Our view: No easy answers

What in heaven's name was this woman doing behind the wheel?

She was out on bail from a March DUI charge. Bail conditions prohibited her from drinking or driving. She wasn't supposed to drive even if she was stone-cold sober.

Outrage is understandable. So is the call to do something about this.

"That's easy to say," city prosecutor Al Patterson said Wednesday. "Give me answers."

The answer is sobering: We're already doing something about people like Lori Phillips -- and those in danger of becoming someone like her.

We now hit first offenders hard, unlike Phillips' first offense in 1983, when she pleaded a DUI charge down to a traffic offense and paid a $150 fine.

First DUI gets you minimum three days in jail, impoundment of vehicle for 30 days, $1,500 or more in fines and fees, mandatory alcohol screening, a session with a panel of family members and friends of those who have been killed or injured by drunken drivers, 90 days suspension of driver's license, 12 months of ignition interlock on the offender's vehicle -- you breathe alcohol-free at the wheel or your rig doesn't start.

Patterson said when all the costs are totalled up -- lost work time, insurance rate increases etc. -- first-time offenders pay from $12,000 to $15,000 in total costs. That's a powerful wake-up call.

We also have a limited Wellness Court Program, where drug and alcohol abusers can volunteer for a strict regimen of treatment and sobriety in return for lighter sentences.

From the first offense, drunken driving isn't winked at anymore. That's why, as prosecutor Patterson said, most first-time offenders don't repeat. They get the message with consequences both punitive and enlightening.

What about the chronic offender, like Lori Phillips?

Penalties get stiffer, with jail time measured in months or even years as misdemeanors become felonies. Vehicles go away for keeps. Fines and fees reach five figures.

Such deterrence doesn't always work for alcohol abusers. The one-off drunken driver learns; the alcoholic is an addict who puts the fix before everything else. She needs treatment. The rest of us need to be protected from her.

So what's the solution? Lock them up for 10 years after a third offense? For 20 years, if there's a fourth?

We could do that. We could decide driving drunk a third or fourth time is really attempted homicide and treat it as a serious act of violence. If such penalties failed as deterrence, they would at least keep the repeat offender off our roads for a long time.

But we need to understand that more severe sentencing will lead more offenders to fight the charges. We'll pay more for court time to handle their cases and more for prison time to keep the offenders locked up longer.

Are we willing to pay? And is that the smartest use of the money we will spend to try to stop drunk driving?

BOTTOM LINE: We can get tougher on repeat drunken drivers -- if we're willing to pay the price.