As one who often leans libertarian, I don't typically find myself saying, "There ought to be a law....." Such plaints tend to paper over the paramount role of the individual and the family. But when it comes to criminals getting off light, and specifically, a repeat and deadly DUI offender almost wreaking havoc again even after she has killed someone, I think it is time for the legislature to take stock. In 1997, a repeat DUI offender named Susan Lynn West was convicted of vehicular homicide and DUI for killing a 38-year-old mother of two named Mary Johnsen as she walked aside her husband Keith well inside the line marker of a road shoulder near Issaquah. (Scroll down here to "The Mary Johnsen Bill: Keith Johnsen's story"). As you'll see below, West had a history of DUIs. Her blood alcohol level as measured after Johnsen's death was .34, more than three times what was then the legal limit. She received a nine-year sentence that was upheld on appeal. In the wake of that and other DUI tragedies, state legislators in Olympia passed a spate of bills, including one called "The Mary Johnsen Law," suposedly requiring ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders with a blood alcohol level exceeding .15. Of course, if they are driving without a license - or if other factors intervene - the mandate may be an empty one. The Seattle Times reports on estimates that onlyone in more than three Washington drivers required to have the devices actually do, though the reasons why are unclear. Another bill passed this year makes a felony of a fifth DUI conviction in 10 years, and of a DUI conviction after a previous conviction for vehicular homicide.
So what happened to West after she went to jail? That's why I'm writing this.
West was released early from the women's corrrectional center in Purdy, after just six years of her nine-year sentence, even though she had a DUI arrest record dating to 1978 in Washington, including a 1985 DUI conviction in Seattle and two subsequent but reprehensibly deferred prosecutions for DUI between then and her killing of Johnsen in 1997. Then, after her community supervision was completed earlier this year, she resumed driving without a license, and earlier this week was arrested again and charged with DUI by Bellevue Police. I have read the police report, which - like news accounts including that linked immediately above - makes clear that by her own words and action, she was really smashed. And once again, West - now in rehab and facing misdemeanor prosecution by the City of Bellevue - catches a break. The new state law making a DUI conviction a felony if there is a previous vehicular homicide conviction will not go into effect until 2007.
That a chronic DUI offender such as West should have had two prosecutions deferred; that West was released early after killing Mary Johnsen almost as though her unsuccessful appeal of the sentence was granted away from public view; and that after West's supervision was complete she went out and got behind the wheel apparently ripped again; all of this should give deep pause. I hereby propose a "Susan Lynn West Law" for the legislature's consideration. It would include the following provisions:
1) After a first DUI conviction, no deferred prosecutions would be allowed for subsequent DUI arrests;
2) After a first DUI conviction, any subsequent conviction for vehicular homicide committed in conjunction with another DUI conviction shall require a mandatory nine-year sentence with no early release.
2a) Any additional DUI conviction which occurs subsequent to the sequence detailed in 2) above, shall result in a mandatory prison sentence of 18 years.
The state cannot ensure a chronic DUI offender is rehabilitated. But the legislature - if it wants to - can close the Susan Lynn West Loopholes.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 23, 2006 02:21 PM | Email ThisThe level of stupidity(I wish) in their actions are so bad that there are simply not words to express the (constant) outrage. I am down to thinking that this is one vast insane asylum with occasional touches of sanity.
Posted by: Disgusted on June 23, 2006 02:52 PMAnother law won't do much if the courts continue to act leniently toward offenders.
I beieve we should adopt something akin to what Germany or Sweden have done. In the German one the first offence gets to taken WAY out of town and left on the side of the road to find your way home on foot (so you can think over your stupidity while you sober up, I assume). In Sweden the first offense gets your car confiscated (I like this one better).
Posted by: Deadwood on June 23, 2006 03:05 PMWashington State Legislators are useless.
Posted by: swassociates on June 23, 2006 03:21 PMCruel? Maybe, but definetly a deterrant....
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2006 03:24 PMFollowing a DUI conviction, the legal BAC limit drops to .02 for that person.
Separately, no deferred proscecutions for DUI where the BAC reading at time of arrest was more than twice the legal limit.
Posted by: gmcraff on June 23, 2006 03:40 PMSociety must put measures into place that sends a serious message to drunk drivers. First offense, 30 days in the hoosegow, license suspended for one year. Second offense, 6 months time, license supspended permanently. Kill someone while you're drunk, MINIMUM 15 year sentence. For those who think this is too harsh, you have to keep in mind that people have been DUI more times than they have been caught. I was married to one and I could not believe the continual slaps on the wrist. Why? Because the court kept saying "If you promise to be a good boy and do rehab, we will let you drive again". Now, think about it. Given the choice between mandatory rehab and jail time, what would you choose? Duh!!!
