310_Ind1_S2

Name: Kayla Freund

Instructions: Now that you have proven that there is a problem, you must research possible solutions to the problem. You must turn in this research sheet completed with two articles attached that show possible solutions and why they would work

III. There are many possible solutions to this problem. The possible solutions are: (Two articles must be attached and annotated bibliography) http://www.foxreno.com/news/26821156/detail.html http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=News&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE|A192690843&mode=view http://issues.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1011909?terms=remove+intoxicated+drivers

Longer and stricter jail sentencings, raised fines, improvement in drug and alcohol programs, more efficient court systems and supervision, consistent supervision, not just around holidays or certain areas are possible solutions to crack down on DUI's and follow through with stricter punishments. Driver's licenses should be taken away after a second of third offense. Law maker should also clarify wording in their laws. In the article "Bill Would Crank Up DUI Penalties," Representative Erin Mercer believes that drunk driving "is a bad practice and we need to deal with it seriously." The fine for a DUI could be as high as $1,000 instead of $750, and a second DUI within five years could be boosted to a high misdemeanor along with a fine of $3,000. Jail could be a minimum of 60 days or treatment in a rehabilitation center. A third our fourth offense could potentially be a fine of $10,000 and 10 years in prison if a third or fourth offense was committed in seven years. But, the article states that current law displays that a third or fourth offense must occur within five years to receive the 10 year jail sentence and fine. A fifth DUI within a lifetime could lead to up to a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison. Current law says a fifth offense within five years is a felony with up to a $10,000 fine and two years in jail. The article also says when the DUI cases go to court, lawyers will used the date of arrest so attorneys cannot delay the case to run out the clock of multiple offenses. Breathalyzers can also be implemented into cars in order to start the vehicle and test the blood alcohol level of the driver, and if they blow an inappropriate number, they will not be able to start their car. In the article, "Bill Would Crank Up DUI Penalties," it is stated that the bill proposed by the House Committee would not include breathalyzers on convictions. Because breathalyzers are not implemented in convictions, that could be part of the problem with offenders getting off too easily. Obviously if the driver killed someone, penalties would be increased, and all offenders should attend AA meetings and see their probation officers frequently. Many representatives in the article "Bill Would Crank Up Penalties" agree that the goal of the stricter laws is to prevent drunk driving all together because even though it could be called a mistake, they should still be punished.

IV. The solution I (we) propose is: (This section will become your proposed legislation. Be sure to include what agency will implement your law, proposed cost if any and effective date) In order to obtain stricter DUI punishments, the Department of Transportation should implement penalties starting with a minimum of 60 days in jail for a DUI and a fine of $1,000 and revoking the offenders driver's license. For a second offense within two years that person would spend 6 months minimum in jail and have a fine of $3,000. After the third offense, breathalyzers should be implemented in the driver's vehicle and they must breathe into the device and have a blood alcohol level of 0 to start their car. They will receive a fine of $10,000 and spend a minimum of six years in jail. While in jail, offenders should attend AA meetings and visit their probation officers 4 times a month. If offenders injure another person while driving under the influence, jail sentences and fines could be raised. Department of Transportation-Federal Law Implemented June 1, 2011

V. I (we) think this solution will work because: (You must use factual information to prove your solution will work) In the article, "Lawmakers Push For Stiffer DUI Penaltes," the lawmakers believe that clarifying the language in the laws may be a first step in making the laws more strict. Too many people get through the system and courts without a severe enough punishment an many people lose their lives to drunk driving accidents. In the same article, it is stated that "SB72 follows an investigation by the Reno Gazette-Journal that found at least 40 of the 113 of drivers convicted of killing or injuring someone since 2000 spent only months behind bars before being released under house arrest and a monitoring program" (Associated Press 1). After the newspapers investigation, 8 offenders were sent back to prison because it was recognized that they were not serving their sentences, and that number could increase if laws recognized the same problems. Stricter DUI penalties could potentially limit DUI accidents in the future and prevent offenders from repeating. According to "Lawmakers Push For Stricter DUI Penalties," offenders are "being let out on a program that requires offenders to seek treatment, hold jobs or go to school, the Gazette-Journal reported. Offenders also are monitored daily for alcohol and must wear ankle bracelets." According to the article, "remove Intoxicated Drivers, in 1995 41% of accidents involved a pedestrian or driver under the influence. After Doris Aiken organized a rally in Albany, legislators were pressured to pass an anti-DUI bill which included a no plea-bargaining for alcohol-related offenses provision. Other provisions included increased penalties for repeat offenders and the institution of programs to reduce DUI offenses in each county, funded by fines levied against drunken drivers" according to "Remove Intoxicated Drivers."After penalties were stricter, the alcohol related fatalities in New York dropped 23% compared to a national decline of 14% between 1980 and 1985. More families who have lost a loved one are joining groups such as MADD and RID (Remove Intoxicated Drivers) in order to support families who have lost family members to drunken driving and support stricter laws. More people are banning together and supporting stricter penalties and statistics show that when penalties are enforced, DUI's decrease. The article "Remove Intoxicated Drivers" also states that the success of RID in New York has led to other chapters being created in other states. If the success of groups against DUI penalties are working, wouldn't stricter laws work as well?

 Works Cited “Lawmakers Push for Stiffer DUI Laws.” //foxreno.com//. N.p., 10 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2011. . McCarthy, Bill. “Bill Would Crank up DUI Penalties.” //Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center//. Wyomg Tribune-Eagle, 28 Jan. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2011. . Watts, Tim J. “Remove Intoxicated Drivers.” //ABC-CLIO//. N.p., 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2011. .