Russell L. Odegard, Minot
Approximately 20 years ago a drunken individual crossed the center line north of Jamestown and killed two of the passengers and severely injured one of the other occupants in the car hit. The driver did not have a valid driver's license or insurance and was driving his mother's car.
The problem was "how can society prevent such an incident." I believed, and still do, that the only way to prevent this from happening is to restrict the availability of a drunken person from getting a car. My proposal was to confiscate and sell the car involved at the time of the third DUI offense. The proceeds are to be received and given to the state. Each subsequent accident by this individual would be treated the same. This proposal has been presented to the state legislature at least two times and has failed.
Arguments against include:
The offender's family would suffer. The driver has responsibility for his family. Consider the rights of the public.
The perpetrator could get a car from a family member, friend or other. I am sure that no one would take a chance on losing their car. They would be very sure that he didn't drink while driving. If this person was involved in a DUI accident they would lose their car.
The offender could buy a car. Who would finance it? If this happens and the offender is involved in another DUI accident, this person could be put on a statewide list that would prevent this person from buying a car.
This is harsh treatment but the public has rights as well as the offender.