your reaction distance plus braking distance in your following distance, unless you can quickly safely change lanes to avoid the stationary object or crashed car in front of you.</p>
<p>Typical 60-0 mph braking distances in modern cars are 130 to 160 feet. However, wet, snow, or icy road conditions can increase braking distances. So can poor quality or old tires (or worn out ones in wet, snow, or icy conditions), poorly maintained brakes, etc… Heavily loaded vehicles take longer to stop.</p>
<p>You have to monitor your kid. That is the bottom line. And I did monitor mine. As I said before, I did due diligence. In fact, my one kid had no drivers license because I believed (correctly as it turned out) he was to irresponsible to be permitted to drive. So he drove anyways. Drove just about everyone’s cars, and they all KNEW he had no license and thought it was a lark. They still do, 10 years later about how their dumb parents who bought them cars didn’t know that they were letting an unlicensed driver drive. They are all funny stories to them and to some of the parents, now ten years later, but the entire ordeal hurt me terribly, just about gave me a breakdown, hurt DH and my relationship, hit us financially, and I am still depressed about it. Don’t think it is funny one bit. </p>
<p>Don’t any of you see the irony, or hypocrisy or whatever, in that you can understand that the OP is going to spend and fight for his son to stay out of jail, even as you believe that the punishment is just? I think that the money could be much better spend put into a fund towards victims of DUI accidents and also helping those first offenders whose families can’t afford the fee, go through some process of contrition and work for those foundations set up for DUI groups. Instead, the money is going to a lawyer who makes a living getting off those who are accused of DUIs, and don’t even think the biggest money is from first time offenders. Just google DWIs and you’ll see ever so many of these attorneys, They love the strict laws and the threat of jail sentences because it bring in even more business and higher fees when the spectre of a jail sentence is there. </p>
<p>Also, I;ll bet most of you would be fighting for your kid and paying too, if in the same situation. So, yes, I think a 30 day jail sentence is too much. It turns the family and kid from pro DUI laws to anti and from let’s help the police and the authorities to being straight out adversaries, and enriches those who are helping the multiple times offenders get free or lessened sentences.</p>
<p>CPT I think your anger at so called fat cat attorneys is misplaced. My relative who is a public defender makes less than a school teacher with 5 years experience in his city, and he’s got close to 30 years of trial experience. He does it because he believes in the Constitution and that without skilled legal representation, our entire court system falls apart for people who don’t have the money to hire an attorney.</p>
<p>My neighbor represents all kinds of families caught up in legal trouble- rich, poor, and in between, and has a sliding scale so that nobody walks into court alone- even in cases with a simple bench warrant where people are told they don’t need to be represented. People say stupid things under stress, and he’s committed to making sure that people keep their mouths shut in court unless they need to speak (i.e. a direct question from the judge).</p>
<p>Nobody told you to hire a fat cat lawyer-- and you may have gotten the same result you got by calling a clinic at a law school, legal aid, or a store-front lawyer who charges a reasonable fee for a simple court appearance. You CHOSE to hire someone who charged you top dollar for two reasons- you could afford it (which is great) and you didn’t want to look back with regret that if the decision hadn’t gone your way, that you might have moved the needle with a more experienced, more expensive, or higher wattage lawyer.</p>
<p>Again, that’s your choice. But to indict the entire legal system because your lawyer charged you and arm and a leg seems a little self serving.</p>
<p>Nobody is sent to a Federal penitentiary for a DUI. And if I’m wrong on this please educate me. And as I said, I wouldn’t want my kids in jail, and am sure you did the right thing moving heaven and earth to keep your kid out. But I still don’t think the cops did anything wrong in the case of the OP’s son (which seems to be your beef- over-reach by law enforcement.) If the kid had not been drinking, and his breathalyzer came back with a reading over the limit due to a mechanical malfunction- heck yes, call the newspapers and the blogs, make a stink about prosecutors and their zeal. But this kid admitted to drinking, driving, having formulated a plan to do so well before he actually imbibed. If you don’t try to make an example of out this kid-- what hope do we have as a country for ever stopping the carnage?</p>
<p>
Both of those will often refuse representation to those who can afford “fat cat” lawyers: they have sliding scales for their fees, and some simply will not represent someone who can afford a lawyer. (Also, “afford” may mean merely that you make an average salary.)</p>
