Drunk Drivers Penalty - Research Paper Example

In terms of traffic safety, drunk driving competes with speeding, road rage, drugged driving, drowsy driving, and texting and cell phone use behind the wheel for the attention of health officials. In fact, drunk driving has garnered a wide array of media and popular attention since the 1980s, when the first anti-drunk-driving campaigns grabbed a foothold in the American conversation. In 1980, Candice Lightner lost her 13-year-old daughter to a drunk driver, and founded the now international Mothers Against Drunk Driving to advocate and to lobby for legislation on alcohol use. Since then, drunken driving laws have become more restrictive, imposing harsher penalties on individuals caught once or more behind the wheel while impaired by alcohol intake. However, as Mothers Against Drunk Driving often argues, state-to-state laws on how to punish and handle drunk driving cases are not effective as they can be in limiting the number of traffic fatalities each year due to driving under the influence of alcohol. For Cari Lightner, who was struck and killed by a driver with four prior DWI arrests, including one only two days prior, tougher laws may have prevented an unnecessary casualty. For the purposes of deterrence, a harsher penalty including imprisonment should be mandatory for first-offense drunk drivers. In the United States, drunk driving is the act of operating a vehicle while having blood alcohol content (BAC) of higher than 0.08%. In 2008, nearly 32 percent of all traffic-related deaths (12,000 in total) resulted from alcohol-related crashes (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis). Between 1980 and 1985, almost 700 state-level drunken driving laws were passed, mostly due to the moralistic guidance of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which decreased the number of traffic-related fatalities to 17,000 per year (Lerner). Nevertheless, between 1985 and 2008, drunk driving-related deaths has bottomed at 12,000, meaning additional measures are necessary to reduce unnecessary deaths. In 1994, Rutgers University philosopher Douglas N. Husak asked the question, “Is drunk driving a serious offense?” The popular perception, according to Husak, is that drunk drivers are not punished to the extent that they deserve, and that the justice system has failed to respond according to the wishes of society. The failure to respond may be attributable to the tendency of drunk drivers to be middle- to upper-class white males: respected leaders in the community. Alternatively, a better explanation is that drunk driving is not an especially serious offense to society. In fact, Husak concludes that not only are gradation of seriousness inherently complex, but also that drunk drivers (regardless of the number of offenses) should not be imprisoned. Husak focuses on the desert of the offender—namely, the responsibility that the offender absorbs for his actions—to say that drunk driving is not an inherently serious crime against others and thus deserves not to be punished using sanctions. While Husak admits that the continuum of seriousness in crime is inherently complex, since there is no general theory about what makes one crime more serious than another, the author makes a policy judgment in claiming that drunk driving is not one of those “serious crimes” (Husak 54). In contrast, drunk driving is in fact a serious crime because of the inherent risk that it involves. A report derived from data collected between 2001 and 2002 described 23.4 million (or 11.3%) of American adults as having engaged in some form of drinking and driving behavior in the past year (Chou, Dawson and Stinson). Compared to the 12,000 drunken driving-related traffic fatalities in 2008, there is a 0.1% chance that when someone steps behind the wheel of a car impaired by alcohol, the death of an innocent person will result. Although a 0.1% chance may not sound like definite odds, it should be enough to make us question whether having 32 percent of traffic-related fatalities tied to alcohol consumption is an acceptable collateral damage that results from inaction. In that sense, drunk driving is a very serious crime to be considered. One should begin answering the question of how to punish drunk driving by asking a more fundamental question first. Just as Husak begins by asking how we define the seriousness of a crime, it is important to understand first what is the purpose of punishment, which is a contentious philosophical issue. As Husak notes, “Most of the voluminous literature about drunk driving addresses the issue of deterrence” (Husak 54). While he seems to think this is a weakness in the literature, a focus on deterrence is justified because a notion of deterrence is central to how we should conceive of punishment. The theory of deterrence holds that we, as a society, punish people as a means of threatening future possible offenders with a serious punishment. Indirect deterrence, which is focused on general prevention of a crime by making examples of individuals, is a relevant concept, primarily because a strong punishment is likely to send a clear message to potential drunk drivers to not operate a vehicle. Even if a person’s rational choice is impaired while under the influence, there should always be the thought of a strong punishment on that person’s mind incentivizing him or her to not commit the crime. Strong laws against drunk driving lead to less drunk driving. In a case of study of 1982 California, during the early days of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and various sorts of legislative reforms, Patrick T. Kinkade and Matthew C. Leone discovered that “tougher” laws led to fewer arrests on misdemeanors, including driving under the influence. If there is less drunk driving, the 32 percent of traffic fatalities due to drunken driving violations will consequently decrease and prevent cases like that of Cari Lightner. However, a salient question here is—how harsh a punishment is warranted and how harsh is too harsh? Just like Husak’s question about judging the gradation of seriousness, the gradation of harshness is likewise difficult to evaluate. Recent developments in state laws may help give an answer, which are depending more and more on imprisonment for first-time offenses. The answer to this question is not helped by subtle differences in the way the United States laws address slight variations in the drunken driving offense. Known as statutory offenses, driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is contrasted with driving while intoxicated/impaired (DWI). DWI is the more recent of the two offenses, and it refers to a per se offense of driving with a BAC in excess of 0.08%. Some states differentiate between a DUI and DWI, in which cases the former is the lesser charge. In those cases, a DUI refers to less intoxication at the time of arrest, and in other cases, DWIs are sometimes reduced to DUIs in order to aid arrest, but