Should First Time Drunk Drivers Be Sent To Jail?

It may be because I am young (22) but I believe that if a person is caught driving drunk but they did not cause any property damage nor caused any harm to people then they should be heavily fined, have to perform a crap load of community service and have their license temporarily suspended. I do not think that on their first offense that they should go to jail as long as nothing or nobody was injured. However, I had a discussion with another friend who thinks anybody caught driving drunk no matter what happens should have their license revoked and serve jail time. What do you guys think on the matter?

Well, I'm not young and I have very defined ideas on how this should be treated. I'll limit this to non-injury or damages.
A. Suspending licenses doesn't work- people will drive anyway- it's a set up for failure.
B.Heavy fines are another set up- cause if you don't pay, you are non compliant.
Here is how I think 1st offenders, non injury/ damage cases should be handled.
From the point of arrest- suspect should be booked into jail.
Currently, this is common practise, you can be bailed out. 1st offenders, that works for me.
Once an offender has been charged they should be required to obtain an alcohol evaluation. Assuming the eval. shows no significant problem and the offender pleads guilty this is how I think it should go for the penalty phase...
1. upgrade auto insurance-manditory financial responsibility.
2. install interlock ignition-1 year
3. weekly MADD meetings-6 months
4.small fine, not to exceed $5000.00, based on income.
My idea here is that most 1st time offenders are young, not rich and probably not alcoholics. Therefore, preventing a reoccurence is the key. My plan hits the pocket but won't break the bank and the focus is education and prevention through the interlock system.
I just don't see taking big fines, extended jail time and revoking licenses as a way to create respect for laws and other human beings. Rather the reverse, with the added burden the offender is likely to become depressed and drink, ultimately reoffending. I think it is an opportunity to turn a negative into a postitive if handled with that goal in mind.

there is never a first time. people that just havent gotten caught. yes, send them to jail. Report It

No.

They should be executed.

Then there would be zero second-time offenders.

Problem solved.

better keep my mouth shut on this one.

As far as I know if youre caught driving under the influence you go to jail nomatter how many times you've been caught before.

With DUI defined as a blood alcohol level of 80 mg/dl, the impairment is no greater than not having a good night's sleep, or driving while talking on the phone, and a fine is adequate. That level of intoxication is within the realm of reasonable social drinking. At higher levels, in which the person was obviously trying to get drunk, a greater punishment is reasonable. The problem from a legal point of view, though, is that any cutoff the legislature picks will be quite arbitrary and not take into account individual variation in tolerance/impairment. No one-size-fits-all law is going to be reasonable.

People driving drunk should be punished to the fullest extent!! not only are they jeopardizing their own life but they are too ignorant to see that they are also putting the lives of many innocent people in jeopardy as well....

I agree with your friend. Community service and fines are a crap load of a waste of time. I feel if you do teh crime, you must do the time for EVERY crime. Even if it is something as simple as stealing a candy bar, you must perform some type of jail sentence.

Trust me, aftre going through the justice system and serving 30 days in jail, you will NEVER want to go back. I served my 30 days in a nice, clean jail, but I still have no desire to go back and to never do anything wrong again.

They should have to pay for the device that requires you blow into a breath analyzer before the car starts.