Press Release from the Office of State Representative Matthew Hill
Please be advised that Representative Matthew Hill (R-Jonesborough) will be presenting a comprehensive approach to strengthen DUI laws in Tennessee on Thursday, March 20th, at 7:00pm at Jonesborough Visitors Center. This town hall meeting is open to the public and the media.
District Attorney Tony Clark and a representative from MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) will also be in attendance to answer questions.
Rep. Matthew Hill is championing legislation that strengthens mandatory sentencing laws, and is working with other members of the legislature on a number of other measures that aim to crack down drunk drivers.
Jama’s Comments on the Matter
I hate drunk drivers. Hate ‘em, hate ‘em, hate ‘em. Personally, I believe you should get one – ONE – second chance (everyone screws up every now and then) and then that’s it. No more driver’s license, lock him up and throw away the key!
However, I see the phrase “mandatory sentencing.” I absolutely oppose mandatory sentencing. Here’s a scenario: Mom and dad go out for dinner (I imagine they’re Presbyterian – we Presbyterians do enjoy our wine!). Mom and dad each have a glass or two of wine. They get pulled over on the way home from the restaurant and, due to mandatory sentencing guidelines, a good, Christian father of four ends up in jail for however long the sentencing guidelines dictate, and the lives of six upstanding citizens are ruined.
This, my friends, is drastically different than the drunk jerk-face who goes careening down the interstate at 100mph while so hammered he can’t even walk.
My question is, “What, exactly, is ‘drunk?’” “How do I know when I’m legally drunk?” I’m not a gal that goes out to “da club” and gets torn up – EVER – but I will (when I’m not pregnant, of course!) have a couple glasses of wine with dinner. Do I need to take a cab anytime my family goes to a restaurant? Surely not!
Here’s hoping that I will be able to attend the Town Hall Meeting and get these questions answered, otherwise, that phrase “mandatory sentencing” is going to continue to give me nightmares.
March 17, 2008 at 10:41 am
I agree with you on this one, Jama. I saw that you mentioned Matt was trying to strengthen this law, but am not sure if he actually supports making the mandate even more strict or if he is trying to add some exceptions to it so that the scenarios you have spoken of will not fall under the mandate. Could you please clarify?
March 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Mandy,
I’m planning on going to the meeting, and I’ll be sure to post on what I find out.
-Jama
March 17, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Jama,
Don’t worry. Matthew wants your second DUI level to be .02, which is one beer, and a 20 year mandatory prison sentence. Nothing like spreading the love of Jesus over having one beer. Hope your parents don’t end up in Brushy Mountain, but if Matthew Hill has his way, they just might.
Gary
March 18, 2008 at 10:12 am
Here you go. Here is what Matthew wants to do to 2nd DUI offenders. I hope he’s planning on raising taxes to build the new prisons to house these people.
HB3684 DUI/DWI Offenses – Increases penalty for second or subsequent DUI offense to Class B felony with 20-year mandatory sentence and lifetime suspension of driver license. – Amends TCA Title 55, Chapter 10, Part 4.
March 18, 2008 at 3:09 pm
What is wrong with mandatory sentencing? I am not worried about it because I do not drink and drive! I think all of you that are fussing about this need to step back and take a long look at your self because this is a GREAT bill!
March 18, 2008 at 5:57 pm
First of all, a glass or two of wine, or a beer will not make you fall in the dui catagory. The key is in moderation. If you choose to drink more than you can handle (and some people do choose to do this), You should be responsible enough to have a designated driver. Would anyone say the same if the same dad on the way home misjudged distance and hit a vehicle and killed someone, possible a child, I think not…. Although I don’t disagree with everyones concerns, I do encourage everone to think of all scenarios.
March 18, 2008 at 6:09 pm
If the BAL limit would be set at .02, I would not be in favor of this legislation! Would drivers be truly impared at this level? I think not. This smacks of pandering and seems to have left common sense at the door. Remember republicans, we want less govt interference, not more.
March 18, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Ray,
A .02 is one beer. I hope Matthew plans on raising taxes on everyone to throw these people in the prison for 20 years because we’ll have to have prisons built in every county to handle the load.
