Toto

I was on a jury once for a drunk driving case. The prosecution presented expert testimony about the effects of alcohol on driving - a certain level of alcohol in the blood impairs certain motor responses before the drinker is aware of it. Several guys on the jury who were used to drinking two beers and then driving decided to stop that practice.

Drunk driving is usually only a misdemeanor, at least for the first offence. I have been told that this is because juries would not convict for a felony. It has taken a massive amount of education to convince people that driving after drinking is not a safe practice.

Jamie_L

This is an interesting question, I think. It relates to a point I've made in discussions about legalizing drugs:

Concern: "If we legalize drugs, drug use will increase. People addicted to drugs are likely to commit more crimes."
My response: "If people on drugs commit crimes, then arrest them for committing those crimes."

So, Slartibartfast is not really saying eliminate drunk driving laws. He's saying driving drunk is reckless driving. Why have a separate law? (I think.)

You could still have sobriety check points. You could still have legislated blood-alcohol limits. If you test someone at a check-point and they are above the limit, you arrest them for reckless driving. This is an interesting concept, and one I've never thought of. What it would do is eliminate the ability of prosecutors to pile on charges to further penalize people (reckless driving PLUS drunk driving).

However, drunk driving is SO common and SO dangerous, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it out separately on the law books.

Jamie

garraty

You can drink and drive in the US?!?

Here in Australia the limit has been .05 for years upon years, go over this and you automatically lose your license for 6 months (at least in my state).
Publicans can be charged for serving alcohol to someone who is already obviously drunk. Every police car is equipped with a breathaliser, and we often have major roads closed off where everyone has to go through the "booze-bus" to make sure they aren't drunk.

No big deal, the skipper is entrenched in our minds, our anti drinking/speeding ads are on TV every night and are quite gruesome; as the ads say:

"If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot"

I don't know if any extra punishment is given to a drink driver who causes an accident/death, but obviously they lose their lisence.

ju'iblex

im with garraty, im appaled you dont have drink driving laws. i never knew that!

although i should probably clarify a 0.05 limit, for a female (i go to a girls school, so im unsure what it is for men), its 1 schooner of beer, (2 if your drinking light), 30mLs of spirits, 45mL of fortified wine, and 1 and a half (?, ive forgotten) glasses of wine. im a little suspect about the fortified wine and wine, im having trouble remembering.

You can lose, or have your license suspended, serve a prison sentence, or just have demerit points taken off your licence for drink driving here. its taken very seriously. oh, and if its the holidays when everyones driving to go on holidays, we have triple demerit points taken off.

And yes,if you do kill someone or injure them while driving under the influence, you can bet on a prison sentence. This is all pretty much drilled into us from Year 8 and onwards in school, not to mention numerous TV et al. campaigns.

i never thought i would hear a debate on it , its always just been a part of life for us.

ohwilleke

Almost every U.S. state has a .10 DUI level (highway funds are lost if it doesn't). A few have a .08 DUI level.

tronvillain

Canada's legal blood-alcohol content is 0.08, but most Canadian provinces give licence suspensions for exceeding 0.05.

Not Prince Hamlet

I would argue that deterrance should be the only goal of punishment. I'm not a big fan of vengeance, but I am a huge fan of making people stop committing crimes in the first place.

So, heck yes, drunk driving should be punished.

Look at it a different way. Driving drunk is an extremely reckless thing to do. You are seriously jeopardizing lives. You might not hurt somebody, but let's face it: there's a very good chance you will.

Using the gun analogy, drunk driving is the equivalent of going into a sparsely-crowded city street, closing your eyes, and then firing some shots off at random. You might not hit anybody doing this, but does it make the act less culpable?

By your argument, the person firing the gun should not be punished unless he actually wounded somebody. Not satisfactory, in my opinion.

Jeff

Pomp

Not Prince Hamlet,

I would argue that deterrance should be the only goal of punishment.

What about protection? For example, one reason we lock up a murderer or suspend the license of a reckless driver is to protect the rest of us from them.

I agree that vengeful punishment serves no practical purpose.

A. Milos

1)Each person requires a differnent amount of alcohol in order to lose control, or have his judgment impaired.
2)Drinking over the limit does not mean that you are driving recklessly. You may or may not drive recklessly.
3)Reckless driving must be proven. It does not come automatic with driving over the limit.

Not Prince Hamlet

PB,

It's a good point. I agree that protection should be a factor, but I'm not sure to what degree.

Jeff