<p>Aries, I think the 24 hours in the tank for first offenders is great, and to scare the heck out of them and every other part of the penalties. Just not the 30 day jail sentence. And if you read NCDad’s post, that was where the deal broke down for him too. Thanked the police office, agree that the license is toast, agreed it was serious, everything until it came down to the 30 days in jail, and that is when the attorney comes into the picture and he pretty much can name his price if he can keep the kid out jail. The kid can scrub porta johns, drunk tanks for the rest of the year, go to AA, counseling, have to take classes, etc, etc, but the line is clearly drawn as to when he has to go to the other camp to protect his son. Wouldn’t be a lot smarter to have everyone on the same side on this? </p>
<p>Because that’s what happened with us too. It was a deal breaker after a certain point and it was no longer, “thank you, Officer,” but we are suing you and accusing of you, officer," and it was a fight I really did not want to take on, but too much at stake for the kid. The line to me, was pretty clear, and seeing how the system worked, that those savvy where way far from the line made me realize that where the punishment becomes to harsh. That line is clearly drawn where the majority of parents can no longer support the system and go on the other side. Yes, there are some that will fight every little bit because they are so wired, but really, in most of these cases, there is a pretty clear delineation as to where the support is lost.</p>
<p>
Okay, this irks me: so if we wouldn’t drink, drive drunk, and speed while driving drunk so that we can have sex with a legally intoxicated person (some might call that “rape”), or we don’t condone that, we’re sexually dead? </p>
<p>Grrrrr.</p>
<p>
We agree.</p>
<p>I think that psychologically, there comes a point at which the penalty is so harsh that you defend the person, even if you abhor the actions that trigger the penalty. If we made it a capital punishment to shoplift, everyone would do their grizzly mom routine if their kids were accused of shoplifting - not come down on the kids. </p>
<p>Reminds me of a friend from college whose friends were out driving late at night, goofing off, mooning other drivers and swerving around cars. They mooned an unmarked police car. The officer said, “I could arrest you all, charge you with x, y, and z, and make your parents hire lawyers. Instead, I want you to all go home, wake up your parents and tell them what you did, and have them call me by 5 am to explain, in detail, what you did.” That obviously wouldn’t work for drunk driving (the kid should get cuffs tossed on him and spend the night in the drunk tank), but it’s much more effective when parents are also on your side.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I learned and have been teaching my daughter that a car length is approximately the length of one stripe painted between the lanes on the road plus the space until the next stripe.</p>
<p>Hmm, I’ll have to take a look at the road the next time I’m out. I’ll use your strategy, oldmom. </p>
<p>I generally get a feel of where they are compared to me. I look back to see how far they are and merge when I know I won’t hit them. In more urgent cases, you just have to hope they don’t want to be hit! :p</p>
<p>I have a Garmin Nuvi with the Lane Assist feature and it’s nice for telling which lane(s) you should be in for the next turn.</p>
<p>The attorney I hired was worth every penny, as he is very good at what he does. I don’t think we qualified for a court appointed lawyer, and when one goes to court and watch those guys, they are truly a mixed bag in terms of outcome, and mostly not as good. They are not paid well, and I do have a lot of respect for them and what they do. In fact, had I gone into law, that would have been a possibility for me. My kids were minors, and we did not qualify for a public defender any more than we would have for financial aid. I also could see very clearly where most of those with public defenders ended up.</p>
<p>Maybe you have a nice little local jail, but in some areas that’s not the case. My one kid got into trouble in a raunchy part of Queens, and looking at the facilities there, it’s no place where anyone would want their kid to sit for one day, much less 30. </p>
<p>I have ZERO anger at the lawyers. I am just telling everyone how the situation works due to consequences that are not supported by those who support the law. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that our legal system is set up to be adversarial, so whoever has a better case is the one who wins out. Many kids, in general the ones with the better attorneys, and folks who know the system will not pay the consequences of their transgressions, so I don’t know what you are talking about, busymei. If the OP’s son, like my son, like many of those who go to court, can get the charges lessened, bargained out, or even flat out dismissed or win the case, they can go scot free. If you walk in and say guilty as charged without fighting and cooperate fully, you get the maximum sentence. That’s the way this is set up. </p>