Gary
March 18, 2008 at 11:39 pm
It is a must. No one is saying not to drink, but if you decide to drink more than you should (and lets not be foolish, we all know our limit) we should not operate a vehicle. I do not understand why you say its going to cost extra for mandatory sentencing, if anything it will free up the court system and it will stop the money racketing system that so many attorneys are in. Its simple, you get a speeding ticket you pay the fine – no court, no expensive attorney who gives back to the judges campaign (which is disclosed- another subject) and you go on. What is there to argue? If you blow at a high level, accept the responsibility. Lets remember no one is saying not to drink, however if you decide to drink and drive you must be prepared to handle the consequences.
March 19, 2008 at 10:23 am
Sean,
Putting people in prison for 20 years for blowing a .02 which is the average equivalent of one beer will obviously fill up the prisons and we’ll need more space. Where do you think we are going to put these people, outside underneath a bridge. Prisons cost money and this will swell the prison population. And for God’s sake, whatever happened to proportionality. 20 years in prison for blowing a .02?? Has Matthew Hill lost his mind? Gosh, let’s put somebody in jail for 5 years for jay walking for God’s sake. Whatever happened to common sense?
Gary
March 19, 2008 at 8:35 pm
You can blow a .02 just by something more innocent, like using mouthwash in your car before an interview or appointment with a customer (Listerine is 26.9% alcohol by weight) or even eating certain types of bread — these field breathalyzers measure not the blood but rather alcohol on your breath to make an estimate about BAC…
And then there is the enormous taxpayer cost to literally throw away someone in the state prison system for 20 years for 2nd offense DUI: as I recall, it cost approximately $25,000 to house a Tennessee felon within the Department of Correctiions prison system, so given the future value of this expense to Tennessee taxpayers could well exceed $500k to $600k over the 20 year sentence!
In any case, this bizzare DUI legislation would likely be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional…
March 19, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I wonder what kind of time the Feds give to radio station operators about making willful and false statements (e.g. being an American Indian) on their FCC ownership statements?
March 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Mandatory sentencing removes the ability of the judge and jury to consider extenuating circumstances.
Here is an example:
You are out camping, had a few beers and your buddy has a heart attack or your pregnant wife goes into contractions or you yourself have a heart attack or severe earlobe cramps or some other pressing medical complication…..so you hop in the car and head to the nearest source of help….maybe a deputy at a diner 15 miles away….after the deputy calls for EMS he smells alcohol on your breath and (if he’s like half of the jack-ass deputies I worked with) he charges you with DUI for .02 (its your second DUI because you had one as a college frat boy ten years earlier). With Mandatory sentencing you can kiss it all goodbye.
Mandatory sentencing is merely a panacea that pacifies the mob mentality.
I think about it on a fairly regular basis….A few years back I helped put a 24 year old away for the rest of his life because of the three strikes and you’re out law. In a free society (the one our Founders initially created) he would not have even gone to jail the first time. Did I follow the law? Yes. Was justice served? No. Chalk one up for mandatory sentencing.
March 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Welcome back, Mark!!! We’ve missed you around here…
March 20, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Since Matthew Hill is so concerned about the safety of our highways, why doesn’t he care about the 90 year olds that still have driver’s licenses with no requirement for retesting. I went to this DUI meeting tonight. And I am so sorry for the people that have lost loved ones from drunk drivers. I lost a family friend last week to a drunk driver and I lost a friend a couple of months ago due to a girl text messaging. Let’s face it. Most of us have talked on cell phones, fiddled with the radio, eaten big macs and most likely if you are a girl, put on make up. But for the grace of God we didn’t kill somebody while doing these things. I was scared to death that half the room in Jonesborough drove to the DUI meeting tonight because just about that many looked like they were 80 years old.you think they are good drivers, especially at night?? Some may be but I can almost guarantee you that some shouldn’t even be on the road. Yet, when an old person wrecks and kills someone, I don’t hear a clarion call to get old people off the highway through mandatory retesting. Wake up people. Look at yourself in the mirror. I felt like I was sitting in a room filled with Pharisees tonight. But for the Grace of God, there go I. It’s pretty simple. DO WHAT THOU WILT AND HARM NO ONE. If you drive and hurt or kill someone because of negligence, then you should have to suffer the consequences. If you were text messaging, drinking, chomping on a Big Mac to feed your fat face, tuning in to 870 am Powertalk, putting on mascara or shaving, it’s all the same to me. If we are going to have interlock devices for DUI offenders, why not create a reflex test device for drivers 65 and over?? Heck, why don’t we ban SUV’s? After all, it’s unfair to get hit by an SUV when you are in a Volkswagen, right? Matthew Hill said your car is a weapon. Ban SUV’s!! The absurdity of it all!!
