Mary-Anne busted for Mary-Jane

[Mr. Coffee]

Must be a lot of reefer on that uncharted desert isle.

DRIGGS, Idaho - Dawn Wells, who played Mary Ann on "Gilligan's Island," is serving six months' unsupervised probation after allegedly being caught with marijuana in her car.

She was sentenced Feb. 29 to five days in jail, fined $410.50 and placed on probation after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving.

Under a plea agreement, three misdemeanor counts -- driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance -- were dropped.

On Oct. 18, Teton County sheriff's Deputy Joseph Gutierrez arrested Wells as she was driving home from a surprise birthday party that was held for her. According to the sheriff's office report, Gutierrez pulled Wells over after noticing her swerve and repeatedly speed up and slow down. When Gutierrez asked about a marijuana smell, Wells said she'd just given a ride to three hitchhikers and had dropped them off when they began smoking something. Gutierrez found half-smoked joints and two small cases used to store marijuana.

The 69-year-old Wells, founder of the Idaho Film and Television Institute and organizer of the region's annual family movie festival called the Spud Fest, then failed a sobriety test.

Wells' lawyer, Ron Swafford, said that a friend of Wells' testified that he'd left a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle after using it that day, and that Wells was unaware of it. Swafford also said several witnesses were prepared to testify that Wells had very little to drink at the party and was not intoxicated when she left. He said she was swerving on the road because she was trying to find the heater controls in her new car.

Hey, if this doesn't belong in N&P, go ahead and move it. I saw this and it was just to goddamned funny not to repost.

[Tsyroc]

I think in the past that she got busted mailing pot to Bob Denver (Gilligan) or vice versa.

I'll have to check on that.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey, bob denver is also "Maynerd G. Krebs" so you know those "Beat" era cats were all into that stuff before the Hippies were.

[Edi]

DUI is only a misdemeanor charge? Figures...

[Mr. Coffee]

DUI is only a misdemeanor charge? Figures...

In most states I've ever been to DUI is a misdemeanor offense for the first and second offenses, and a felony for the third.

[Raw Shark]

DUI is only a misdemeanor charge? Figures...

Yeah, that's Idaho for you. Here in Colorado Johnny Law will give you a Size 11 Poop Chute for your first one.

[Mr. Coffee]

DUI is only a misdemeanor charge? Figures...

Yeah, that's Idaho for you. Here in Colorado Johnny Law will give you a Size 11 Poop Chute for your first one.

From here

The maximum punishment for a DUI in Colorado is one year in jail, a $1000 fine, 96 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and up to 86 hours of alcohol therapy. A BAC over .20 requires 10 days jail. Second and third offenses carry higher maximums and require jail. Typically, a first-offense DUI will include minimum punishments of unsupervised probation for 1 or 2 years, 48 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and fines, fees, and court costs amounting to approximately $500.

Here's Idaho for a first offense...

DUI First Offense
Up to $1,000.00 fine
2 days to 6 months jail
Suspend driver's license for 180 days with at least the first 30 days absolute and the remainder restricted
Obtain an alcohol evaluation
Follow the recommendation of evaluation
Attend Victims' Panel
1 to 2 years probation - may be supervised.

Not much difference between the two at all, just Colorado has a higher maximum jail time allowed. Yeah, Colorado is soooooooo hardcore, man. About as hardcore as any other state in the US.

[Raw Shark]

The maximum punishment for a DUI in Colorado is one year in jail, a $1000 fine, 96 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and up to 86 hours of alcohol therapy. A BAC over .20 requires 10 days jail. Second and third offenses carry higher maximums and require jail. Typically, a first-offense DUI will include minimum punishments of unsupervised probation for 1 or 2 years, 48 hours of useful public service, an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course, and fines, fees, and court costs amounting to approximately $500.

Here's Idaho for a first offense...

DUI First Offense
Up to $1,000.00 fine
2 days to 6 months jail
Suspend driver's license for 180 days with at least the first 30 days absolute and the remainder restricted
Obtain an alcohol evaluation
Follow the recommendation of evaluation
Attend Victims' Panel
1 to 2 years probation - may be supervised.

Not much difference between the two at all, just Colorado has a higher maximum jail time allowed. Yeah, Colorado is soooooooo hardcore, man. About as hardcore as any other state in the US.

I don't dispute the accuracy of the text you quoted, but I do not think that it forms a very good example of "not much difference between the two at all." Note that the first offense punishments quote for Colorado says that it typically includes the items listed, not that it is limited to them. Also, the alcohol education course and possible alcohol therapy mentioned for Colorado but not Idaho consume additional time as noted, and money beyond the listed amounts.

