HB 78 To Add Penalty For 1st-Time OVI Offenders
Ohio lawmakers aim to toughen the state’s drunk-driving laws, adding more punishment for first-time offenders.
COLUMBUS, Ohio—Ohio lawmakers are looking to toughen the state’s laws on drunk drivers, adding more punishment for first-time offenders.
House Bill 78 was presented before the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee Wednesday morning.
NBC 4’s Marcus Thorpe reported with the FAST FACTS.
HB 78 got a serious look and caused a heated debate.
The proposed legislation would require a first-time OVI offender to have an ignition-interlock device installed in the offender’s vehicle.
Basically, the device is a type of breathalyzer that won’t allow a vehicle start if the person behind the wheel is intoxicated.
HB 78 is receiving full support from Mothers Against Drunk Driving or MADD.
In fact, the group’s national president came to Columbus to testify in favor of the bill.
MADD claims the use of these devices have the potential to save more than 4,000 U.S. lives annually from repeat drunk drivers.
The American Beverage Institute (ABI) is opposed to HB 78 and sent a representative to testify against the change.
It argues the bill denies judicial discretion and unfairly categorizes first-time offenders, who might have been barely over the legal limit, with repeat offenders and those with higher blood-alcohol content.
Laura Dean-Mooney lost her husband to a drunk-driving accident in 1991.
She testified before a state criminal justice committee that the motivation of the ABI is financially motivated, saying profits are winning out over safety.
“We’ll push for reduced punishment for just a sip over the legal limit when coroners start classifying dead people as barely dead for drunk-driving crashes,“ Dean-Mooney said.
ABI representatives said the group is not opposed to the interlock devices, only the way the bill is written.
For additional information, stay with NBC 4 and refresh nbc4i.com—Where Accuracy Matters.
To submit a story idea or news tip, e-mail
.
MORE: NBC 4 Local News | Local Crime News
NBC 4 SPORTS: Sports News, Video
NBC 4 POLITICS: Headlines, Interactives & Video
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Om May 3 1980 Cari Lightner age 13 was walking along a road in Fair Oaks CA and was hit and killed by a suspected drunk driver who cowardly fled the scene. Her body was hit so hard she was thrown 125 feet. The suspects wife turned him in after she discovered him trying to hide their badly damaged car.
That 13 yr old was Candy Lightner’s daughter and that is how the foundation for MADD was set in motion.
Regardless of Candy Lightners personal
record this event and the 25 yrs of success MADD has had shows a strong effort at redemption. If you agrue with that I would say you’re the IDIOT ......
I don’t care what the people are thinking
I ain’t drunk, I’m only drinking
Here we go again. The usual coalition of mad mothers, cops looking for the easy arrests, courts looking for the easy money, therapists looking for the captive clientele and the self righteous just looking for another reason to feel superior to the rest. Makes me want to turn into a one-issue voter. Just give me a politician willing to vote against this nonsense and he’s got my vote. Remember…since the absentee voting rules have been relaxed, we don’t need to drive to the polls… ;-)
I know drunk driving laws need to be tough, but I don’t think this is the answer. Not EVERY proposal to stop drunk driving is affective or sensible. I feel for those who have lost people to drunk drivers. I have lost people to senseless things too but some of the laws in my opinion, are just in place because people are afraid they’ll look like they support driving drunk if they don’t support every little idea tossed on the table. For example, we lowered the ‘drunk’ limit to .08. Does it make a difference in deaths caused by alcohol? I’m betting not. It made a difference in revenue, but it’s NOT the people driving home at .08% who are killing people. Driving drowsy kills at least as many people as those who are .08%. For a first time offender who is arrested at .08…it’s not reasonable nor is it an affective deterrent when that person was never part of the real problem. They keep coming up with ways to throw the book at the most minimal offenders. That’s not going to make things better.
vpattison (VP) on 13 May 2009 Wed at 11:01
Last < First
VP: “I don’t appreciate being called a nut just because I support an organization that is just trying to save lives. * * * * Please be considerate to those of us that have lost someone to this preventable crime ....“
I>VP: It is inexcusable for others to label you a “nut” because you support MADD. I apologize that others have done so. I support MADD, yet do not support each and every proposal it supports.
