Dateline: Dodge County, just outside of Madison, WI. Headline: Family of four killed by drunk driver. Article: An entire family including three-year-old and eight-year-old sisters, their father and their mother, 12 weeks pregnant, was wiped out when a drunk driver swerved into their car forcing them into a bridge abutment into which their car crashed and then burst into flames burning the family alive.

Thankfully, the headline doesn’t read that way. Instead, the headline reads “Wisconsin’s Attorney General Peg LotsOfLager...I mean Lautenschlager...charged with DUI.” It would seem that Wisconsin’s ultimate authority on all things legal thinks she’s above the law she swore to uphold and defend.

There are two things that are going to happen. First, the majority of the public will call for an immediate resignation or some form of recall for the obvious reasons. How can a person, one that is so willing to knowingly break the law and endanger hundreds of others, possibly sit atop the entire legal machine for the State of Wisconsin?

Then next thing that will happen is the “Pro Peg” and “Pro Criminal Rights” sects of Wisconsin will begin crying ‘foul’. They’ll argue that the poor AG simply made a bad decision or exercised poor judgment because of some ultimately insignificant outside influence or excuse. Then they’ll start in with my favorite argument: “Government officers and officials can’t be held to higher standards than the rest of the citizens. They are still citizens themselves, deserving the same ‘benefit of the doubt’ that everyone else enjoys.”

I’ll give you two guesses as to what my response is. The first involves a sigh of disbelief followed by screaming and yelling and the second includes hysterical laughter. You pick.

Look, folks, of course we hold those in positions of power to higher standards and no they do not deserve the same ‘benefit of the doubt’.

The majority of our society looks towards our elected officials to provide “good examples” for us. We expect our officials to behave in a manner consistent with the laws and morals of our society. If they fail in any aspect we call for their removal; they’ve failed to meet their end of the bargain and failed to meet our expectations.

We expect our law enforcement officials to provide good examples as well. They are in a position of authority; a position to determine whether or not crimes have been committed and whether or not laws have been broken. Like it or not, we also rely on them to make split-second moral decisions on whom to nab and whom to let go. We simply cannot have politically, socially or morally corrupt people in those positions. Committing a serious crime can only be the result of a corrupt person.

For those of you that still subscribe to the ‘not a higher standard’ way of thinking, try thinking about the situation from a different perspective. Read the following headlines and see what you think.

“28-year-old male sleeps with 18-year-old female.” Not a big deal, right? Let me ‘tweak’ that headline a bit. “28-year-old male high school math teacher sleeps with his 18-year-old female student.” Still think certain people shouldn’t be held to higher standards? It’s perfectly legal for two consenting adults to sleep together but when the teacher/student factor is added it is no longer morally or socially acceptable; high school teachers should not sleep with students whether they’re ‘of age’ or not.

Here’s the next one: “Doctor sleeps with patient”. Not exactly ethical but still not earth-shattering. What if the headline read “Psychiatric doctor sleeps with patient”? It is still just a doctor and a patient but because the doctor is a psychiatrist the situation is different. As with the teacher, the doctor is in a position of authority over the emotionally vulnerable person he slept with.

Let’s take it out to the edge a bit: “Male charged with beating wife”. That’s how the ‘not a higher standard’ folks would prefer the headline to read instead of “Male police officer charged with beating wife”. The situation is completely different – it’s that degree of ‘you should know better’ that makes the situation harder to swallow. Not only does the officer know better but he had sworn to uphold the law and protect the public – right before he beat his poor wife.

Like it or not, people in positions of power are expected to follow higher standards than the general population. Charging a short-order cook, librarian or even a teacher with DUI certainly won’t cost that person his or her job because the behavior has nothing to do with the duties of the job.

Charging the state’s top cop with DUI should result in the immediate dismissal of the attorney general from that position, period. Peg knew better; she knew the dangers of drunk driving and the potential for serious injury and even death yet she chose to drive drunk anyway. I’d classify that as willful disregard for public safety which is in direct conflict with the job description of ensuring public safety.

If the crime was lesser in nature or consequence or was caused by accident rather than intent it would be a different story. Walking out of a store with a CD in her pocket that she put there because her hands were full and then simply forgot to take back out at the checkout is one thing but gambling with the lives of everyone on the road that day because she decided she’d like to drink is an entirely different situation.

It is my hope that Peg does the right thing – resign immediately. Although being committed of a misdemeanor does not require immediate dismissal, a misdemeanor of this type should result in a resignation.

Peg ‘One for the Road’ Lautenschlager needs to leave her post as top cop and then thank God that her headline wasn’t the one with family murdered by a drunk driver.