The Drunken Driving Debate

"You suck" didn't make its way into a debate between Republican attorney general candidates during their debate sponsored by the Milwaukee Bar Association on Tuesday.

We're making progress!

Some substantive differences between the candidates did emerge.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Bucher, the Waukesha County district attorney, called for the state to take a harder stance on impaired drivers, saying he favored criminalizing first-time offenses. The candidates appeared at a forum in Milwaukee sponsored by the Milwaukee Bar Association.

Bucher called drunken drivers "a menace" and said there needs to be a change in the public attitude about the seriousness of the issue. Criminalizing first-offense drunken driving, however, wouldn't necessarily mean incarceration and adding stress to already crowded jails, he said.

Van Hollen, a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, didn't directly respond during the formal session. But afterward, Van Hollen said he opposes criminalizing first-time drunken driving. His emphasis would be on repeat drunken drivers and more serious criminal offenders, he said.

Van Hollen also said he opposed legalizing highway sobriety checkpoints, another drunken driving change Bucher favors.

Such checkpoints area "a big government tool that takes away the presumption of innocence," Van Hollen said. The Wisconsin Tavern League has endorsed Van Hollen.

Bucher wins this issue.

Drunken driving can have deadly consequences. I agree with Bucher that the public needs to recognize that getting behind the wheel while impaired is an extremely serious matter.


Punishment should reflect that.

I see no reason to go easy on drunk drivers. What's the up side?

Only apologists for driving under the influence want to give first-time offenders a pass. I think many of them are in a preemptive CYA mode. That "There but for the grace of God go I" attitude can get someone killed.

In all likelihood, the first time someone is stopped for driving drunk is not the first time the individual has been in that condition while operating a car.

Moreover, a first-time offender is no less likely to injure or kill someone than a repeat offender.

The danger posed to the public is the same.

I like Bucher's "get tough" approach on this. Why give people a pass the first time?

Do people get a pass when committing their first rape or first murder?

When the public's safety is the issue and lives are literally on the line, there's no room to be lenient.

As far as sobriety checkpoints go, I don't think Van Hollen's argument that they take away the presumption of innocence stands up as a reason to oppose them.

Don't airport searches take away the presumption of innocence?

Searches at sporting events and concerts and Summerfest also take away the presumption of innocence.

You can't get into a courthouse without a search.

How is a sobriety checkpoint any different than all of those instances?

The searches are done to ensure the public's safety. I don't want a drunk driver putting my family at risk in the name of "presumed innocence."

Who's more innocent?

The person killed by a drunk driver or the first-time offender that plowed into that person's car?