MADD at one of their own

The link between deterrence and penalties is a lot more nebulous than that. That's how we'd *like* it to work, but the results are a lot murkier than that.

Higher punishment for worse crimes is partially intended as deterrence, but it is also because we have a need for feelings of justice.

No, I don't think that significant punishments would stop much drinking and driving. The .08 crowd don't think they are doing anything wrong and don't think they will get caught, and the .25 crowd already have priorities and decision-making skills so messed up that nothing will stop them.

 

Your assuming facts not in evidence again, Dave.

I do know people who have been killed as a result of drunk driving. And not in one instance was the BAC of the driver in the area of .08.

If you follow the issue, you'll see that the BAC of the people responsible for accidents and deaths is almost always much closer to .20, if not higher.

I do have a zero tolerance policy for drunk driving. Like I said, I've had to take the keys away from friends.

But, I don't think .08 is drunk.

If people want to make a difference on the issue, they should concentrate their resources where it can make the biggest difference.

 

Good points, Mark.

I think that a lot of the deterrence would be captured at the beginning of the evening - before the drinking begins. That's when the decision-making has to occur. I've seen studies that when people absolutely decide a plan of attack for the evening, like a designated driver or a low drink limit, then they aren't likely to drive. It is when they leave it open-ended - "I'll play it by ear. If I get drunk, I won't drive." - that the trouble occurs.

 

But that's because society tells them they aren't, through its underwhelming deterrence scheme.

 

That's about it, Rick, just toss your moral judgement out. The .08 crowd don't think they're drunk, because they aren't. And the .25 crowd are too drunk to realize they're doing anything wrong. No amount of punishment is going to deter either's behavior.

Pringle -- correct. Which is why the key is offering people options at the beginning AND end of the night. So long as we're gonna sell 'em booze, we ought to at least sell them a way home.

 

I just think it's funny that if someone else had suggested that some offense should render someone an unemployable pariah, you would normally declare them to be some kind of zealot and probably bash religious morality in the process.

But here, you decide to look at an issue as purely black and white (another thing you usually hate).

Why is this one issue so different for you?

 

Pringle's right. If there was something like a mandatory 7-day jail sentence for a first-time offender, you'd see a lot more people think twice before getting behind the wheel. Wouldn't completely solve the problem, of course, but it would help.

 

Actually, it really wouldn't. They've done studies. The deterrence factor is pretty much used up. If we want to drive the rates down any further, the focus has to be on prevention. And that's without getting into the can of worms that is this: When you control for improved automobile safety -- people survive car crashes much better now than they did in the 1970s -- the entire MADD campaign hasn't driven down the rates of drunk driving deaths in this country.

 

Exactly. Higher punishments - and I'm not suggesting anything outlandish - would result in greater social pressure to not do it. Imagine having to explain to your wife or girlfriend or employer seven completely avoidable nights in jail. It would also relieve the social pressure to drink and then drive.

 

The cost of a 7-day jail sentence for every first-time .08er probably wouldn't be worth what we'd gain in them not driving. That'd get expensive, fast.

 

This is something else people don't like to talk about. Any time you lower the legal limit, you have a chilling effect on people drinking at all. Let's say you lower it to .01. No tolerance. Seems like a great solution, right? Win-win? Not really, because the cost to the restaurant, entertainment, and beer industry far outweighs the social cost of what you gain by lowering it into a range where people don't really cause accidents anyway.

That being said, I think we're incrementally heading in that direction.

 

Point taken. And we will agree to disagree on the .08 thing, I suppose. And by the way, one can be impaired at an even lower BAC than .08. I know you're fond of blanket statements, but your ".08 isn't drunk" is a bit of a head-scratcher, frankly. If one of my kids was killed by someone who only blew a .08, that wouldn't make me feel any better. Buzzed driving is still drunk driving, like the PSAs say.

Personally, I'd much rather err on the side of a lower limit. Every drunk taken off the street by whatever means necessary is one less for me to worry about.