REPEAT DRUNKEN DRIVERS SHOULD FACE HARD TIME

It's long past time for Wisconsin to crack down hard on repeat drunken
drivers and treat them as the habitual criminals they are. A bill to
do just that has passed the Legislature. Gov. Tommy Thompson should
sign it.

Under this tough new measure, repeat drunken drivers would run the
risk of being prosecuted as felons, which is only right. Incredibly,
repeat drunken driving -- no matter how many convictions -- is a
misdemeanor in Wisconsin, unless the violation involves a death or
injury or there are children in the car. That's outrageous, especially
for a state that once was considered tough on drunken driving.

The measure would also mean that repeat drunken drivers could be sent
to prison for up to five years after the fifth offense. Currently,
drunken driving is punishable by only one year in jail. Maybe that's
appropriate in some cases, but once a person has been convicted five
times of driving drunk, the judge should have the option to crack down
hard, if for no other reason than to get a public menace off the road.

Drunken drivers often have serious underlying problems with alcohol.
But that's no reason to drive while intoxicated. Once drivers turn
that ignition key, all excuses go out the window.

Motorists who repeatedly drive drunk are displaying a wanton disregard
for the lives of others. They are using a dangerous weapon (a vehicle)
recklessly and therefore qualify as violent offenders.

One need only think back to last week, when a 22-year-old construction
worker was run down and killed by a motorist who is alleged to have
been drunk. The driver, who has a 1996 conviction for drunken driving,
struck the construction worker after traveling more than 6 miles in
lanes that were clearly marked as closed, according to the criminal
complaint.

The governor reportedly has some concerns about the price tag for
building prisons to incarcerate repeat drunken drivers. While that's a
reasonable worry, clearly these offenders are a menace to society and
need to be off the streets. That fact alone justifies any potential
additional cost.

Checked-by: trikydik@inil.com (trikydik)