<p>The cops have been making examples of kids around here when they catch one for the past 10 years, and it makes no difference. Like I said, what they do as well as the system, is make it so the parents feel they have to fight, and so you end up basically fighting against what you believed in when it applies to you. YOu come full circle. Better to engage and work with the parents instead of drawing that line. </p>
<p>I get calls a lot about these issues, not as much any more as time has gone by, but there isn’t a single parent, not one, who calls me on advice about their kid drinking and driving. They want their kid off of the charges that they feel are too harsh, and what it comes down to is the line is drawn at jail time, and also on record as a misdemeanor or whatever, I don’t even remember any more as I just refer them to my attorney. So there is a pretty clear line where you lose parental/family support and that is crucial for these things to work. Maybe that is why they have not. </p>
<p>I do not believe one instant that making first offender rules more severe is going to cut down on first offenders… They are often times simply too stupid and ignorant to know or really focus on the consequences. What you end up teaching them through these experiences is that a good attorney, the right attorney might get you off and by not cooperating, you will be in better shape to beat a rap.</p>
<p>On another note, in PA, I believe some genius made the rules and penalties such that if you are drinking and driving, hit someone, you are far better off making it a hit and run, than stopping and staying with the accident. Not a little better off, but far better off. I bring this up because it’s a perfect example of how making the consequences too severe, results in having people do the wrong thing that is even more harmful.</p>
<p>I think the 30 days is too severe for a first offender, and I think most anyone whose kid gets into that situation would put his money down in support of that statement. Those without anything at stake, well, talk is cheap.</p>
<p>The “fat cat” attorney has become a family friend, and, yes, we are “fat cats” too and if you read my post, you can see that I have no compunction in labeling my kids as spoiled privileged brats and we are one of those awful parents buying our kids out of trouble. No, I don’t give myself, our kids, attorney a quarter in this regard.</p>
<p>Aries, that is a great example in the extreme. You can agree that something is wrong, wrong , wrong, but when a loved one is on the line, a punishment too harsh will put the parent on the other side. I think in the Casey Anthony case, that was, in part, what happened. The parents would have supported a long sentence for their daughter, and I think they wanted her put away for a while, not walking out like she did. But when the idiot prosecutor went for murder one and the death penalty, the parents suddenly got amnesia on things they were clear about. And you don’t get far harassing already beleaguered and heartbroken parents on the stand. So, that was a big blow, among other things to the prosecution.</p>
<p>In these cases, you have the attention of the parents, their support and you blow it when the punishment is too harsh, is what I think.</p>
<p>One big problem is that kids’ brains are not fully developed when we hand them the keys to the car, when we send them off to college, when they are old enough to serve in the military… And when most of them begin drinking. </p>
<p>The combination of still developing brains, inadequate drug and alcohol education, cars and alcohol is a deadly one.</p>
<p>Before any kid can get a parking pass at any of our county public high schools they, along with a parent, have to attend one of the assemblies put on by our county police department. Both parent and kid must sign in to the assembly, and sign again when handed the parking pass at the end of the assembly. The police department has an excellent, updated, multimedia presentation. A police officer speaks over slide after slide of local teen car accidents. Names are not given, but locations and dates of the accidents are. The slides show cars wrapped around trees, the imprint of faces in front windshields, skid marks, cars upside down in ditches, shoes thrown into bushes by the impact of the collision. Alarming details about blood alcohol levels, injuries, deaths, weather conditions, speed, time of day, texting, etc. are given. It is a sobering presentation. Most of the kids at any given presentation will have known or known about at least one of the accident victims. We have to attend every year a pass is needed. We have attended four of these, with two more to go before our last one graduates.</p>
<p>The kids I personally know who do drink, always spend the night where they are drinking or have a designated driver who absolutely does not drink that night. My own home was never a party house because we wouldn’t let underage kids drink. </p>