In my anecdotal experience working with local citizens who have been convicted of this crime (whose actions I do not defend), the "courses" and "therapy" are not a simple week or two of solid classroom time, but an hour or two per week stretched out over a year or so. They generally have to be at these classes on time to avoid further penalties despite odd locations and a revoked drivers' license, which usually means taking the bus across town whenever they say so and thus additional difficulty holding down a normal job (considered by many to be a vital step in the rehabilitation process). In summary, I stand by my assertion that Colorado is, if not soooooooo hardcore, then at the very least more hardcore than Idaho, with regard to DUIs.

[Mr. Coffee]

Note that the first offense punishments quote for Colorado says that it typically includes the items listed, not that it is limited to them.

The Idaho laws (or the laws for pretty much every other state in the Union) aren't limited to just the minimums either.

Also, the alcohol education course and possible alcohol therapy mentioned for Colorado but not Idaho consume additional time as noted, and money beyond the listed amounts.

That would be determined by the "alcohol evaluation" in Idaho's case. Some states recognize that some people really just made a poor decision and aren't alcoholics who require lengthy and costly rehab while others are and do need that. So they send you to get evaluated and based on the recomendation you end up with anything from a stern lecture to having to go through a level IV SATOP program and manditory weekly AA meetings.

In my anecdotal experience working with local citizens who have been convicted of this crime (whose actions I do not defend), the "courses" and "therapy" are not a simple week or two of solid classroom time, but an hour or two per week stretched out over a year or so.

IN my PERSONAL experience from having once gotten convicted of DUI (only one offense, happened ten years ago when I was 21 year old and a lot dumber than I am now, never happened again), that's pretty much standard as your chances of convincing the evaluator of you being anything other than a problem drinker is slim to none. The evaluators for those tests come in with the mindset that you are automatically an alcoholic, also since the state runs the SATOP program it's in their best interests to make sure you attend as they charge quite a bit of money for them.

In anycase, a lot of it has to do with if you could afford a good lawyer. You have a good lawyer and you can get your sentance talked down to just the bare minimums with no classes. All depends on if you think fines plus lawyer fees cost less than the classes and possible jail time.

They generally have to be at these classes on time to avoid further penalties despite odd locations and a revoked drivers' license, which usually means taking the bus across town whenever they say so and thus additional difficulty holding down a normal job (considered by many to be a vital step in the rehabilitation process).

Boohoo for them. I'll say the same thing that was my Pop said to me when I complained about the same thing a decade ago, "Tough shit, numbnuts, next time don't drive after you've been drinking".

In summary, I stand by my assertion that Colorado is, if not soooooooo hardcore, then at the very least more hardcore than Idaho, with regard to DUIs.

Then you're an idiot. Colorado isn't really any more harsh than any other state is when it comes to DUIs, a good lawyer can still get you off with a slap on the wrist there just like every where else, and alcohol and drug programs being made part of your sentence are typical of most all states.

I gave a link that lkists the DUI laws of all Fifty States, guy. You think you're right... Well, I'm from Missouri, son. Show me.

[Raw Shark]

Note that the first offense punishments quote for Colorado says that it typically includes the items listed, not that it is limited to them.

The Idaho laws (or the laws for pretty much every other state in the Union) aren't limited to just the minimums either.

The wording of your quote for Idaho presents a fine capped with the words "up to," a finite range of jail time (lesser than the one given for Colorado by 50% at the upper end), a finite range of license suspension, a one-time evaluation, and a finite range of probation. I concede that "Follow the recommendation of evaluation" and "Attend Victims' Panel" are more open-ended, and may include the additional measures that are stated for Colorado more explicitly.

Also, the alcohol education course and possible alcohol therapy mentioned for Colorado but not Idaho consume additional time as noted, and money beyond the listed amounts.

That would be determined by the "alcohol evaluation" in Idaho's case. Some states recognize that some people really just made a poor decision and aren't alcoholics who require lengthy and costly rehab while others are and do need that. So they send you to get evaluated and based on the recomendation you end up with anything from a stern lecture to having to go through a level IV SATOP program and manditory weekly AA meetings.

In my anecdotal experience working with local citizens who have been convicted of this crime (whose actions I do not defend), the "courses" and "therapy" are not a simple week or two of solid classroom time, but an hour or two per week stretched out over a year or so.

IN my PERSONAL experience from having once gotten convicted of DUI (only one offense, happened ten years ago when I was 21 year old and a lot dumber than I am now, never happened again), that's pretty much standard as your chances of convincing the evaluator of you being anything other than a problem drinker is slim to none. The evaluators for those tests come in with the mindset that you are automatically an alcoholic, also since the state runs the SATOP program it's in their best interests to make sure you attend as they charge quite a bit of money for them.

Agreed.

In anycase, a lot of it has to do with if you could afford a good lawyer. You have a good lawyer and you can get your sentance talked down to just the bare minimums with no classes. All depends on if you think fines plus lawyer fees cost less than the classes and possible jail time.

