It's not the purpose of the state or society to provide treatment for alcoholism. Don't we have enough hands on our wallets already? If we have to provide treatment for alcoholism, we will not have enough left to provide cable and cell phones for the state un-wed mother baby farm program.
*****
Then the state budget will go into the red...oh, it already has.
*****
It IS a function of state to provide law enforcement, and our justice system to protect our citizens from those that break the laws.
*****
Stop the insanity...get the murderers past, present, and future off the road.
*****
Stupid Human Trick #12-Public drinking establishments with parking lots.

Missouri is ahead of Wisconsin on OWI punishment, let alone anything?? That just fills me with pride...*sarcasm*

In Missouri, When you are arrested for dwi, the arresting officer takes the license plate off of the vehicle you are driving. Your spouse can request it back or if rightful owner of vehicle is with you they can keep it but if you are alone, off it comes and on top of everything else, you pay to have it towed home! You get it back after you complete court ordered program.

Good idea Sandman.....Create rock bottom--take away their cars, their jobs, completely destroy their lives--that'll get them to change!!!! What reality do you live in???? Your great idea of seizing their cars--there's a good chance that those cars are financed and the bank/finance company is the one that owns it. Do you honestly think that if someone is busted for DUI and has their car taken away that they are going to continue making the payments?

Fourth offense felony -- so what? Just more time on home monitoring! That's where the 5th offense felonies are being sent nowadays!

And interlocks? Come on! Do they think that drunks only drive their own cars?

"The Assembly plan also would create a new treatment program." I bet that'll work for sure -- we've never tried mandatory treatment programs before!

Start seizing cars on second and higher offenses. That'll cut into resources (and reduce loaner vehicles from friends).

The real issue is to create rock-bottom for those repeat offenders, not coddle them with home monitoring and treatment programs. Until that happens in a real and significant way, nothing will change -- as it hasn't for years, despite all the feel-good legislative attention and MADD mothers, both in the number of drunks on the road, the number of domestic violence incidents, and the availability and use/abuse of illegal and prescription drugs!

Not to put words in coyote's keyboard (or anyone else's), there is a point that is often not given enough consideration. Putting people in jail (even on Huber) costs money. Putting them in prison costs even more. I have suggested repeatedly that some organization with the resources to do it actually get information from the Courts on the number of convictions by offense (first, 2nd, 3rd, etc.), and the sentences. We could then figure out the cost of "mandatory" jail or prison sentences at each level. I really do think people would be shocked at the cost.

Now, having said THAT, I have to emphasize that I AM IN FAVOR OF tougher sentences for non-first-offense convictions. I am also realistic, though. I suspect that we would be talking about such significant increases in incarceration costs that we would have to reduce incarcerations for some other offenses. Otherwise, we simply cannot afford to mandate two years in prison for third offense, etc.. The true numbers would, I think, be staggering (no pun intended).

I also agree that the tougher the penalty, the less acceptable OWI is in the collective conscience. This problem will not be fixed by simply increasing incarceration rates and terms. It is a social problem that we as a society must change.

The state that fairs the best on drunk driving is....UTAH! We just need more Mormons in Wisconsin. ;) Third offense is a felony there.
*
But seriously, drinking is a cultural thing in Wisconsin and the attitudes about alcohol need to change. If harsh laws and jail time is what it takes to change attitudes, then so be it.

I don't agree with any felony conviction where there is no injury to a person. Seems like the state is shooting themselves in the foot with this one. Taxpayers foot the bill for incarcerating someone and at the same time lose tax revenue in the process because obviously someone would lose their job when they were convicted.......

Ditto what krsmith01, truth1, and Minan said.
Wisconsin is too weak on DUI and this minor change is pathetic.

dog_rule - Its not against the law to drink and drive, it's against the law to be DRUNK and drive. Two distinctly different things. I know alot of people who are social drinkers and by "social" that means they can go to a bar and have one drink. . . MAYBE two and that's IT. They jump in thier car and go home and have have never had a drunk driving ticket in thier lives because although they've had a drink, they are doing it responsibly.

Whoooaaa.....they're going to make 4th offense a felony now instead of 5th???
.
Lets not get too carried away now(sarcasm)

I would have to say that intoxicatION IS a state of mind. Getting intoxicatED is a decision.

Misterlippy - I agree - Laws are what change attitudes. If there are no consequences for drunk driving, people have no reason to take it seriously. I lived in Wisconsin most of my life and never realized how outrageous thier drunk driving laws were until I moved to a State that is super aggressive on DUI. I don't drink and drive because the laws here are so extreme that me along with most people are not willing to take the risk. It's ugly expensive, you become a social outcast, and you become "unemployable" because no one wants to hire someone who has had a DUI. You're too high risk. I think people would be suprised how material and financial punishment and loss (provided it is severe enough) helps people realize the impact mentally, socially and morally that drunk driving can have. On the other hand, I think the laws proposed in this article are pathetically weak. Oh, and "Concerned_Citizen" - - for your sake I hope there are no laws for drunken posting.

Good post True Citizen - How in the world can drunk driving not be seen as a serious offense??? Laws against and or preventing bodily harm would mean enforcing any deterrant on drunk driving - saying that intoxication is a "state of mind" is ridiculous - it's a conscious decision one makes, just as much as it is a decision to rob a bank or sell drugs. Having no clear set penalty for making decisions such as driving a car drunk and endangering one's self and the lives of others is not only irresponsible, it's immoral.

