*

*
Today at the Forum
Opinions from members of the Enquirer Editorial Board


David Wells,
Editorial Page Editor


Ray Cooklis,
Assistant Editorial Editor


Krista Ramsey,
Editorial Writer


Dennis Hetzel, General Manager,
Kentucky Enquirer/NKY.Com


Jim Borgman,
Editorial Cartoonist



Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

30 years of drunken driving

A word of thanks to Alex Heher of Fairfield Township who dodged flying car parts and spewed oil to trail a drunk hit-and-skip driver. The 20-year-old Heher's derring-do was essential in making the case against Stephen Wolf, who racked up his 19th drunk driving conviction. Police say Wolf was on his way to a bar. If he had entered and consumed a drink, police couldn't have proven how much he had to drink before the hit-and-skip, they say.

That said, it's ridiculous that anyone can accumulate 30 years worth of drunk-driving convictions and still be able to get behind the wheel, even illegally. Wolf now faces up to 10 years in prison. He spent one year in prison on felony drunken driving charges before.

Wolf deserves punishment, but what he and every other multiple-repeat offender need is treatment. They also need technology so that if they've consumed alcohol they can't start any car to which they have access. And they need people around them who will hold them accountable, care enough to take a stand against their driving, prevent them from having access to a car if they can, and make a case against their drinking.

Wolf's attorney did nobody a favor with his comments that his client is "a really personable guy" and "not nearly as bad as his record would reflect." Personable or not, Wolf is a danger to every other driver, passenger and pedestrian on the streets with him, and to himself. That he still can manage to find a way to get behind the wheel is a travesty and a pity.


4 Comments:

at 10:19 PM, February 20, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I"ll bet all Stephen Wolf's lawyers thought he was "personable" as he was writing checks for legal fees over the past 30 years. I'm sure the judges and prosecutors thought he was "likeable" when he paid his fines and court costs. But, now the jig is up; the media spotlight has shown, a sanctimonious judge gives a speech about responsibility, and a very sick man goes off to prison to die.

 
at 8:22 AM, February 21, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why build more jails if we don't put the right people in them? Maybe the personable dufus (sp?) appearance made certain judges let him walk away time after time. This, versus looking like a "gangsta" who may sell some pot.

Lock him up, throw away the key. ASAP. Now that I know about him, if I'm the (still living) victim, I'll sue the city of Cincinnati.

 
at 10:50 AM, February 22, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our laws here are simply not strict enough. I'm all for forgiveness on the first DUI, although the penalties need to be strict to make the point. Many young people make a mistake here and this gives them a chance to correct it.

However, the second DUI needs to be the last one, regardless of the time frame between convictions. Time to take the driver's license away at that point; but give a chance to get it back after five years of rehab treatment and paying a steep penalty. Does that seem harsh? Good! Harsh sentences are good deterrents; if you know you're going to be in deep doo-doo, perhaps you'll think twice.

The third DUI: jail incarceration, at least two year's worth. WOW! How harsh! YEP! Also permanent driver's license revocation, mandatory weekly monitoring of the person through the probation system after release for life, and random unannounced alcohol testing. Make drunks TERRIFIED to drink and drive anymore; they are acting like children and need to treated as such.

Fourth DUI: bye bye, prison (not jail, PRISON) for life. Parole? Maybe after 20 years or so...

Having a drink or two in public is commonly done in our society, and that by itself isn't the problem. It's not being able to control the alcohol consumption. If a person cannot control his or her own behavior here, they should not be allowed to operate a vehicle, and if they refuse to obey our laws, they need to go to jail.

 
at 9:20 AM, March 16, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous said...

In regards to Jude Camberos's opinion that DUI offenders shouldn't result in prison time, in which the writer refers to the case of Stephen Wolf who received multiple DUI convictions and had been sentenced to eight years of prison. Obviously, Camberos has never experienced the horrific loss of loved ones due to driving while impaired. This is a totally preventable offense. It is based on the choice of a drunk driver deciding to get on the road and use their vehicle as a weapon, taking the lives of everyone on the road in their hands. Who has that right? Perhaps Camberos is someone who drives impaired and just hasn't been caught yet.

My oldest daughter and her husband were hit by an impaired driver in August of 2007. She nearly died, and would have had it not been for the skills and compassion of multiple emergency personnel and University Hospital of Cincinnati's Trauma Team and Emergency Department, as well as Air Care. She and her husband's unborn child of 33 weeks, died as a direct result of the drunk driver's decision to get in her car and drive under the influence of alcohol and prescription medication. This tragic, preventable incident devastated our family and our community. This was not the first violation of the drunk driver.

Not only does my daughter and her husband suffer the physical and emotional aspects of this event daily, but due to the lack of adequate insurance on the drunk driver's part, they have suffered the financial result. At this point, as a young couple, they are looking at well over a quarter of a million dollars in medical bills, so far. The only thing that has sustained them is the car insurance and health insurance they carry, but they still have had to retain an attorney to assist them. However, why should good citizens have to carry the bulk of the financial burden for those that repeatedly offend or don't carry insurance? What does it take to try to rehabilitate these criminals? Obviously, prison time.

Personally, as a mother of a victim and an Emergency Room R.N., I believe punishment should be swift and hard. I also believe that those who have chosen to drive impaired should lose their license until they have successfully completed a rehabilitation program, automatic jail time, reportable and testing probation, and a minimum of $500,000 in liability insurance for the rest of their lives, in which they would be required to prove continuous coverage in order to maintain their license.

Think that is too harsh, Camberos? Try walking in my daughter's and her husband's shoes, or some other victim's, then tell me what you think. Otherwise, your opinion is from an extremely ignorant viewpoint.

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck