| For Immediate Release | For more information contact: |
| March 7, 2001 | Sandra Whalen (651-296-5529) |
In a recently released report, the Minnesota Legislative Auditor's office found that 5 percent of all criminal offenders were responsible for 19 percent of convictions and 37 percent of all felonies. One group that especially stands out among repeat offenders and who have the potential for doing the most damage is drunk drivers.
Until someone is killed, many repeat DWI offenders seem to avoid serious penalties and continue their reckless behavior. It is not extraordinary to hear of people convicted of a fifth, twelfth or twenty-first DUI; Minnesota's highest penalty for drunk driving under current law is a gross misdemeanor. Such a penalty is a slap on the hand for the driver, and a slap in the face for families who see a loved one killed or seriously injured.
Most DUI accidents could have been prevented, either by requiring treatment for a multiple offender, or by taking away that person's weapon his car and personal freedom. Another option that has a great preventative effect is to make chronic drunk drivers face the stark reality of living the rest of their lives as a convicted felon. The House Crime Prevention Committee recently heard testimony of David Rossini, a multiple DWI offender who was convicted of Criminal Vehicular Homicide. He said that if a DWI had been a felony, it would have deterred him from drunk driving again.
HF 351 would do exactly that, plus levy fines and require jail time and/or serious commitment to a chemical dependency program, after the fourth DUI conviction. I also authored this proposal in past years, but primary hurdle has always been the cost to the state. But before cost, some other interesting figures must be considered.
According to MADD-Minnesota Chair Lynne Goughler, more than a third of those involved in alcohol-related crashes already have impaired driving incidents on their record. And while the numbers of first-time DWI offenders has reduced in recent years, repeat offenses have remained steady. Goughler told the House Crime Prevention Committee that repeat offenders demonstrate a "propensity to violate the law." Why? Because there are no serious consequences other than a traffic violation and a possible administrative fine.
In my 18 years as a police officer in Minnesota, I have seen the damage done to individuals and families by drunk drivers. The most tragic part is, however, that a simple choice by an impaired driver could have averted it all.
Lawmakers are faced with tough choices too, and we must weigh our budget options. But at what cost do we finally put our foot down on chronic drunk drivers? How do we put a price on life and safety?
Minnesotans, we need your help. Please contact your state senator or representative at 651-296-2146 (metro) or 1-800-657-3550, and let them know how you feel about getting drunk drivers off our roads. Tell them to support HF351, and that felony penalties for drunk driving must be their top priority too.