Should your first dui be a felony or a misdemeanor?

My buddy was in California went to a wine tasting with a girl he asked out and he got pulled over as soon as he left. He blew .092 and was arrested. I felt bad for him and I then thought about all the times I drank and drove. In California your first dui is a felony. To my knowledge California is the only state that gives you a felony on your first offense whereas most states you get a felony charge on your third offense. At first I thought it was a little harsh but now that I think about it I kind of change my mind. Most people who get their first dui have probably drank and drove over the legal limit more than once. There might be a few instances were people got caught their first time, however, it's unlikely. Though I am thinking you should get a felony on your second offense. What do you guys think?

I don't think that's harsh enough.

According to my Dad who lives in England, over there your first DUI will result in your license being suspended for a year if you're lucky, as well as heavy fines and/or prison time.

The US DUI laws need to be harsh like that.

I would take the one year license suspension and heavy fines instead of a felony charge. Also, on top of the felony charge you also face jail and fines up to $1,000 plus. However, if a accident or death was involved then I think the punishment should be much more harsh.

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

My buddy was in California went to a wine tasting with a girl he asked out and he got pulled over as soon as he left. He blew .092 and was arrested. I felt bad for him and I then thought about all the times I drank and drove. In California your first dui is a felony. To my knowledge California is the only state that gives you a felony on your first offense whereas most states you get a felony charge on your third offense. At first I thought it was a little harsh but now that I think about it I kind of change my mind. Most people who get their first dui have probably drank and drove over the legal limit more than once. There might be a few instances were people got caught their first time, however, it's unlikely. Though I am thinking you should get a felony on your second offense. What do you guys think?

Well, that situation was incredibly arbitrary unless your friend actually swallowed the wine. But in any case, I agree with silver. Our DUI laws need to be much harsher, perhaps that will discourage people from abusing alcohol as much as they already do.

People take DUIs pretty lightly in the US which is ridiculous given how stupid it is to drive like such. I would be in full support of making the laws harsh as all hell, it would definitely go a long way to knocking some sense into the country. Especially all of the idiot teens who think they can drink like a pro because they're 18 or 19.

I am also fully in favor of making the DUI laws even harsher. There is no excuse for it.
It doesn't matter whether or not someone was actually injured, too, because it could happen.

Get drunk.

Don't drive the car.

That's it.

Sounds easy but it really isn't that simple I mean I do feel a little bad for my friend because he obvioulsy wasn't drunk when he got pulled over. Anyways, if a felony plus $1,ooo and jail time isn't harsh enough then what would be more harsh? Prison time, 120 days in jail, $5,000 fine, or something else?

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

Sounds easy but it really isn't that simple I mean I do feel a little bad for my friend because he obvioulsy wasn't drunk when he got pulled over. Anyways, if a felony plus $1,ooo and jail time isn't harsh enough then what would be more harsh? Prison time, 120 days in jail, $5,000 fine, or something else?

If he's over the legal limit, he's drunk.
As far as what's more harsh, well, anything. You just don't drink and drive. It's easy enough for people to die in cars while everyone's sober, and nobody needs to make car crashes more likely than they already are (notice I didn't call drunk driving "accidents").

As far as the law is considerd but what if the legal limit goes down to .06 instead of .08 is he then still drunk even though he feels sober. You're right it's alwalys safe to drink and walk or get a ride. I used to drink and drive alot when I was younger, more arogant, however after I heard about some horror dui stories I quickly stoped.

Buzzed driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving.

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

As far as the law is considerd but what if the legal limit goes down to .06 instead of .08 is he then still drunk even though he feels sober.

Yeah. And?

You're right it's alwalys safe to drink and walk or get a ride.

Not always.

Well, yeah, I see how the wine tasting situation is kinda a ****ty way to get the DUI and all, I mean, I'd be pissed if I was him too.

But he honestly should have known better than to drive. Sure he felt fine, and probably could have driven perfectly, but either way, he must have known that if he was pulled over, he'd be screwed. He gambled, and he lost.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

If he's over the legal limit, he's drunk.

he was at a wine tasting, so he didn't actually consume the alcohol so he wasn't actually drunk. he just had alcohol on his breath.

@ Jeff Perhaps but having one or two beers and then driving is not the same as having 6 or seven beers and driving ecspeically within the same time frame.

@ Nostil Yeah, I totally agree he should of thought ahead but, he was only thinking about impressing a girl he liked which turned out to be the worse date of his life. Though, like I said earlier it wasn't the first time he drank and drove so I really don't feel entirely sorry for him, but it still sucks nevertheless.

If the one or two beers doesn't get you buzzed, then that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Unless you injure or kill someone or destroy property, it should be a misdemeanor.

Originally Posted by Tyras

he was at a wine tasting, so he didn't actually consume the alcohol so he wasn't actually drunk. he just had alcohol on his breath.

Can't he argue this to a judge? I mean he wasn't consuming wine, he was tasting it.

This is puzzling me a little, but how exactly can somebody be over the legal limit if all they did was taste (but not swallow) the wine? It shouldn't be that easy to set off a breathalyzer with a simple taste of wine, unless the law states that NO alcohol whatsoever must be drunk if somebody is going to drive? And shouldn't blood alcohol levels have been taken also? (isn't sure how this is done in California)

But in relation to actual drunk drivers, I think they should be punished most severely. Too many people do it and repeatedly so.

I've been to wine tastings before and you usually sample anywhere from 6-12 different types of wine. I think they pour about 2-4 oz in your glass and after the tasing you can drink the leftovers. So I was a little buzzed when I left the tasting, but I think he needs to hire a really good lawyer and he might be able to work something out since he has no proior record.