Bill eases up on drivers with suspended licenses

Folks I believe that I can be the voice of reason here as I stand witness to this back and forth volley of criminality v. economics.

We, as police officers, all like to believe that we and our families are above ever DWLS. It's just not realistic to subscribe to such categorical denial. We believe in the laws and many of us believe in enforcing them until it involves us or someone close to us. When our spouse, mother/father, brother/sister, daughter/son get a ticket then we begin to change our posture quickly on the whole traffic enforcement idea. Only then do we begin to abandon some our myopic views of what society really is, rather than what it should be or how we would come to define it.

The excerpt of the "habitual traffic offender" statute is a splendid illustration of why a driver that doesn't have the best of driving skills, and also doesn't make a salary even close to what ours is, should not be criminalized and put into prison because of "pure economics."

I am thinking that this should begin to settle things down between these radical views that are being expressed about ordinary people getting caught up in a "web of economic adversity" and then being thrown into a prison because they are some hardened criminal. We are not talking about those people that are violent criminals that should be in prison. Those types of people, which is just a small fraction of the minority of what we encounter daily, would be incarcerated, if not for the DWLS, then for something else.

The excerpt of the "habitual traffic offender" statute is a splendid illustration of why a driver that doesn't have the best of driving skills, and also doesn't make a salary even close to what ours is, should not be criminalized and put into prison because of "pure economics."

You don't think its a bit of an understatement to consider someone that has been convicted of Voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle 3 times in 5 years as someone that doesn't have the best of driving skills?

You don't think its a bit of an understatement to consider someone that has been convicted FIFTEEN TIMES for moving violations over a course of 5 years as someone that doesn't have the best of driving skills?

Give me some of what you're smoking. Its gotta be good.

Driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

If someone is so bad of a driver that they're deemed Habitual, and their economic status is where they aren't able to properly maintain an operators license in good status, they should be at Walmart buying a Huffy, not operating a motor vehicle.

Judges are sentencing people to more time in jail for driver's license offenses than violent offenders and burglars. I say fine 'um out the yen-yang and put the habitual burglary perp's in jail for a length sentence insead of the D/L offenders; we're chasing our tail with the user quantity possession cases and D/L arrests. The D/L violation will still get you in the car so don't get your SWAT jockstrap in a bind over it. We need to target the violent offenders, home burglars and gang members and stack them up like cord wood in the jail, the D/L offenders are just spinning our wheels and a waste of time that actually allows our system not to prosecute the violent or repeat/habitual offenders or only slap them on the wrist.

This is a very good topic to discuss. 8)

What some people need to stop looking at the economic stand point. Yes there are some people who are good people down on their luck and cannot pay their fines; therefore they get their licenses suspended. If they are decent people and get caught, then the judges will look at the points they score before sentencing. I believe some of you are forgetting those who get their licenses suspended; DUI violators, possession of felony narcotics, gas drive offs, grand theft auto, etc... SO we are not just talking about your down on the luck citizen, we are also looking at criminals... Put yourself in the shoes of victims, and explain to them that the person who just wrecked into you or love one was DWLS because he drives recklessly, speeds and is menace to society when behind a wheel and say sorry, after conviction he'll just get a slap on the wrist. The sentencing guide line is the basis of people going to jail, good or bad. The next thing they will do is lessen the crimes with burglary, thefts, or robberies. How many times have we in law enforcement heard from these people, I was down on my luck, and I needed money. So should we let them off the hook that easy? No, I don't think so. It is the same concept between the arguments of taking a risk to driving because they need to go to work to pay the bills, as it is for the person to break into a home to get money to pay the bills. They are other ways to get to work, such as Palm Tram, taxis, friends/family members, Tri-rail, etc. The law is the law and people are habitual traffic offenders for a reason. Just as most people said already, driving is a PRIVELAGE, not a right.

Sorry, I forgot to bring up another point. For those of you who took the opposition of good people down on their luck and not having the money to pay their fines, then why are not they not doing community service hours. The judges are allowing people to complete community services hours instead of paying the fines. So the theory of not being able to pay the fines is not credible. Judges are also allowing people extensions to pay their fines 90 days, some up to 120 days. For those liberals, instead of reducing DWLS from a felony to misdemeanor, why not lower the fines, so your good people who have less income can pay their fines and won't have their driving privileges revoked, suspended, or cancelled. Then this argument can longer exist.

I guess I'll take the position of one of those "liberals", although I like to see myself as being more of a "realist." Your argument of community service hours instead of paying a fine would be great and it would even hold water, but unfortunately it's not a reality. Judges will not substitute hours of service for the pay. Seldomly does that happen, and in the rarity that it does occur, the defendant has to be able to reasonably prove his/her hardship or indigency.

I like your idea of the extension, and it's not unusual to be granted an additional 90 days, but it would be pretty naive to think that one's financial position and/or abilities is going to change very much in 90 days. They probably still aren't going to have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of!

Let's not be so fast to put the "liberal" arguments away just yet. We haven't quite reached the point in time of "problem solved."

In response to guest206, I'll admit it has been a while since I have been in the south county court house, however within the past two years, the magistrates have allowed traffic violators to perform community service hours at a rate to be equivalant to a fine. I am saying this because I have seen it happen several times. Therefore I know for a fact it does happen. Know whether or not all the magistrates allow it to happen, I don't know. I am not trying to be argumentative, I think this is really a good topic to discuss and debate.

sorry, correction on the spelling, "Now whether or not all the magistrates allow it to happen, I don't know."