Some people are for getting that most Polaticians, Judges, Lawyers, drink some socially some more, and All those Polaticians know its a HUGE state and local money maker. As of rite now its a revenue (in the form of fines) comming in to the state, the taverns, liquor stores,...Soon as it becomes a felony or mandates long sentences it will turn into a cost, a bill of housing DUI offenders, in my opinion the legal system is in no big hurry to shut off the revenue cash DUI charges create.....new laws wont change people's actions, at least it hasnt yet.

Good point Andrew Jackson. If it is against the law in all states to drink and drive then why CAN you drink and drive?

Concerned citizen....Most of what you said is just wrong. I am against the socialistic push which occurring in this country, and I'm worried about Government being to powerful, and having wrongful 'help-the-poor' attitude, like an evil-Robin Hood or something, but.......
*
You just don't understand this one. People keep driving drunk at an alarming rate. You mention the privilege. Well, don't you think that it is the PRIVILEGE of those on the road who are following the rules, not to have the other bastards out their ruining it for them? Furthermore, your first portion of the statement suggests we have to wait until someone is hurt before acton is taken.
*
I FOR ONE THINK WE NEED TO GET A HELL OF A LOT TOUGHER ON THESE PEOPLE. They have no respect, and intrude on good people's lives by driving around drunk without a care in the world!

"Driving drunk is not perceived as a serious offense..." because Driving drunk is not a serious offense nor should it be. Driving drunk is not wrong. However, hurting people is wrong. Enforce the current laws on the books against hurting and/or killing people with your vehicle.

Driving may be a privilege, but it is a privilege we all pay for through taxes and user fees. These are our roads, and so long as we follow the traffic rules and don't cause damage to life, limb or property, the state has no cause to prevent any tax-paying citizen from utilizing said roads.

Intoxication is a state of mind, not an action unto itself and as such DUI laws as a whole are dangerously close to the policing of thoughts.

These laws do nothing to improve safety and are just one more excuse to give the police more undeserved power, and for the state to steal your hard earned money.

I myself believe in 1st offense fine as long as there where no accident or injury involved. 2nd offense fine and loss of drivers lisense for 1 year, and third felony mandatory 1 year in jail. Again as long as there are no accidents or injury involved.

dogsrule - Changing the mindset and attitude has to start with legislation - Driving drunk is not perceived as a serious offense by many because there are not real consequences - Imposing serious laws, such as those imposed in many European nations and others, would be the quickest way to change the semi-acceptance that our state has for "good ol' drunk drivin'."

Ignition interlocks should be required equipment on EVERY car manufactured. Period.

dogs_rule, I agree with you. The source of the problem needs to be addressed. I would like to see a commission to examine liquor licensing in the state and why we have more licenses per capita than any other and how closely this correlates with our top drunk driving fatalities rate. It has been many years since Wisconsin could claim to be a top brewing state, so now it seems we drink just because we feel like it. The consequences are tragic.
.
sannio is also correct that just increasing punishments is not likely to solve the problem. Thinking of alcoholism as a moral failing is antiquated. It is an illness that needs to be treated, and as I said above, it is part of this state's culture. That is what we need to change if we expect lower DWI fatality rates.

Stiffer penalties haven't worked in the last 30 years and they will NOT work now. But it WILL make the tee-totalers and the bible-beaters happy that they get their revenge and the state makes more money. Look around and try to find any state that doesn't have this problem,(if you can), and copy what they are doing. Isn't it obvious that punishment doesn't work for some people?

The few midwest residents that want a change must realize that laws alone will never fix this. We live in an area where drinking is a fixture of life. People are even coming up with reasons to keep being able to get their kids drunk in bars! There are not enough sober folks in the area to give all of their friends a ride home. There isn't an easy way home for those that will spend a hundred bucks in a bar but not ten on a beat up cab ride. Without a real change in everyone's attitude regarding drinking, no law will fix this. What happened to the time when going out for social drinks and fun didn't mean getting blasted? More often than not, I see friends that go out for the purpose of getting wiped out drunk.

I think if you drink and drive, you threaten the life of anyone you share the road with and deserve the stiffest no mercy punishment they get approved..

Coyote: You are suggesting that we shouldn't impose stiffer penalties for habitual OWI offenders because of the cost?? If that be the case, why arrest anyone for anything? Let's have law enforcement and our judicial system be the toothless tiger. Wow.

No law can help when a person is suffering from alcoholism, and that's probably what it is when there's repeat offenses. I know dozens of people who've been in jail for alcohol related crimes, and they still continued to drink. Being around responsible, non-drinking people seems to have the best results.

I was really pissed off to find out my neighbor got a fifth d.w.i. , and all he is getting is the bracelet. He butt should be sitting for a long time.

All that will happen is the jails will have to be enlarged due to overcrowding, taxes will go up to cover the costs of enforcement, prosicution, and confinement. No one wants higher taxes for education, or other worthwhile legislation, this is just a feel good crime of the month push for votes. In my humble opinion of course.

It's a start - I think anything past a 2nd OWI should be seen as a felony, personally, as there are many opportunities to seek help for alcoholism (or be forced to seek said assistance) and a 3rd occurrence is inexcusable. It is either a sign of apathy towards the law (or life itself) or is a sign of very serious issues in that person's life which should be rectified or addressed after # 2 - but any legislation geared towards curbing drunk driving is good news for our state, considering we're behind nearly every other state in the country.