are also judged based on whether the incident is the person’s first arrest and whether the person is remorseful or helpful in responding to the police’s questions. States differ greatly in this regard: that is, some states like Minnesota do not even use the DUI terminology while in other states like New York differentiate between the two based on a blood alcohol content level legally set for the DWI crime (Diffen). Such a wide variation in how law enforcement approaches punishing such crimes necessarily leads to confusion over the result of driving drunk and, consequently, there is little deterrence effect against committing the crime. An unequivocal punishment, even for first offenders, would give no such ambiguity about what happens when individuals drink and drive. However, according to state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, the first offense of drunken driving is not even a crime and ought to be punishable only with probation, rather than mandatory jail time. He says, “I dont consider them criminals, and I wouldnt want them to be tagged that way for the rest of their lives for having made what can legitimately be called a mistake” (Walters). Firstly, while it is unfortunate that people do make the decision to drink and drive, the law is not meant to cover the drunk drivers, but rather the people they hurt when they cause an accident. Secondly, statistically many drunk drivers that cause traffic fatalities are first offenders (Walters). Alternative punishments (aside from imprisonment) for higher levels of offenses are being considered in many states. These new attempts to provide deterrence to drunk driving recognize the plateau in lives lost to drunk driving that the United States has reached and cannot surpass. In October 2011, a state law in Oklahoma went into effect that would require first-time offenders of DUI laws to have an interlocking ignition device installed on their vehicle (McNutt). An interlocking ignition device is usually a breathalyzer that must confirm the driver does not have a blood alcohol concentration of more than a certain amount, typically lower than the legal limit of 0.08%. Like the original wave of drunken driving legislation in the 1980s, this law was inspired by the story of Erin Elizabeth Swezey, a 20-year-old who died in a head-on collision with a drunk driver in 2009. The law passed the Oklahoma Congress without many opponents; however, opposition did arise from libertarians who opposed government encroachment and from those who serve alcohol. What is not mentioned in the news article is opposition from those who do not feel that interlocking ignition devices are harsh enough a punishment for first offenders. In terms of a deterrence effect, a first offender does not think about the potential of having to breathe into a breathalyzer to start his car; he will, however, think twice when he remembers that his friend is in prison for his first drunk driving offense. In Washington, a proposed DUI law would lead to harsher jail sentences for first-time offenders. A clearly stated opposition to that proposal believes that the proposal is wasteful. One opponent said, "We think this provision just adds additional costs, takes scarce jail space and does not provide additional benefit,” noting that it costs about $76 per day to house someone in jail (Schmidt). It is doubtful that this argument would be very effective for the families of the 12,000 people lost each year due to drunken driving-related crimes. Likewise, there is no excuse for society to bear a few more costs in order to prevent such a large ratio of traffic deaths. One problem in enforcing laws and passing laws related to drunken driving first offenders is the difficulty associated with measuring deterrence. The argument for stiffer penalties due to deterrence suggests that proponents can quantitatively demonstrate that a deterrence effect actually occurs to prevent drunken driving incidence. However, no measurement can determine an exact number of people who will be saved due to stiffer penalties unless a stiffer penalty is implemented. For that reason, and for the financial reasons alluded to previously, states are looking for various kinds of non-imprisonment intervention techniques that cost fewer taxpayer dollars and have a meaningful effect on preventing deaths. Examples of such interventions include having taxi stands to promote taxi use at bar closing times, to require more point-of-sale information to patrons, and to use mass media to promote the safe ride home message (Rivara, Boisvert and Relyea-Chew). While these strategies are cost-effective and non-invasive, they have gained wide acceptance in states, and do not show a great deal of promise in reducing the 12,000 deaths we see because of drunk driving. A harsher solution for all drunken driving offenders is still necessary in order to reduce that number. A harsher penalty for first-time drinking and driving offenders is necessary because it only takes one opportunity to cause an accident that kills someone. In that sense, drunk driving is an inherently serious crime, due to the risk of injuring others that it entails. Harsher penalties include imprisonment, not just interlocking ignition devices or probation. While some public officials oppose these kinds of harsher penalties based on state economics or funding, (a) there is no reason why other programs that do not save lives cannot be cut in favor of saving people from dying, and (b) if the responsibility of the state is to protect our rights, it should be protecting the right of people to not be killed by drunk drivers. Harsher penalties create a deterrent for driving drunk, which ultimately saves lives and prevents tragedies. References Chou, S.P., et al. "The prevalence of drinking and driving in the United States, 2001–2002: Results from the national epidemiological survey on alcohol and related conditions." Drug and Alcohol Dependence 83(2) (2006): 137-146. Diffen. DUI vs DWI. 29 July 2009. 2 November 2011 . Husak, Douglas N. "Is Drunk Driving a Serious Offense?" Philosophy & Public Affairs 23(1) (1994): 52-73. Lerner, Barron H. "Drunk Driving, Distracted Driving, Moralism, and Public Health." New England Journal of Medicine 365(10) (2011): 879-881. McNutt, Michael. Stronger DUI law starts Tuesday in Oklahoma. 30 October 2011. 3 November 2011 . National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Traffic safety facts, 2008 data: Alcohol-impaired driving. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009. Rivara, Frederick P., et al. "Last Call: decreasing drunk driving among 21–34-year-old bar patrons." International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion (2011). Schmidt, Katie. "Stronger DUI laws proposed, including more jail time for first-timers." 23 March 2011. The Bellingham Herald. 3 November 2011 . Walters, Steven. First drunken driving offense shouldnt be crime, Van Hollen says. 16 January 2009. 2 November 2011 . Read More