> No, a felony must be expunged to work as an employee who serves, mixes and dispenses alcohol or manages employees who handle alcohol.
Jesus. Stripping people of their employment for a few years is acceptable if the offense is related to the employment. But forcing someone to switch careers or to sell their business for life? That's nuts.
A felony DUI conviction isn't a joke, people die all the time from others drunk driving and it's totally reasonable to prevent someone who can't manage their liquor from having access to an enormous quantity of wholesale liquor.
These things can typically be plead down to a lesser charge if its a first offense etc., so if it stuck as a felony conviction, there must've been serious circumstances (I'm speculating here, we don't know the details of the conviction).
Bullshit. Don't fucking drink and drive. It's not hard for most people. If you can't handle alcohol, how can you be expected to be a bartender? You really think having such a deep-seated problem with alcohol that you are willing to commit murder over it is somehow unrelated to employment as a bartender!? If someone was caught firing guns randomly into buildings, do you think that would be unrelated to their employment in a gun store?
The problem is that felony DUI (as opposed to lesser charges) is also about (a) a serious incident happening while you're intoxicated (chance) and (b) government prosecution discretion (serious bias).
That's an awful lots of "if"s to attach to a lifelong limitation.
F.ex. Do we all want to bet how often politician and wealthy donors' children take a felony DUI charge vs the general populace?
There is zero "chance" in being in serious accident while intoxicated. Nobody fell down on a bottle of whiskey and accidentally drank it and then chose to drive.
We can have a meaningful discussion whether a single bad decision should destroy a life,but let's call it what it is, a decision, not a "chance".
If someone gets shitfaced, there's a good chance they make it home without killing anyone or being caught.
They go unpunished.
And yet, they were still committing the crime of driving under the influence... they (and everyone else) just got lucky.
Personally, I think bars should just be required to take keys. Take a breathalyzer, get your keys back. And the bar has liability for this. These aren't rocket science, million dollar devices.
Many of my friends drove after drinking heavily at bars in their 20's and luckily never had any accidents. 30 years ago driving under the influence was more common. If a cop pulled you over and you were close to home, he might let you go with a warning and just say "you'd better go straight home."
Now my friends can't believe how stupid they were and are very thankful that they were lucky. Different times.
Exactly. It bugs me that we make the penalties for DUI so severe... when the reality of being charged depends so much on chance (getting caught, officer testing and arresting you, prosecutor deciding what to let you plea to).
If we really cared about it as much as the legal penalties make us feel like we do, there wouldn't be any wiggle room for wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Three people shouldn't be able to do the same thing, and one gets the book thrown at them while the other two have zero consequences.
In most states they already do, under so-called "dram shop laws."
But since it's very easy to lie about where someone was drinking, the incentives are such you still need the bar owner willing to enforce this. If only we had some heuristics for who might be appropriate!
Your sentence on its own would be alarming if it were generalized. But this is specific and particular.
A person dispensing alcohol in many states and provinces is legally responsible for safety of their patrons. Argument might be made that in all cases they have some moral responsibility as well - although I understand there are people who will philosophically disagree with this and I think interesting discussion can be had there.
A person with "felony DUI" has proven to a tremendous (and usually repeated) degree that they cannot execute a key portion of what their liquor license actually entails.
So understanding slippery slope arguments and so on, in this one case, I'm not outraged at the regulation.
In practice this affects DUI felons who want to work with liquor and either:
1) will not or cannot spend $200 on an expungement, or
2) did something disgusting enough during the course of committing their felony that a judge cannot be persuaded to expunge their conviction record. (I just assume there's some judicial discretion with this in Kansas.)
As the grandparent post noted, there's no reason to assume the felony rules are relevant in this case.
I have no issue with not allowing someone that has this much problem with alcohol not being allowed to work around alcohol.
However, preventing someone the ability to vote for life is something I'd agree with you if that's what you want to get upset about, but you're current argument falls flat
It’s not just any employment. The state has a very reasonable interest in ensuring laws around the sale of alcohol are followed. License holders are in effect agents of the state in this regard.
They can work in a bar with the conviction, just not run it.
> No, a felony must be expunged to work as an employee who serves, mixes and dispenses alcohol or manages employees who handle alcohol.
Jesus. Stripping people of their employment for a few years is acceptable if the offense is related to the employment. But forcing someone to switch careers or to sell their business for life? That's nuts.