There is no excuse or reason to be inconsiderate.
MADD has made remarkable progress by motivating society to understand that in addition to being unlawful, impaired driving is no longer socialbly acceptable, e.g., the designated driver.
We all should cease using the word “drunk” as applied to “drunk” driving. nearly 100 years ago the Licking County Court of Appeal defined drunk, a condition far beyond what is legal in Ohio.
Many of the so-called “drunk” drivers are individuals who rarely drink, and have a drink or so on special occasions.
It is the “... or so ...“ that causes the problem. The central nervous system of those folks gradually changes to the point that they ought not drive. Yet they may not be “drunk.“
A chronic alcoholic can function, albeit poorly, at a BA of 0.45%.
Most non-alcoholic folks will DIE before they reach that level. Many pass out pass out over 0.15&. Foolks have died at 0.28!
—-
I question the WISDOM of the proposed law for ANY first time offender. Time is presently too short for me to elaborate.
—-
One driving while exhausted, substantially distracted, or “highway hypnotized;“ can be as dangerous as one impaired with an illegal drug(s), alcohol (a legal drug), or prescribed medicine.
—-
“... loose someone to a drunk driver like I did ....“
I empathize with your loss.
Those who get a dopamine rush with hate/love mail can type at me at
JADOG@safe-mail.net 2009-05-13-4 1545 -0400
I got a DUI a few years ago. I didn’t think I was drunk at all and got pulled over for an iffy reason (illegal left turn off of indianola onto lane. There is a sign and it is illegal to turn on certain hours, this was after 9pm, so it was legal) I also passed the sobriety test. I did however blow positive, which in Ohio a lawyer told us in class, is kind of a pass/fail, they don’t really care about the amount even though they have a law. I have a friend who lost a sister in a DUI, I don’t take them lightly. I was pissed at the reason I got pulled over but I wasn’t angry to get the DUI, because in all reality I shouldn’t have drove. BUT, stiffer penalties like this anger me, mainly because it is not ever across the board. I got the DUI on my record, 3 days in jail AND 3 days in a DUI class. Most people got only either or. And then people who are wealthy and whatnot get even less or get reckless op somehow. I seem to recall the mayor’s wife getting off on some light charges. Anyways, until they can fix this obvious pandering to people of importance then I don’t think they should make stiffer penalties. I was a first time (2003?), haven’t since, and I got reamed. You have people with 7 DUIs sometimes in the classes I had. Obviously they have a problem. 1st timers though can just be mistakes. Very dumb and dangerous mistakes, but mistakes.
I, too, knew about her record but didn’t even bring it up as my whole point is that the interlock is a failed device to begin with and I have absolutely no doubt that the manufacturers have donated heavily to MADD. Lobbyists seldom have the public interest at heart.
Bodie I researched and CANDY LIGHTNER HAS BEEN ARRESTED TWICE FOR DUI.
IDIOT
http://yedda.com/questions/federated_affiliated_colleges_9515556615851/
Then what do you suggest as a solution? I’m not saying that interlocks are the best solution to the problem, but it is a start considering what is out there. I’m not a prohibitionist either. Just use common sense and don’t get behind the wheel of a car when you have drank too much. There a plenty of resources out their to get you home. Please don’t make “general” comments and group people together in one category because of a perception you may have.
Hogwash. You don’t have to lose someone close to you to realize that drunk driving is a problem - however their solution is no solution at all. And I’ll stand by my assertion that MADD members are total Prohibitionists. Might also want to check out how much money was spent by the makers of the interlock devices to try to ensure this law passes. I’m betting it’s a bunch.
Advertisement