As states work to deter drivers from drinking and driving, many have turned to a penal philosophy that requires full sentences to be served in prison.
Known as truth in sentencing, laws that apply this punishment require convicts to spend most, if not all, of their sentence in a prison.
In this way, the state reduces the number of paroled convicts to an absolute minimum and makes the punishments for DUI-related crimes significantly more stringent in hopes of threatening would-be violators from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated.
There are several standing arguments for truth in sentencing, many of which have persuaded other states to use the same system in their penal codes.
One argument states that the public has a right to know about ongoing punishments and sentencing.
As a result, part of this public right is knowing how long a particular in-mate will be in jail, which, some argue, is a right infringed upon when a parole case cuts a prison term especially short.
Other arguments state that truth in sentencing applies the law for what it really is, and brings jail terms back as the full punishments that they were originally meant to be.
This is especially argued in the case of repeat offenders and convicts under three-strikes rules.
States with three-strikes rules may use truth in sentencing to warn offenders from repeating their crimes.
As some criminals going through the system may have taken parole as quickly as possible, their jail term could have been cut significantly short.
It has been popular among states to apply truth in sentencing to DUI laws specifically.
As states attempt to cut back on the overall number of DUIs, which endanger any driver on the road, the harshness of truth in sentencing seems like a great way to scare drinkers into having a designated driver or using more public forms of transportation.
If you want to learn more about how truth in sentencing works in a DUI case, contact a DUI lawyer.