[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The technical distinction you are drawing is correct, but I think the point is you could create a seperate offense or elevate the penalties in a way that it is treated the same. I think that Virginia has the right approach. For the garden vairety DUI case which is a first offense with a blood alcohol content at or somewhat about .08, you get a suspended jail sentence that gets triggered if you reoffend. This is in recognition of the fact that you can have one too many drinks at dinner and be at .08 which is impaired, but not falling down drunk by any means.

The next step in our scale is for second or subsequent offenses, or any offense where your BAC is .15 or above, with additional penalty enhancements above .20. With any of these there is mandatory, not waivable by the judge, jail time you must actually serve. This recognizes that if you are very drunk or a repeat offender, that you are in a totally different category and need to be out of circulation for a while. In addition, you lose your licencse for three years and driving without one under those circumstances will get you more jail. When you do get your license back you must install a devise on your vehicle that tests your blood alcohol before it will start, and then intermittently while you drive. If you are over it kills the engine.

Most DUI's are in the first category, I would say 95% or more, and the person never reoffends. People in the second category get their lives turned upside down and rightly so.

You can alway argue for tougher penalties, more time etc. I don't oppose it. You just have to do it in the context of how we punish other equally serious crimes.

That sounds like a reasonable approach. I like the idea of a sliding scale. The difference between .08 and .20 is huge. It should be treated entirely differently. Someone who is at .08 is not necessarily very impaired. Probably comparable to someone who text messages while driving.