True of the law all across this great land of ours, yes.

They generally have to be at these classes on time to avoid further penalties despite odd locations and a revoked drivers' license, which usually means taking the bus across town whenever they say so and thus additional difficulty holding down a normal job (considered by many to be a vital step in the rehabilitation process).

Boohoo for them. I'll say the same thing that was my Pop said to me when I complained about the same thing a decade ago, "Tough shit, numbnuts, next time don't drive after you've been drinking".

To clarify: I agree that they deserve severe punishment, but in general I find a system of punishment that makes it harder than it already is to hold a job post-release to be excessive because I think that it will encourage additional criminal behavior in many cases (though not especially this particular one unless the individual has a means of obtaining money by driving drunk, making this a bit of a digression).

In summary, I stand by my assertion that Colorado is, if not soooooooo hardcore, then at the very least more hardcore than Idaho, with regard to DUIs.

Then you're an idiot. Colorado isn't really any more harsh than any other state is when it comes to DUIs, a good lawyer can still get you off with a slap on the wrist there just like every where else, and alcohol and drug programs being made part of your sentence are typical of most all states.

I gave a link that lkists the DUI laws of all Fifty States, guy. You think you're right... Well, I'm from Missouri, son. Show me.

Not to move the goalposts, but if we agree that the minimums are actually a wealth-influenced grey area everywhere in the USA that leaves us the listed maximums for debate. A maximum of 12 months behind bars vs a maximum 6 months behind bars seems clearly "more harsh" to me...

But I've never been for more than a night personally so I'll have to defer to superior experience if you'd like to claim that half a year feels exactly the same as a year in there.

[Mr. Coffee]

The wording of your quote for Idaho presents a fine capped with the words "up to," a finite range of jail time (lesser than the one given for Colorado by 50% at the upper end), a finite range of license suspension, a one-time evaluation, and a finite range of probation.

Both examples I gave are for a first offense. You did notice that all of Colorado's punishments for DUI said "the maximum punishment", right? So that means "Up to a $1000 fine" and "a $1000 fine" mean the same thing in both cases. Colorado isn't going to hand out the maximum fine every time just as Idaho (or any other state for that matter) won't either.

Also, the alcohol education course and possible alcohol therapy mentioned for Colorado but not Idaho consume additional time as noted, and money beyond the listed amounts.

Depending on the outcome of the "evaluation" it could take as much time as mandated by the specific program in the state of Idaho. But considering that the law in Colorado just says "an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course" and doesn't give a specific time for how long any of that will take, you don't really have a point here.

To clarify: I agree that they deserve severe punishment, but in general I find a system of punishment that makes it harder than it already is to hold a job post-release to be excessive because I think that it will encourage additional criminal behavior in many cases (though not especially this particular one unless the individual has a means of obtaining money by driving drunk, making this a bit of a digression).

Never had a problem maintaining a job after my DUI. In fact, I managed to aviod having my license suspended by following the directions they gave for requesting the hearing to retain my license. Anytime I was asked about criminal charges by employers for the next couple of years after that I was honest with them about it and got the job. It's the guy that gets that second or third offense that worries employers. Very few states actually have laws that harsh that a first offense can seriously hurt you. For example, Tennessee has some harsh laws with you spending a minimum of 2 days in jail for .08-.20% bac and seven days minimum for having a BAC higher than .20%, and you WILL lose your license for one year, just for the first offense.

It really depends on the offender and the circumstances. I think they should take into consideration things like the driver's BAC for sentencing, and severly increasing penilties for subsequent offences. First time offender with a low BAC, guy was probably being honest about only having a couple of drinks and was just being an idiot, so just slap him hard enough that he get's the point not to do it again. Guy that blow's a .2 or higher, that guy's bullshitting you hard about "jusa few driksh, ofisher" and has a case of terminal stupid and should be accordingly slapped harder to get the point across. Repeat offenders are people that were to stupid to get the point the first time and should have the book thrown at their crotch.

Not to move the goalposts, but if we agree that the minimums are actually a wealth-influenced grey area everywhere in the USA that leaves us the listed maximums for debate.

Two problems with that:

1. Not all states have the same minimums. Showed that with Tennessee above.

2. Very few first offenders will actually be sentenced to the maximums.

A maximum of 12 months behind bars vs a maximum 6 months behind bars seems clearly "more harsh" to me...

"Seems" being the key word. Since very few people are ever sentenced the maximum on the first offense, it's not much of a difference. The fun thing is, if you look at the differences in laws betweem just Colorado and Idaho, you'll notice that I Idaho has much higher penilties defined for repeat offences, but Colorado does not. You get a second DUI in idaho and the minimums and maximums raise up, get a third and they go even higher. You get a second or third offense in Colorado and you still face the same minimums and maximums you had as a first offender.

Just because something "seems" harsher doesn't mean it IS harsher.

