DWI offenders need steeper fines, sentences

Current laws on drunken driving in Texas are up for revision.

A recent article published in the Dallas Morning News explored the advantages and disadvantages of changing the DWI law.

The article listed Texas as the state with the highest number of drunken driving fatalities. In 2007 1,292 people died on Texas roads as a direct cause of drunken driving. California reported 1,155 drunken driving fatalities.

One hundred thirty seven fatalities separate the drunken driving epidemic in Texas from the one in California.

The Texas census reported a population of more than 23 million in 2007 with California’s census reporting its population at more than 38 million.

There is something inherently wrong with these numbers. Fifteen million more people call California home than Texas, yet statistics show Texas as having a higher rate of fatalities due to drunken driving.

Driving while intoxicated seems to be a main part of Texas culture.

Revisions to the Texas DWI law are long overdue. Legislatures want to legalize sobriety checkpoints and car breathalyzers for all offenders—including first time offenders.

The question being debated is if these revisions will work in a preventative capacity and do they have the potential to interfere with constitutional guarantees.

Some officials fear the main rights affected by new legislation are those concerning search and seizure.

Randall Isenberg, DWI attorney and member of the Texas Criminal Lawyers Association, told the Dallas Morning News the difficulty with these laws is in “balancing prevention techniques with safety and liberties.”

People who drink and drive (risking the lives of those around them) do not deserve to reside under the same umbrella of liberties as the rest of society.

After all, those who have died at the hand of such offenders have had their opportunity to enjoy liberties taken away.

Furthermore, we do not consider taking away a felon’s right to vote or bare arms as an infringement on his or her liberties.

Isenberg also attempted to place drunken driving regulations into the same category with terrorism and homeland security.

Currently, the penalty for DWI does not offer much in the way of prevention.

First time offenders are given a slap on the wrist while third time offenders could be sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We are in essence saying that those who are killed by drunken drivers are killed by those with more than three or four convictions.

It is possible a person convicted for their first DWI is not necessarily a first time offender. It simply means it was the first time they were caught.

The victims of drunken drivers do not get the chance to be struck by a vehicle three and four times before they have to pay the ultimate price. It takes one drunken driver one time to kill an entire family.

There should be no revision to the Texas DWI law. Instead a new law should be imposed making the first offense an automatic felony with an automatic prison sentence.

When government officials are more concerned with the liberties and fair treatment of criminals—especially repeat offenders—than the overall safety of society, it becomes clear a revision of our priorities is what is needed.

A change from lax legislation to even more lax legislation is a step in the wrong direction—civil liberties violated or not.