With the passage of these new so-called stricter laws to curb operating while intoxicated (OWI), I found myself asking one question ... why are people still being allowed second and third chances? Understandably, I realize that Wisconsin is a state that produces and consumes umpteen million gallons of beer and alcohol every year - it’s what we do. However, there’s no excuse for the number of OWI arrests (the highest in the nation) and the outrageous statistics regarding deaths as a result of impaired motorists on our roadways. In 2008, alone, 234 people were killed and another 4,000 injured because of drunk drivers.
What really concerns me is that lawmakers actually think making a fourth drunk driving offense a felony is going to ease the problem. In reality, that just means that people who have been arrested for OWI three times within five years might be slightly more cautious. How does that solve anything? If you ask me, the first OWI should be a felony ... as it is in every other state; it’s not something that should be taken lightly. There’s no excuse for allowing someone convicted of OWI three more attempts to kill innocent motorists, passengers or pedestrians.
While I realize taxpayers could possibly see increased fees for housing inmates, chances are they would rather pay that price than deal with the possibility of having a loved one killed by a drunk driver. If state lawmakers really want to crack down on drunk driving and deaths related to it, maybe they should make a real attempt at passing stricter OWI laws. Changing the felonious nature from fifth offense to fourth offense - and only if the occurrence takes place within a five years of the third offense - can hardly be considered what some of the headlines heralded last week’s actions : “Assembly cracks down on drunk driving”; “Legislature approves stricter drunken driving rules”; “State passes tougher OWI bill.”
From what I’ve read on the issue (and from what Assembly Majority Leader Tom Nelson and Rep. Chris Danou explained to me during a visit on Friday), I’m still not sold on the use of the words “stricter”, “stiffen” and “tougher” to describe the legislation. Personally, I think they should be replaced with words that tell the story the way it is - “less lenient” seems to be a phrase that makes sense and is quite a bit more accurate.
One representative, Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, even voted no on the bill because he believed it would do nothing to help the drunk driving problem in the state. Perhaps when the legislators gets around to making the second offense a felony, then we can pull out words like “tougher” and “stricter.” The only headline I could get on board with was the La Crosse Tribune stating that the “Bill stiffens DUI penalties,” which it does. Instead of mostly taxpayer money funding the incarceration of those found guilty of OWI, the offender will see increased costs. As far as I’m concerned, that’s only fair.
And since we’re discussing the leniency of OWI laws, I have something else to add. Regardless of what is being done to curb drunk driving, I think it’s hypocritical of the state government to be passing these laws while Rep. Jeff Wood, who received his fifth OWI in October, is still a member of the Assembly.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment