Bikepacker67

The facts seem pretty clear: On Feb. 15, Michele Traverso, a 25-year-old with a suspended license, slammed into two cyclists on the Rickenbacker Causeway after he'd spent a long night drinking in Coconut Grove. Traverso then sped away, leaving one of the cyclists, Aaron Cohen, a father of two, dying on the roadside.

Given all that -- and the fact that security video at his apartment shows him wobbling out of his car -- you'd think Traverso would face DUI manslaughter charges. But you'd be wrong. CBS4 reports that Traverso has escaped the most serious possible charge because police couldn't get a blood-alcohol test until it was too late.

Traverso still faces charges of causing serious bodily harm, leaving the scene of an accident, and driving on a suspended license -- all of which could bring a maximum of 15 years in jail, CBS4 writes.

But a DUI manslaughter conviction could have brought double that.

The problem is that Traverso managed to evade police for a full 12 hours after the accident. By the time they hauled him in, it was too late for a blood test to determine how drunk he'd been the night before.


SOB.

unterhausen

talk about your perverse incentives. Probably needs to be addressed in the law

SactoDoug

It could be worse. If he did that in Oregon, he would only be facing 18 months in jail.

kalliergo 

Variations on this story are not unusual. It's a general rule in the US that we treat driving offenses more seriously when drugs or alcohol are involved. It's pretty common for drivers involved in crashes to try to avoid interaction with the authorities until they (believe they) can pass drug and alcohol screens.

In fact, the most striking thing abut this report, to me, is the length of the sentence the driver does face. In most US jurisdictions, the maximums wouldn't be close to 15 years, and the chances of actually serving whatever the local maximum might be are vanishingly small.

It seems to me that what we need to do is to impose long suspensions and/or revocations on dangerous and drunk drivers much earlier in the progression than we do now -- and to find and implement cost-effective ways to actually stop them from driving.

Threatening to jail them isn't much of a deterrent to them and actually jailing them isn't much of a deterrent to others. And both criminal court proceedings and incarceration are very expensive.

mnemia

I personally feel that technology is the way to go. We could monitor the actions of suspended drivers a lot more than we currently do, and do it cost-effectively, if we made use of monitoring bracelets, etc, to keep tabs on their movements. I would make them wear a monitoring bracelet while their license is suspended, which would allow authorities to determine when are where they've been traveling in a car (from speeds, locations, etc). Then I would require them to fill out a logbook disclosing exactly where they traveled and who was driving the vehicle they were in for that trip. The other person would then be required to sign after each trip, affirming that they were actually driving and not the suspended driver. If either were caught lying, they would both face criminal penalties.

That wouldn't be foolproof, but it would be a lot harder to get away with driving while your license is suspended if there was such a system of accountability in place.

genec

But essentially you are then controlling the rights of a pedestrian to either use public transit, or ride in someone else's vehicle, and prove it. A bit backwards I think. Removing the privilege of someone to drive doesn't limit any of their other transportation choices.

mnemia

You're not limiting their rights at all. They would just have to get whoever was driving the bus, or whatever, to sign. All you're truly taking away is their right to privacy while under "probation".

kalliergo 

By "a pedestrian," you actually meant "the offender." Having one's rights restricted is one of the perfectly-ordinary consequences of violating our laws. "Control away."

genec

But the "right" is really a privilege... the granting of a drivers license. Remove that and the offender is just a pedestrian.

Of course what I did not consider is that the law can be modified to INCLUDE monitoring as part of the punishment... and perhaps that is not a bad idea.

But what I was getting at is to surrender a license merely returns one to pedestrian status. But you are correct in that this is indeed punishment for a bigger offense. I stand corrected.

dynodonn 

Yep, if you're drunk driving and hit someone, this incident only proves that leaving the scene tends to be the best course of action in avoiding even more serious charges.

Mos6502

He is still facing tough charges regardless. I don't think it will be easy to weasel out of them.

rydabent

This here is a good reason brought up in another thread why all cars owned by a person that has lost their license should be impounded.

atbman

Crushed

CB HI

Impounded, sold and money put into a victims compensation fund.

B. Carfree

Okay, but then we crush the driver. (I keed.)