But I've never been for more than a night personally so I'll have to defer to superior experience if you'd like to claim that half a year feels exactly the same as a year in there.

Longest I've ever spent in jail was two weeks in Madison Co (completely unrelated to anything involving intoxication). Longer time is just that, longer. Instead of two days wearing orange pajamas and eating bland food while being bored out of your skull it's two weeks of the same. I have no clue what state or federal prisons are like.

[Raw Shark]

The wording of your quote for Idaho presents a fine capped with the words "up to," a finite range of jail time (lesser than the one given for Colorado by 50% at the upper end), a finite range of license suspension, a one-time evaluation, and a finite range of probation.

Both examples I gave are for a first offense. You did notice that all of Colorado's punishments for DUI said "the maximum punishment", right? So that means "Up to a $1000 fine" and "a $1000 fine" mean the same thing in both cases. Colorado isn't going to hand out the maximum fine every time just as Idaho (or any other state for that matter) won't either.

Leaving off the end of my paragraph leaves out its point there, which I won't spam you all by repeating.

Also, the alcohol education course and possible alcohol therapy mentioned for Colorado but not Idaho consume additional time as noted, and money beyond the listed amounts.

Depending on the outcome of the "evaluation" it could take as much time as mandated by the specific program in the state of Idaho. But considering that the law in Colorado just says "an alcohol evaluation, an alcohol education course" and doesn't give a specific time for how long any of that will take, you don't really have a point here.

Already addressed.

To clarify: I agree that they deserve severe punishment, but in general I find a system of punishment that makes it harder than it already is to hold a job post-release to be excessive because I think that it will encourage additional criminal behavior in many cases (though not especially this particular one unless the individual has a means of obtaining money by driving drunk, making this a bit of a digression).

Never had a problem maintaining a job after my DUI. In fact, I managed to aviod having my license suspended by following the directions they gave for requesting the hearing to retain my license. Anytime I was asked about criminal charges by employers for the next couple of years after that I was honest with them about it and got the job.

Unless you had this sunny outcome in Colorado I'm not seeing the relevance.

I think they should take into consideration things like the driver's BAC for sentencing, and severly increasing penilties for subsequent offences.

Me too.

Not to move the goalposts, but if we agree that the minimums are actually a wealth-influenced grey area everywhere in the USA that leaves us the listed maximums for debate.

Two problems with that:

1. Not all states have the same minimums. Showed that with Tennessee above.

2. Very few first offenders will actually be sentenced to the maximums.

1: Tennessee's minimums are more harsh than Colorado's, sure, but the minimums you gave for Colorado and Idaho are more similar with the exception that Colorado mentions the classes more explicitly. Because I already agreed that Idaho probably does the same classes regardless of the wording, we are left with the first offense maximums in the case of CO vs ID.

2: See below.

A maximum of 12 months behind bars vs a maximum 6 months behind bars seems clearly "more harsh" to me...

"Seems" being the key word. Since very few people are ever sentenced the maximum on the first offense, it's not much of a difference.

As you said, the severity of the discretionary sentence handed down depends largely on factors other than state.

The fun thing is, if you look at the differences in laws betweem just Colorado and Idaho, you'll notice that I Idaho has much higher penilties defined for repeat offences, but Colorado does not. You get a second DUI in idaho and the minimums and maximums raise up, get a third and they go even higher. You get a second or third offense in Colorado and you still face the same minimums and maximums you had as a first offender.

I agree with the first sentence above, but it's irrelevant to a discussion of first offenses. Also, the text I bolded at the end is total bullshit contradicted by your own Colorado evidence, which states "Second and third offenses carry higher maximums and require jail." That was just weak, come back with your A-Game after your pain meds wear off a little.

[Mr. Coffee]

Also, the text I bolded at the end is total bullshit contradicted by your own Colorado evidence, which states "Second and third offenses carry higher maximums and require jail." That was just weak, come back with your A-Game after your pain meds wear off a little.

Ouch, teach me not to fully read the entire paragraph.

Anyways, what the fuck are we actually arguing here? Point is, all states are basically the same as far as DUI goes with a few states having higher minimums to toss at people.

[Raw Shark]

Anyways, what the fuck are we actually arguing here? Point is, all states are basically the same as far as DUI goes with a few states having higher minimums to toss at people.

Yeah, you're right, I just knee-jerked when the furriners started to think we were all as soft on DUIs as we may appear in the article. My original statement was a bit of a hyperbole, but some state-to-state variation does exist.

[Havok]

I did a little checking, and am actually surprised that we (California) aren't harder than this on DUIs.

[Ryan Thunder]

The maximum punishment for a DUI in Colorado [includes] 96 hours of useful public service [...]

I find it mildly entertaining that they would put it that way.

Has anybody ever been punished with so many hours of useless public service?