Rookie DA cracks down on DWI
 

Story on AOL

MINEOLA, N.Y. (Sept. 25) - Kathleen Rice's eyes begin to well up when she talks about the victims of drunken driving.

She cannot fathom why so many people - more than 4,100 arrested in her community last year - turn the ignition after having a few drinks. More troublesome, she said, is that one-third have been caught before.

Rice, however, can do something about it: As Nassau County district attorney, she has launched an aggressive assault on drunken driving in one of the nation's busiest traffic corridors.

She does not allow plea deals in DWI cases. She put a man on trial for murder in a horrific drunken-driving crash. And she plans to slap alcohol-sensors on the ankles of admitted alcoholics.

*-----CUT-----*

Defense attorney Thomas Liotti held a news conference in August claiming Rice's refusal to yield on plea bargains is too stringent. "She's basically looking at this as a black-and-white issue," he said. "People need some degree of hope, and under Kathleen Rice's policies, they're not getting it."

__________________________________________



I know it's the defense atty's job to get his client off as light as possible, but I don't understand why drunk drivers need "a degree of hope". Drunk driving is a choice, and it's not something you can "accidentally" do. He complains that she's looking at it as "black & white", but I personally don't see much grey area there - you drove drunk or you didn't.

I also applaud her for going after murder charges on the guy who was 3x the legal limit and killed a 7-year old.

Am I the only one here who thinks this woman is right on target??

No.

The defense attorney's job is NEVER to get their client off 'as light as possible', but rather to represent the client's best interests and make sure the client receives his or her day in court, as well as due process. This is a vital distinction when we look at this:

Without even discussing the 'choice' element of being intoxicated (which will get you into all sorts of sticky situations with, say, consent issues, etc), I think you can see how someone deserves due process (or a "degree of hope") . It's vital that punishments fit the crime - clearly there are problems in this realm, as current punishments are very severe for initial offenses, and don't deter repeat offenders. There's a definite disconnect.

It's hard to say - personally, I don't think current enforcement of DUI laws in most states are at all effective, but I'm not sure how to better enforce these laws to a.) not create an unnecessarily punitive scenario for all offenders, with no distinction between levels of danger and b.) actually stop repeat offenses by 'problem offenders' . . . tough situation.

Except that the original article (or at least the one I read) said that currently DWI offenses were being plead down, repeatedly.

You choose to drink, and if you don't make driving arrangements ahead of time, you should be responsible for your actions. I hate being behind people pulling out of a bar late at night. You watch them brake sharply anytime someone passes them and you just know they're drunk. If someone dies because of your actions, they should be punished, not plead down to a traffic ticket.

I'm a fan of this: If you drink and drive you will be held as accountable for your actions as if you were sober. Thus if you hit someone or something, you will be charged as if it were intentional. Same for driving under the influence of ANY drug.

I can't speak for all states, because I only have experience in IL...but my parents had DUI counseling at their office, and there is a system that distinguishes "levels of danger". When you present yourself to the DUI counselor, they put your info into a state program, and you are classified as "Level 1 - Low Risk", "Level 2 - Moderate Risk", "Level 2 - Significant Risk", and "Level 3 - High Risk". The computer program takes all the data, such as BAC at time of arrest, priors, drinking history, drinking frequency, etc (after your 2nd offense, you must have a witness to corroborate your drinking history, they don't take your word for it anymore) and classifies the offender, but the counselor has some "wiggle room" to move the person if they think the state's program doesn't accurately classify the offender. Based on their level, they are assigned a treatment program, and also, that goes into the judge's final decision. In that way, not all offenders are treated equally.

PS...if you are in IL, NEVER EVER refuse the BAC test, it automatically puts you at a Level 2 - Sig Risk...and you're not going to get out of it. In IL, refusal = guilty.

While agreeing with about everything that KSig RC said, I can't help but note the irony. Yes, Mr. Liotti, people do "need some degree of hope" . . . especially those law-abiding citizens riding down the road, who hope that no one else on the road is drunk. I imagine they are getting hope from the DA's policies.

I'm not sure anything, in the law or anywhere else, can be this "black and white." There are always shades of gray.

Can any kind of zelot be harmful to as many people as they try to good for?


Good for Her and Her thoughts, but I am not sure how well this will fly if some Hotty Tottys that may get stopped will agree?

My translator broke at "hotty totty"

I still say good for her. Clearly every DUI is not going to get a murder charge, but if you drive drunk, pay the price. The real one, not the 150 dollar traffic ticket you plead down to.

True.

Here's a question for the people who think this DA is doing a good thing -- will you feel the same way when, say, a rapist or other violent criminal is released from jail early to make room for the person who got his first DUI conviction and was sentenced to prison after a trial? How about when your taxes increase because the county needs more money to litigate all DUI cases? When your taxes increase again to build more jails?

This reminds me of some political attack ads running here (holy hell, I'm sick of this crap already) attacking a guy running for governor because he "plea bargained 97% of cases" while he was DA -- like that is SHOCKING and TERRIBLE. Uhhh, the vast majority of criminal cases are plead out -- I believe somewhere around 95% of state criminal cases. Pleas happen when the prosecution and defense come to an agreement with which they both can live. No, really -- how is that bad? If more and more cases go to trial, the cost (in terms of money and time) would be ridiculous -- and what would be the point?

It's interesting that if you believe the polls (questionable sometimes), he is leading the more "black and white" leaning candidate by a substantial margin. In addition, the worst "attack" add, the one that mentions the plea bargain numbers, is one of those that wasn't placed by the opposition campaign, but rather one of those outside committees who have taken it upon themselves to influence an election in which they aren't an actual candidate -- like the "Fast Boat" folks from the last presidential election.

I don't think her problem was that DUIs were being plead out...I think her problem was with the terms of the plea. The full article said that DUI offenders were being plead out to minor traffic violations, so in order to curb that, she's saying no pleas. I obviously can't say for sure, but I think once things get more "under control" she might be willing to start offering pleas that actually fit the crime.

Also, there are alternative punishments for DUIs that don't crowd jails - such as community service, extended counseling/rehab hours, fines, etc. And I believe, in most states, that 1st time DUI offenders rarely are sentenced to jail.

There's some creepy ass political crap going on in this state. The judicial term limits thing is another one -- I wish people would get hopping mad about that little piece of work. And Beauprez is as awful as Pete Coors.

Concur.

that's absurd.