Seth,
Spot on article. First timers should get a year in county.
But I always wonder why most every bar has its own parking lot? Bars should be prohibited from having them. Heck, the city of Decatur just lifted a ban on cab drivers who waited in bar parking lots for intoxicated cab riders. City leaders previously claimed that the cabs would clog streets.
How many cabs do we see waiting in area bar parking lots? If ever there called out for a 25 cent drink tax to pay for more cabs to idle in lots, it’s now. Not for free cab rides, but to have more around.

I’m all against drunk driving, etc, but the example you give of your friend’s accident just doesn’t fit with your rant.  In her case, it sounds more like she had the accident due to distracted driving, not impaired driving.  Sure, being intoxicated might have been a factor, but the fact is that she wasn’t watching the road.  Something like what she did could happen to anybody - I mean how many crazy things have you seen people doing in their cars?  If a DUI offense requires a year in jail, then it should be extended to talking on a cellphone, or distracted driving in general.
Also, in this case, I suspect the nature of the crossing contributed to the tragedy - assuming this is the crosswalk in question http://bit.ly/czJWhK.  That crosswalk just looks dangerous to me - especially at night.  Overhead light only on one side + no traffic controls anywhere nearby + 4 lane road + no crosswalk lighting is just asking for accidents. 
In summary, in tragedys like this, its easy to look for a single cause to pin the blame on.  Generally with driving accidents, alcohol takes that blame, regardless of whether it was the actual cause.  In this case, I’d guess the cell phone distraction and dangerous crosswalk played much more of a factor in the accident than did alcohol.

I agree, but I do think that immediate incarceration is cruel and unusual.  Everyone does deserve their day in court, and time must be given to the offender to make arrangements for job, family, etc.  Carting someone off to jail in the middle of the night is a bit too gestapo-ish for me.  However, I do agree that plea-bargains should not be allowed, and that mandatory jail time be enforced. During that time, offenders should be required to undergo treatment, as well.  Whether that will do anything to curb behavior, though, is doubtful.   DUI’s are not like robberies - no one plans to go out, drink too much, and drive; they are crimes usually caused by a lack of impulse control, impaired judgement (one more won’t hurt!), or addiction.  

what the world needs is the cab company i’ve invented in my head. Double Team Taxi Cab Co… or something like that. essentially when you call a cab, you get 2 people… one to drive YOU home, and another person to drive your CAR home. that’s a big reason many people dont take a cab… they need their car in the morning. i’m sure there would be (car) insurance issues with the aformentioned scenario but… i’d probably make a nice chunka change while keeping loads of people outta jail.

seth,
sounds like a great idea. can we also assume that with this would come harsher penalties for people who killed someone while driving drunk? like life in prison, or atleast longer than the maximum 14 years?

a drunk lady (elizabeth drewes) drove the wrong way on the interstate last december 19 and killed my cousin: she got 14 years.

fucked up.

The “justice” proposed by Mr. Fein is the type of “justice” which John Yoo and the Bush Administration would be proud.  Which is to say, no justice at all.  Try picking up a copy of the Constitution and READING IT before posting such an article.
You do not know all the facts about the case.  Yet you presume to judge Ms. Ennis based upon snippets you have read in the local newspaper.  In this country, we put criminals to trial in courts, not in the news media.  Ms. Ennis is entitled to her day in court, and to the assistance of counsel (whom Mr. Fein clearly assumes are all sheisters).  And apparently, Mr. Fein is entitled to write uninformed gibberish online and call it an “editorial.“ 
What was her BAC?  If it was .07, would that make a difference to you?  What if it was .08?  What is the difference between the two?  Who decides if the person is “directly impaired”?  A police officer?  A judge?  Should we do it by committee?
If Mr. Fein does not like our legal system, then I suggest he move to Saudi Arabia.  I hear their version of justice is quite similar to that which he now proposes.  Or was this article meant as pure fantasy?
One woman is dead, another’s life is ruined, and you use it as a soapbox from which to spout your neo-conservative bullshit?  Shame on you, Mr. Fein.

