Of course, OWI/DUI — and especially repeat offender OWI/DUI — is nothing to be sneezed at. As someone who had found himself in front of a judge on occasion for just such an offense, determinate sentencing is a response to suitable lobbying/pressure from a special interest group such as MAAD. The "Three Strike" sentencing laws that have been passed in some areas are another example of a similar desire to 'end the revolving door on the jail' and keep "bad people" locked up. And the average citizen ignores/overlooks this because they do not want to be seen as 'weak' on lawbreaking (note I said 'lawbreaking' and not 'crime'; in my opinion there is a definite difference between the two). It is also sometimes the result of the various courts in a given jurisdiction agreeing on standardizing sentences for specific offenses (such as OWI or underage drinking) to eliminate the practice of a defense attorney 'shopping around' for the most lenient (or likely to be lenient) judge.BoSoxGal wrote:And in the case of DUI in many jurisdictions mandatory sentences are in place by legislative fiat, and judges have little discretion to modify term or conditions of sentence - they simply pronounce the sentence. This is true in many cases for many types of crimes...
And even then, at least in my jurisdiction, the judge still had a certain amount of autonomy in pronouncing the sentence. I could have just as easily found myself in county jail for nine months without Huber privileges after my 3rd OWI in four years instead of the three months with Huber (shortened to two months under 'mandatory release' provisions then in effect) that I did receive.
-"BB"-