If the guy's BAC was .123 when it was sampled three hours after the accident and he weight 150lbs, that would suggest his BAC was probably around 0.20 at the time of the accident. If you wish to suggest that someone driving around with a 0.20 should be punished more severely than this guy was, you wouldn't find much disagreement.
If your complaint is that this guy, because of the delay in testing, got off because his BAC was 0.123 rather than 0.20, then perhaps you should push for legislation allowing prosecutors to introduce evidence of imputed BAC (i.e. if a person's BAC at some time after an accident implies a higher BAC at the time of an accident, they should be punished for that; the defendants in such case should be allowed to have (and introduce into evidence) tests to determine their own alcohol metabolism rate if they disagree with the estimates used by the government.
What you perhaps fail to appreciate is that while the jerk who hit you got off easy, there are many people whose lives are destroyed for "DUI" convictions with much lower BACs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like you're trying to impose on the non-dangerous people the punishment that you think the jerk who hit you should have received. There's a term for such behavior: "witchhunt".
"that would suggest his BAC was probably around 0.20 at the time of the accident."
I would be interested where you came up with that. Can you hook me up?
He got off easy because punishments are to gravy in general.
The timeframe came as a result of city, county and state police arguing over who was supposed to write it all up. (Stat ended up doing it. When I went to get the report the officer filed I was at first told I could not have it, you know WHY? They claimed it was because he was a minor. I pushed for a supervisor and told that person there was no way they could keep my from the report that id for the crash I was in. I got the report.
Liberal "protect the minor" crap if you ask me.....that kinda goes to the punishment factor.....some seek to defer personal responsibility for actions taken as a result of choices made.
I think technology is such that each officer (or at least one that could arrive within 1/2 an hour)should be equiped to take BAC at the scene. Crash or no crash. With a caveat of no crash having failed field sobriety tests.
You do realize that when driving commercially if you crash for ANY reason you get tested right?
"there are many people whose lives are destroyed for "DUI" convictions with much lower BACs. "
They made that choice. They are responsible for it. Why do you wish to remove that from them?
Would you drink a six pack in an hour and then go drive?
I advocate for punishment above .08. For all people that make the choice to drive ator above that. You call it witchhunt, I call it the law.
I am starting to think you got a DUI and regret your choice, now trying to blame me for the repercussions of it.