Alcoholism is an addiction NOT a disease. It is something that cannot be cured, only dealt with on a day to day basis. Overcoming the addiction begins with admitting that you are addicted and very, very few will take that step, let alone be sober 5 years down the road.
Addictions are terrible things to deal with, but to continue with a system that enables people to fob off responsibility only adds to the problem. Susan West is a perfect example of why harsh measures are needed. She probably honestly does not remember killing Mary because she was so drunk, so that reality will never set in.
Banning booze is not the answer. Severe penalties for crossing the line are what's needed. In Europe people go out for drinks, but then they walk, take a cab, or use public transportation to get home. The penalties for DUIs are such that 99% know not to drive. The state needs to stop making excuses and enforce the laws on the books as a first step. But then when a judge gets only a severe finger wagging for driving drunk, I am not holding my breath.
DUI Punishment
As heard on the Bryan Suits show earlier today, the subject was Susan West, convicted drunk driver. Listener Travis had a great idea about what to do with anyone convicted of a DUI. His idea was to treat them like teenagers, do not let them buy alcohol. The way to do this is issue them a special color coded, I am a drunk driver, drivers license. Then make it a crime for anyone with a DUI conviction to buy alcohol and a crime to sell alcohol to anyone with a DUI conviction. You want to buy alcohol, you need to show your drivers license. I think this is a great idea. Not because it will keep alcoholics from buying alcohol, for the most part it will not. What it will do is bring public shame to anyone convicted of drunk driving. Imagine the shame when someone you just met and want to impress, a potential boss, significant other, sees that you have the special drunk driver license. Excuse me sir, can I see some ID for that check you just wrote? Thank you Mr. Convicted Drunk Driver.
Posted by: Steve on June 23, 2006 04:02 PMDrunk driving is not an accident. Driving unsafely is not an accident. Just make people take responsibility for their irresponsible behavior and treat them like the criminals they are.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 23, 2006 05:30 PMAs for West, well she's a woman. Judges are willing to look the other way because they are cowed by the victim oriented PC culture of today's left. So the result is that women like West and Letorneau walk the streets, free to continue to commit their crimes. Imagine if a while male had committed such an egregious, multiple DUI offense crime spree, complete with negligent homicide. We'd never hear the end of it.
Someone should throw the book at West. She's clearly not capable of learning through anything other than severe punishment.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 23, 2006 11:56 PMThe following proposal originated from a family member who was a drunk driver. She had never been caught or convicted even though she had been doing this for 10 years.
Please contact me. I would value your opinion.
Judy & Kenny Franken
114 West Forest Avenue
East Peoria, IL 61611
(309) 699-8409
Email: BuckNDoe99@hotmail.ocm
Repeat DUI Convictions - Revoking Their "Drinking "Privileges"
There are restrictions for both the privilege to drive, and for the privilege to drink alcohol. Upon a DUI conviction, the privilege to drive is sometimes revoked.
INSTEAD SHOULDN'T IT BE THE PRIVILEGE TO DRINK THAT SHOULD BE REVOKED?
WHY WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT
Revoking drivers licenses doesn't stop them
ABC Prime Time did a sting operation in Buffalo, New York to show a judge that revoking drivers licenses wasn't stopping the offenders from driving.
They sent notices to 40 offenders telling them that they had won a prize and only needed to pick it up at a specified location and time. They put the location next to a bus station so that everyone could get there using public transportation. All the recipients drove themselves to the site and were arrested for driving without a drivers license. The chances of being caught driving without a license was not enough to deter any of the offenders, even when making a sober decision.
Drinking overrides better judgment
Jail time and revoking driver's licenses rely on the punishment being an incentive not to drive AFTER DRINKING. It doesn't take into consideration that the repeat offender has already proven that drinking alcohol overrides his/her ability to make a rational decision about driving, no matter how strict and certain is the punishment. The repeat offender has proven that their "privilege to drink" is an ongoing danger to others. Drinking should no longer be a "choice."
PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Upon conviction of a (first?) DUI offense the offender's driver's license is confiscated and destroyed. A new color-coded (maybe orange) "limited" license, indicating the "restrict alcohol" status, is issued for the usual fee from DMV. (The prohibition is also be put into the magnetic stripe on the card.) With no further driving or drinking violations, the license can be exchanged for an unlimited license after (1) year's time. (?) Alcohol abuse schooling, fines and other current consequences to also remain. (with the exception of driver license revocation).
