The DUI Double Standard
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on September 7th, 2009I've written ad nauseum about the double standard that is pervasive when it comes to citizens accused or convicted of drunk driving. See, for example, The DUI Exception to the Constitution. The following news story is only the latest reflection of this neo-prohibitionist attitude:
County Wants DUI Convicts to Pay for Jail Stay
Tucson, AZ. Sept. 6 — If Pima County officials have their way, more convicted drunken drivers will soon have to pay for the privilege of eating and sleeping at the county's Adult Detention Center.
Kearney and Superior Court Judge Richard Fields said the chances of judges imposing the fees remains unlikely, for the same reason they haven't been regularly imposed in the first place.
Drunken driving is one of the most expensive crimes to commit in terms of the fines and fees required by state lawmakers and fighting at trial, Fields said…
So…why aren't there laws requiring other prisoners to pay for the "privilege" of being jailed – rapists and child molesters, for example? Why only for DUI?
Interesting that the two judges don't object to forcing drunk drivers to pay for their own imprisonment because it's discriminatory and unfair. Their only objection is a practical one: they've already been penalized so much there's no more money to be had.
Hi: I find it worrysome this trend towards making the poor pay for thier civil treatment in society.. It reminds me of a move towards the days of Debtor Prisons, and making it illegal to be poor.
Well, it isn’t just the fees I mean the actual court costs of hiring a lawyer and going to trial is around 5k-10k.
Then if you lose you have insurance fees going up — + the fine the DMV puts on you SR22 which usually lasts a few years so you’ll pay an extra 2k-5k in that if you choose to drive. And, sense most cities have piss poor mass transit – people have to pay or drive “illegally” as they are required to have insurance to drive their car to work to make a living.