March 21, 2008 at 6:27 am
We make other arangements when we have been prescribed medication that we are not supposed to drive while taking, Why would this be any different? Come on guys, Lets use some common sense. Any one that drinks more than they should and, everyone is different, should not drive. And although .02 may only be one beer for some, Gary, It may be 2 or 3 for others. I am not saying don’t drink. I am saying do it responsibly. And if you think there are people out there that one beer doesn’t make drunk, you are sadly mistaken. There use to be law enforcement agencies that would put on a test for people to show how alcohol reacts on different people in different amounts and with different weights. I wish they would do this again. Talk to someone who has had someone killed by a drunk driver and I bet some of you change your minds. Thank you Jama for having this venue for us to vent. You are doing a great job and service to your community.
March 21, 2008 at 6:56 am
Mark,
Go and talk to someone who has had a loved one killed by an old driver because they just couldn’t see or they blacked out and I bet they’ll be for mandatory testing for older drivers. Why isn’t that on the agenda?? ANSWER: Because the old people vote en mass, that’s why. I recently had a dear friend that was struck and killed in Jonesborough because the girl was text messaging. Am I for putting someone in jail for 20 years if they get caught text messaging in their car the second time?? No, I’m not. I’m saying you are responsible for your own actions. I am not for a Department of PRE CRIME. I’m for prosecuting someone when they actually hurt somebody. How hard a concept is this? I asked a lady last night at the forum if she used her cell phone while driving. She said yes. And my response is that by the Grace of God you made it to the forum without killing someone. Do you get it now?
According to Hill, blowing a .02 for the 2nd DUI makes you deserve 20 years in prison. I can’t see much difference in that than getting caught eating, putting on mascara, TEXT messaging on your cell phone or talking on your cell phone the 2nd time. In other words, why stop with DUI offenses since there are so many other distractions in your car that makes you dangerous and people DIE everyday from drivers’ negligence, my friend being a case in point. In other words, it’s easy to pick on those that imbibe and drive a car, but when it comes to removing the 90 year old off the street who can barely see to get out of his driveway, no one is willing to do that. Wake up, look at yourself in the mirror this morning and thank God that you didn’t kill somebody when you dialed on that cell phone or ate that Big Mac or put on your makeup or fiddled with you XM radio in your car yesterday.
March 21, 2008 at 8:15 pm
All are valid concerns -let Matthew concentrate on this bill. I am sure he will look into any other concerns
citizens may have and propose legislation to help combat these problems.
March 22, 2008 at 8:49 am
DAVID,
ROFLMAO.
When Rep. Hill proposes legislation that restricts elderly drivers is when the Pope will renounce Catholicism. Get real. That’s the biggest political voting block around. Remember, politics always revolves around power struggles. Public safety is just a misnomer that’s used to get legislation passed that satisfies one mob’s beef with another, in this case, those that drink and drive versus those that don’t drink and drive. In the scenario of those that are 65 and younger versus those that aren’t 65 and younger, the younger crowd would have an extreme problem getting legislation passed that would involve DWE (Driving while Elderly) ((Jama thanks for that monikor)), even though a “public safety” issue is evident with elderly drivers. In the end, I see it as just a mathematical equation. Politicians pandering to the largest voting block in order to get reelected. It’s not just Rep. Hill, but it’s the nature of the beast so to say. I just wish people would self examine themselves more and realize what hypocrites they are, including myself. Really, in order to stop all driving fatalities, we need to ban cars. That would do it. It’s math, really, and it’s pandering. If we had DWE legislation, then half of the room on Thursday night would not have been able to get to the town hall because about that many were in the sub set of collecting Social Security, and to be quite honest, it scared me to death to go and get in the car near that building. But we can’t have a law that takes your driver’s license away when your reflexes deteriorate with age. Think about it. Sanctimonious, pious hypocrites. That is what we are and most of us don’t get it. And many of us diligently attend church every Sunday. Think about it.
Gary
Gary
March 22, 2008 at 8:52 am
David,
When Matthew proposes to restrict DWE (Driving While Elderly) ((Thanks Jama for that one!)) is the day that I suspect the Pope will renounce Catholicism.
Get real. That’s the largest voting block around. Politics is about one mob overpowering another mob. Haven’t you learned anything in political theory?
Gary