F Drunk Drivers - HARD

We just have a philosophical difference in terms of how to approach crime and punishment. You seem to embrace punitive measures - you want to unleash society's moral judgment on the offending individual. Hard. I'm primarily a utilitarian. I desire policy that results in the best overall utility for society, meaning less loss of lives and property and the most contributions from the highest number of individuals. To me, your suggestion, while serving punitive ends, would do so at a tremendous sacrifice, in that you would essentially render large blocks of society nearly useless as contributors, some for something they did in their teens, 20s, or early 30s. The last presidential administration had a president and VP with DUI's on their record. Ted Kennedy had one. Jim Harbaugh has one. You find drunk drivers morally appalling, and want to come down on the behavior with full force. I, in comparison, would find it morally appalling to sacrifice society's gain for, essentially, a form of blood lust. To clarify, I disagree with your hard line not out of sympathy for the offending individuals - that's a different argument. This is not a pat on the head. I'm viewing it from the perspective of: Is this the best policy for society as a whole? And I'm pretty sure the answer is a resounding, "no."

 

Right, right. I meant people who don't crash.

 

The DUI laws are a joke. Time to make it mean something.

Caught over .08 and nobody gets harmed? Lose license for 10 years and get a year in jail. Mandatory. For everyone. I don't care if you're the drunk on the corner, Ted Kennedy or Lindsay Lohan.

Caught over .08 and somebody goes get harmed? Lose license permanently and get five years in prison. Somebody dies? 20 years in prison.

Get caught driving after your license is suspended for a DUI? Five years in prison. A second DUI with a suspended license? 15 years in prison.

Maybe if enough people get scared enough, it'll stop.Time to destroy the habit.

And Moddy, I hope your son's friend pulls through.

 

This is the reasoning that always stops any reform in its tracks, usually abetted by the alcohol lobby. But people have gotten DUIs as a product of their times. I know we've all heard how bad it is. I've also lived the last 25 years -- since I started driving -- in an environment where a DUI is looked upon as basically a really bad speeding ticket.

The fear of being called a hypocrite is holding back way too much of this issue. You don't want it to be a life-ruining mistake? I say phase in a program of education, followed by enforcement, that makes it very clear that it IS a life-ruining mistake. Use our own experiences as a guide of "here's what we used to say." I mean, how many T-shirts and bumper stickers do you see saying "DAMM: Drunks Against MADD Mothers" or "Don't drink and drive, you might spill your beer." That's the message that has been sent.

The biggest problem I see in any reform is that it would hit poor and uneducated people hardest, and that means it would be racially disproportionate. But I can't bring myself to care too much about that.

Of course, though, there is no way the alcohol lobby will ever let this happen.

 

Virtually all of America drives. Half of America drinks. The numbers add up.

 

But as others have touched on, it's very much cultural. I don't mind over-the-top punishments in this case because while I generally agree with Whitman's utility idea, in this case I think something drastic is needed to shatter the comfortable delusion that it's no big deal that many people still seem to have.

 

I've worked at two papers where we were told a DUI would result in summary dismissal. That was enough incentive to cab it.

 

Conviction or arrest? ... And what about domestic violence? Same penalty, I hope.

 

Serial drunk drivers will always find a way. Take away the license. They still drive. Take away the car. They borrow one from elsewhere. It's all about getting to that god-damned bar to get shitfaced with their friends enablers.

I wish there was someway to make it illegal for these offenders to be served or sold alcohol, but I know they would just find a way around that too. Treatment could work temporarily, but I think most of the time they just get pulled back into the same social vortex because they don't know anything else. Jail does work in the sense that they're off the streets, but how long can you possibly hold someone when you're more committed as a society to sticking it to the guy who was caught walking down the street with a few joints?

 

What a smug load of crap. And I should know. I do smug very well.

The best utility for society is to get people to stop drinking and driving. Education alone isn't cutting it and the punishments are not nearly harsh enough, especially in the cases when somebody is injured or killed. That needs to change or it will still continue to happen far too often.

Also, see Moddy's post. It's not that hard. You can drink. You can drive. Just don't do both together.