Time we took away drunk drivers' cars, not just their license

According to the July 12 Opinion page, "Judges should get tough on chronic DUI."

Haven't we been hearing that for the last 20 years or more?

The response is always the same: stiffer fines, more jail time. If that's the answer, why hasn't it worked?

Apparently Judge Blanche Hill Fawell, in sentencing Gordon Vanderark to 24 years in prison, felt the sentence was justified because it was his 10th DUI conviction. It would seem that if appropriate action were taken after his first drunk driving conviction, he might not now be dealing with his 10th conviction. If the penalty were meant to fit the crime, the car would be taken, not just the license.

A revoked driver's license does nothing to prevent someone from driving when the car is in the driveway and keys are in hand. I have always wondered why it's permissible for law enforcement to confiscate someone's car for a minor violation such as illegal parking, but it isn't OK to immediately impound the car of a drunk driver, perhaps permanently if there have been previous arrests.

A law of that magnitude would definitely make a statement, the consequences would be far-reaching, but maybe it's time to try something that actually might work.

Darlene Burr

Elgin