Deterrence and Punishment for Drink Drivers, Essay Example

According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) over 10,000 people were killed in drunk driving accidents on U.S. roads and highways in 2012. This number is slightly higher than the 2011 figures, when approximately 9,800 people died in drunk driving accidents. These figures clearly demonstrate that drunk driving represents a significant risk to impaired drivers, their passengers, and to other drivers. Over the last three decades the laws against drinking and driving have been made considerably stricter, with several key elements becoming standard in all 50 states. Among these are uniform blood-alcohol standards for assessing impairment and zero-tolerance laws for the presence of any levels of alcohol in minors. What is not standard, however, are the sentences given to first-time offenders. In many cases it is left to prosecutors and judges to determine whether first offenses warrant jail time based on the particular circumstances of the offense. It may seem like a simple solution to mandate that all first time offenders be sentenced to jail time, but if the primary goal of law enforcement officials and the justice system is to minimize the dangers of drunk driving, there are other approaches that may be more effective in ensuring that fewer people drive while under the influence of alcohol.

The overarching purpose of laws against driving while impaired (DWI) is to reduce the numbers of associated accidents, injuries, and fatalities. There are a range of different laws and practical approaches aimed at accomplishing this, including laws that are intended to serve as deterrents against drinking and driving and laws that are designed to punish those who are convicted of driving while intoxicated. Among the most common deterrents used by law enforcement agencies are sobriety checkpoints where drivers are stopped and subjected to such tactics as questioning or breathalyzer testing. Such checkpoints are used most frequently on holidays and other times where large numbers of drivers will be on the road, and their presence can serve both as a potential deterrent and as an opportunity to get impaired rivers off the road.

For those who are convicted of drunk driving, the punishments are often quite strict, and repeat offenders are subject to increasingly severe penalties, including mandatory jail time in many states. Public awareness of these laws can, of course, have a deterrent effect, though the annual numbers of injuries and deaths related to drink driving make it clear that such laws do not deter all drivers from such behavior. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that those who are convicted of driving while intoxicated have a significant likelihood of reoffending, and that drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes are much more likely to have previous DWI convictions than sober drivers involved in fatal crashes. While such statistics demonstrate that drink driving and the associated laws must be taken seriously, it also demonstrates that deterrent and punitive laws are insufficient to alleviate the problem of drunk driving.

Organizations such as the CDC and the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (CPOP) recommend a number of approaches to lessening the potential for drink drivers to injure others or to reoffend. Both organizations are staunch proponents of sobriety checkpoints; while some people feel that these checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the interests of the state in reducing drunk driving-related accidents outweighs such concerns. There are currently 39 states that allow the use of sobriety checkpoints. One of the notable exceptions is the state of Texas, which also has the highest rate of drunk driving deaths in the nation. In 2012 there were over 1200 drink driving deaths in Texas; the next largest number was in California, with just under 800 deaths.

The CDC and CPOP also recommend mandatory use of ignition interlock devices with built-in breathalyzers for those convicted of DWI. Other recommendations include mandatory license suspension for first-time offenders and other mandatory standards. These and similar recommendations are predicated on the assumption that first-time offenders were not involved in causing accidents or injuries; those that are involved in crashes, especially those involving other drivers or that cause injuries to passengers or others should be treated no differently than they would be if those injuries had been caused by weapons or other forms of assault. First time offenders who are caught and convicted of drunk driving without causing accidents or injuries should be treated strictly, but should also be handled in a manner which best serves the public interest. Incarceration should be a last first resort, while deterrents such as license suspensions, interlock devices, probation, and other forms of monitoring and community control should be mandatory. For those who mage to circumvent such controls and reoffend, however, incarceration is both appropriate and necessary.

References

“Are DUI Checkpoints Unconstitutional?” DUI Check Points. N.p., 2013. Web. 30 Dec. 2013.

“Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | Problem Guides | Drunk Driving.” Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | Home. N.p., 2013. Web. 30 Dec. 2013.

“MADD -2012 Drunk Driving Fatalities by State.” MADD – Mothers Against Drunk Driving. N.p., 2013. Web. 30 Dec. 2013.

“Policy Impact: Alcohol Impaired Driving.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. N.p., Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Dec. 2013.