Upon conviction of a (second?) DUI offense the offender's driver's license is confiscated and destroyed and a "color-coded" limited license is once again issued with the 2nd conviction noted on the magnetic stripe or in DMV records. The limited license status is mandatory for (5) year's time. (Mandatory days in jail, fines, schooling, & other current consequences also to remain)
Upon conviction of a (third?) DUI offense the limited license is mandatory for (10) year's time ... in addition to the other current consequences.
Upon conviction of a fourth DUI offense, current laws should remain and move the offense to being a felony with prison time mandatory upon conviction.
IN ADDITION:
Anyone (clerk/friend, etc.) selling/giving alcohol to a limited license holder, is subject to a mandatory fine ($500?), with 30 day suspension of their business/professional/drivers license, and absolute, prima-facie civil liability for actions subsequent to drinking."
"Rights" Have Conditions
Every person is accountable for their own "right to drink and/or disperse alcohol" responsibly. Failure to treat this "right" responsibly has consequences. The person's "right" is to be taken away when the failure to act responsibly endangers others.
HOW IT WORKS
EVERYONE "CARDED"
Currently a portion of the population is "carded" to ensure that they can legally drink. Under this proposal everyone would be "carded".
BARS/RESTAURANTS
At the bar you'd lay your drivers license on the table/bar if wanting to be served alcohol, to enable the server to verify that they can legally serve you. (Or another DMV card .. in lieu of a driver's license if the person does not drive .. so that the Dept. of Motor Vehicles controls all ID) A limited license would be colored and easily identifiable to the server at a glance. Fewer minors would get served with everyone showing their ID's. After customers become accustomed to having their card ready along with their money, service should not be slowed down to any large degree. Non- alcoholic drinks do not require "carding". Limited license holders can still go to bars and socialize. Bar owners are not required to "turn them in" or "turn them away"....they only "turn them down". (for alcohol)
SUPERMARKETS
At the supermarket, or racetrack etc., sometimes one person gets the drinks to take back to others. The people produce their drivers license along with their money. The server/clerk is liable only for who they sell alcohol to. The customers buying the alcohol take on the liability for whom they supply the alcohol to.
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement is when a person with a "limited" license is observed driving erratically and stopped for another DUI offense. The "source" of the alcohol is a matter of legal concern. As for the DUI offender, he is now faced with an additional DUI conviction, which has more consequences. (i.e. jail time, fines, and longer restrictions).
SAVE MONEY
Everything needed to legislate and enforce this is already in place and being done under other laws .. i.e. for revoking licenses and restricting alcohol to minors. There is no need for more police. No need for more jails. Instead of costing money, this proposal would likely save money!
Dispersing Alcohol Responsibly
The revoking of "drinking privileges" would stop the problem right at the source preventing alcohol from becoming a factor a second time through the "carding" done at the bars and stores with the "liability of not doing it" as the incentive. I can't visualize that many people would willingly shoulder the liability of supplying alcohol to a repeat DUI offender. A repeat conviction makes them such a large risk. (Convictions would indicate the person probably has driven drunk before, as people aren't caught every time.) It may not stop everybody, but it will stop so many more than are stopped now.
WHY THIS WORKS BETTER
IT'S A WIN/WIN PROPOSAL
Benefits to the Dept. of Corrections
Relief for our courts and prison systems
DUI convictions are plea bargained for lack of room in the prisons to house the number of felonies under the DUI laws. If DUI offenders are stopped from drinking at their first or second conviction, perhaps we can stop clogging the court & prison system with these people. Then prison terms can be an enforceable and "certain" consequence of a fourth DUI conviction.
Benefit to the Bar/Servers
Fewer "judgment" calls as they are "at risk" for suits in fatal accidents for having served the drinks and letting the person leave drunk. Much better if the bar can "card" everyone and thus know who has DUI convictions. The bar is saved from making the judgment calls without knowing the facts.
Law is behind them in saying "no"
Current laws now make servers liable even though the definition of intoxicated is a little subjective if they aren't able to test the customer.
Benefits to the drinker & his family
Which is needed?
A person may need his driver's license to get to work. A driver's license can only realistically be revoked for a short length of time. Self-esteem, family responsibilities, and family economics all may suffer without the ability to drive.
In contrast, the absence of alcohol in this person's life would tend to boost self-esteem, family responsibilities and family economics over time.
And although there are reasons that a person may need to drive there are no reasons that a person needs to drink alcohol. It is not a privilege you need to return to the person.