“I am not here to define the intricacies.“
 
What was the point of your column then?  I mean, other than trying to aggrandize yourself at the expense of others tragedy.  If you can’t define the intricacies, then clearly you haven’t devoted much thought to the topic.  Thus, it is safe to conclude that your editorial is nothing more than reactionary bullshit.  The kind I could expect to see from Nancy Grace, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or any of the plethora of mouth-breathers infecting my radio, television and newspaper.  You know, the kind of scumbags who use others misfortune to “prove” their ill-conceived points. 
 
Breathe?  Not the same air as you, buddy.

You do not see the points I am making.  If you did, you would respond to them.  I guess it is easier for you to simply write me off as “irrational” and to say you didn’t really think about the “intricacies” of what you seriously proposed in this non-satire editorial.  Your choice, man. 

Yes you do have the space to hammer out the details, you run this blog.  Hammer!  Hammer!
I’m guessing it’s more a lack of time…regardless, you are both making appropriate, albeit knee-jerky, points.  There should absolutely be greater deterrents to drunk/impaired/distracted driving but the proper enforcement and penalties won’t be something lawmakers look at anytime soon…that is, until another tragic incident occurs involving a “high profile” public figure and public outcry demands it’s attention.  That statement in no way whatsoever is meant to discount the life of Ms. Costello.

The underlying problem that I have is that the solution you propose requires the dismantling of the protections individuals are afforded by the Constitution.  While I understand the frustration with drunk driving, I do not understand using a specific tragedy that hits so close to home to espouse a point of view that is inconsistent with 250 years of American jurisprudence. 
 
It has become altogether too easy for people in this country to badmouth our legal system, judges, prosecutors, and attorneys without anyone calling them to task for it.  Such a convenient boogeyman, those activist judges and sheister lawyers.  Yet our system is by any reasonable measure, one of the fairest and most just in the world.  Just ask those condemned to death under Sharia law.  Editorials such as yours, well meaning or not, serve no purpose but to undermine our system of laws and the right to due process.
 
Deterrence is a myth.  People in the heat of passion are rarely deterred from murder by the risk of the death penalty.  Similarly, intoxicated individuals are rarely deterred from risky choices by the threat of a DUI (or even their own death, judging by those who periodically fall from balconies on campus).  Our criminal justice system is simply a means to punish those who fail to live up to the standards we establish.  We identify an action we abhor, and we punish those who act in that way.  Nothing more, nothing less.  You cannot deter all bad acts by simply ratcheting up the punishment for those acts and taking away the right to due process from the accused.  To argue otherwise is either lazy or intellectually dishonest.
 
If you want to prevent people from driving drunk, then how about offering a proactive solution.  Why not advocate for auto manufacturers to install breathalyzer interlock systems in every vehicle they produce?  Why appeal to the basest of desires within a week of a horrible tragedy?  It is too soon to use something so close to home to advocate in this manner.  It’s fucking mean, man.  Can you understand my anger?  You may be an amateur, but for God’s sake you do have influence and a voice. 

Ward, such a service does exist in Arizona:
http://www.azduiatty.com/designated-driver-a-great-idea-that-just-doesnt-work.htm

DELETED FOR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE

(Ed. note — this comment was sent in to us, and we decided to post it. It’s an informative comment, and one that we all agree adds to the debate well. — SBF)

I wish you guys didn’t shut down comments on Seth Fein’s new article, “Lift the gavel on DUI.“  I am a former DUI prosecutor and wanted to shed light on his well-intentioned, though generally asinine article. He rehashes the same tired refrains that we hear every time there is a DUI fatality (which statistically, is less and less every year). Instead of writing about what he thinks the law is from third hand accounts of non-lawyers, he should look up the most recent version of the DUI statute: 625 ILCS 5/11-601 et seq. Then he should compare the harsh punishments that are mandatory for judges to impose in this, the single most common ‘serious’ crime with something nearly as ubiquitous as Domestic Battery 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2 and other similar chapters. He should look at how much time offenders actually serve for a class-4 felony, such as one would get for stabbing somebody. He should ask Jesse White what an average first-time DUI costs an offender (at www.cyberdriveillinois.com). What he will find is that DUI in IL is punished far harsher than many, many crimes where a person actually sets out to hurt another person. He will find that while other crimes amount to fines of a couple hundred and a good attorney for a grand or two, the cost of a DUI is in excess of $10k, which is excessive for an offense that requires no malicious intent.