Join Together
Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Drunk Drivers with Kids in Car Could Face Felonies in N.Y.
November 19, 2009

Share Share Email
email
Print
print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The New York state Assembly has passed a bill that would make it a felony offense to drive while intoxicated if children under age 16 are in the vehicle, the New York Times reported Nov. 18.

The bill also would require first-time convicted drunk drivers to install ignition-interlock devices on their cars to prevent repeat offenses.

Currently, only Arizona makes it a felony offense to drive drunk with children; about a dozen states require the ignition-interlock devices, which prevent the engine from starting if a breath sample reveals the presence of alcohol. New Yorkers convicted of felony drunk driving would face up to four years in prison under the bill.

The legislation follows a pair of impaired-driving cases in New York that caused the deaths of young children, including a crash on the Taconic Parkway that killed eight people and an incident where a drunk woman flipped her car on the Henry Hudson Parkway, killing Leandra Rosado, an 11-year-old friend of her daughter.

"Everyone who takes a drink and gets behind the wheel is going to think twice about driving whether there are children in the car," said Lenny Rosado, the victim's father. "My daughter's name and her death will make a difference."

New York Gov. David Patterson supports the bill.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by LewBryson on 20 Nov 09 09:21 AM EST
Why only a felony if the kids are under 16? The 21 legal drinking age clearly treats 20 year olds as "children."

Posted by John French on 20 Nov 09 10:08 AM EST
The key to a sane alcohol/drug policy is to decriminalize use and punish behavior which threatens or harms others. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Posted by Old Counselor on 20 Nov 09 10:31 AM EST
Oh Great, lets put more people, with a disease, in Jail!! How about treatment and long term follow up instead. Remember when we burned withches (people with mental illness), my we are makeing progress. Treat the problem not the symptom.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 20 Nov 09 11:25 AM EST
If the NY Assembly was consistent, it would also make it a felony for first offenses of cell phone use, texting, use of many prescription medicines, and smoking a cigarette while driving with a minor in the car (as these other activities pose similar or greater health/safety risks). But this legislation appears to be overkill by the NY Assmebly, just as they did several decades ago when enacting draconian Rockefeller drug prohibition laws. Politicians often overreact to a few heavily publicized tragedies without considering any of the many counterproductive ramifications of their actions. Since very few employers will hire felons, this legislation would impoverish the very children the NY Assembly is now claiming an interest in protecting. Felonizing a second conviction for DUI is far more reasonable than for a first offense (especially since states continue to lower the legal blood alcohol level).

Posted by Sarah on 20 Nov 09 11:54 AM EST
Hopefully judges and prosecutors will treat each accused with discretion and apply appropriate penalties, but I have a problem with the interlock devices. MANY savvy alcoholics with the device just have someone else blow or they put a filter on the device. It's a no brainer to do either.

Posted by Diane on 20 Nov 09 01:00 PM EST
Dear Old Counselor: it is the responsibility of the "sick" to obtain treatment for their illness. This is an entirely different matter than choosing to drive after you drink. If you are sick and can't help yourself from drinking, fine; get tx. However, there is no excuse for getting in the car and drinking while you have relapsed. THIS is the crime, not being an alcoholic.

Posted by EHPH on 21 Nov 09 03:02 AM EST
In my opinion, education and prevention are crucial in addressing the problem of irresponsible behavior, especially when children are involved. There are already too many parents incarcerated. The children are the once who suffer. Who takes care of them! Punitive measurements have statistically proven to not cure the problem, which is why I would support the idea of systematically educate people, and parents in particular, pertaining to the risks involved (often entailing lasting, if not fatal consequences).

Posted by Joshua on 23 Nov 09 12:15 PM EST
if i understand this story correctly it would seem that it is still not a felony to drive while intoxicated as long as there are no children in the car. so it is still only a misdemeanor to endanger the lives children outside your car? this still seems wrong to me.

Posted by Romeo B. on 23 Nov 09 12:57 PM EST
Addicts could care less about laws that prohibit driving while impaired. That does not relieve them of the responsibility of their actions. Anyone who takes a life while driving impaired should face felony murder charges. Period.

Posted by Cheryl on 24 Nov 09 06:31 PM EST
Dear old counselor,Are you kidding me? It is those individuals who do not have consequences for their behavior that continue to drink and use. This is not a victimless crime. We're talking about killing someone!

Posted by Rob H. on 24 Nov 09 08:20 PM EST
"There are already too many parents incarcerated." We don't incarcerate anyone for being a parent. We incarcerate criminals. Don't drink and drive. Do we need to use smaller words, or simpler sentences? What part of "Don't drink and drive" is so very difficult to understand? And Old Counselor, I personally know several alcoholics who know not to drink and drive.

Posted by Rob H. on 24 Nov 09 08:26 PM EST
Why only a felony if the kids are under 16? The 21 legal drinking age clearly treats 20 year olds as "children." Lew, lawmakers obviously reacted to the cases cited in the story..but that doesn't make it a bad law. The 21 legal drinking age treats 20-year-olds as 20-year-olds. That is, young people whose brains are still developing, and whose capacity for decision-making is not fully formed. Are they magically imbued with the wisdom of Solomon upon turning 21? Of course not, but it's a good median point. Don't argue for lower drinking ages until you google "New Zealand Drinking Age." Let us know what you learn, please.

Posted by Rob H. on 25 Nov 09 03:35 PM EST
"Oh Great, lets put more people, with a disease, in Jail!// Treat the problem not the symptom." Old Counselor, my community's most recent PROBLEM is that an allegedly impaired driver (Rx drugs, prior DUI) allegedly drove up on a sidewalk and killed someone. Jailing her (if the allegations are true) SOLVES THE PROBLEM. (Google "Bedard Poway Anderson")Jail, or the threat of jail time, can give an addict that "push" to stick with a treatment program, or minimally, deters them from driving while impaired. I absolutely support treatment for addicts, and I support Drug Courts. But when an addict's actions result in injury or death, the public deserves to be protected from that person. Failure to hold addicts responsible for their behavior is a disservice to them, and to the public. And giving addicts a pass for criminal behavior erodes public support for treatment.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Submissions are held for review and approval.
Please read the guidelines before posting.

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

Guidelines for comments