<p>Our PTA offers busses to our prom venue, and busses to the PTA after prom party. Most kids pool resources to rent a limo, or take the free bus. Our principal gives a big hug and sniffs the breath of every kid entering the prom and again at the after prom party. The sanctioned after prom party takes place at, for example, a local cinema, or a local gym where there is a pool and climbing wall. There is further dancing, a room with games, a room with a photobooth, a henna tattoo artist, an area with moon bounces. If the party is at a cineplex all the movies and refreshments are included in the ticket price. Parents and teachers chaperone. The afterparty lasts until 5AM. If a kid leaves before then a chaperone calls home to tell the parents he is leaving. The kids gripe about it, but they have a lot of fun. Of course not every kid goes, and there are still private parties at homes, but the school/PTA does a good job of providing a safer alternative to the booze parties. Most parents hosting private parties do take away the car keys when kids arrive. </p>
<p>Even this system isn’t perfect. A group did get caught bringing in booze at the prom this year. </p>
<p>If a kid is determined enough he (or she) will find a way to break any rule.</p>
<p>OP Dad, I just want to clarify my earlier post, where I said that the laws are there to protect society. I support your use of all legal means at your disposal to help your son. I would not for a second expect you to do otherwise. If he gets off, I won’t be upset. Our system is innocent until PROVEN guilty. The burden is on the state to prove the case. It is a wonderful system, when compared to any other in existence on the planet. There are a lot of places where you can get locked up for a long long time without a trial or a lawyer. The right to a vigorous defense is one of our very valuable civil liberties. Maybe it’s not a perfect system, but I haven’t seen a better one.</p>
<p>I think some of the differences of opinion on whether the sentence is too harsh is because people see different purposes for our justice system. Some think it should be punishment for something someone did wrong. Some think the purpose is to protect the rest of society from that person. Some (myself included) think it should be more about rehabilitation. I think putting a young kid with no street smarts in jail for 30 days does a lot to endanger his safety and practically nothing to ensure that he doesn’t drink and drive again. </p>
<p>In my ideal world, we’d have research about what really works to prevent a repeat offense of drunk driving and that would dictate what we do with drunk drivers. I don’t really know whether 30 days in a jail cell would make a kid never drink and drive again. I do have a real problem with minors being tried as adults though and that is a big factor here. Would he be in the adult jail or in the juvenile system?</p>
<p>As for my “hot to trot” comment, do you think the females weren’t also just as eager? It’s a two way street around here from what I can see. Peer pressure, drink, hormones, some sweet nothings and maybe promises… I wasn’t think rape at all, and it’s a shame these days it comes to that in such situations.</p>
<p>However, I will say outright that it is not a good idea for a teen to be driving to the prom. As much as the excesses of NY bother me, the traditions here of hiring the limo make the venues a group venture. Some schools use buses. I’ve been right there. In the wigs, but there with my antennas throbbing to makes sure nothing stupid happens with my kids because all of the ingredients for some explosive evening are there, and each year, some kids in some district get into trouble. Haven’t heard the word yet for this year, but I doubt it will be an exception. </p>
<p>Do I condone this? No. But I know how it is. And you make the decision as to whether you are going to trust these hormone charged teens on these nights and make your own plans, or you skulk around and keep an eye on them.</p>
<p>The reality is the kid was “hot to trot”, bet the date was as well, and it wouldn’t have matter a whit to me who was driving, the male or the female–my guys have been dates where the girls ran the show as the sequencing of events, it was the girls’ proms, and in this case, sex was in the air, fueled by the alcohol and the festivities of the night. </p>
<p>Am I excusing this? Nope. But it’s a classic scenario. As old as time. With two consenting parties, probably abetting each other, what is happening here is a classic scene for reckless driving, (the speeding), the underaged passenger, (the date), and the drunk driving (alcohol at the prom). DUI attorney write ads to attract customers this time of year, this is so typical. </p>
<p>The question here is whether the mandatory 30 days in jail which if it came in with Laura’s Law last last year is unreasonable and too harsh under these too typical circumstances. i say, it is, for first offenders, particularly those with no other criminal record, and that the OP;s son is really underage himself. The way this is going to work is something that the attorney does not seem to be clear or sure about because this is a new development in the DUI laws, and there really is no telling how this court is going to deal with it. Prior to Laura’s Law, the charge could be reduced more easily and the judge had discretion over the sentence. Not any more. So if this had happened last prom season , instead of this year, the chances seem pretty good that the kid would have gotten off with out the jail, though he would have lost his license for a good long time, have to go to alcohol counseiling and do a lot of community service, but not serve time.</p>