If we locked up people who kill while drunk we'd really make a dent in the problem, not because it would be a deterrent, but because most of the people doing it now are repeat offenders. Most of us don't engage in that type of behavior.
That is exactly right. Just like murder rates dropped when we started locking up violent criminals and making them serve serious time. The issue with crime is the same as drunken driving, it is a core of repeat offenders that, no matter what the law, are going to commit those crimes. You have two options, allow them to continue or stop them. Curing alcoholism is just as tough as reforming a hardened criminal. Just like a dog that has bit you, things are never the same and sometimes we know what has to be done. The problem is most people don’t have the stomach for it anymore and hold onto the hope that Old Yeller will somehow magically turn it around.
And that's why I'd rather have a police officer approach me, or you, or anyone, who is leaving a drinking establishment BEFORE we get behind the wheel, maybe even offer a breathalyzer test. If we test over the legal limit, he/she is welcome to lecture me and tell me about the consequences I'd face, had I actually turned on the ignition.
I have no issue with that, but practically, I don’t think the police can really do that. Certainly as an educational campaign that can work, but as I said, it isn’t the guy who is hitting .08 that normally causes a problem, it is that lush who knows where the police are, knows their checkpoints, and avoids them successfully.
Here's another question:
What if the cop waited in the bushes or wherever, for the driver to turn on the ignition and start driving, then gave chase? What if the driver really WAS plastered, or maybe had an outstanding felony warrant -- this WAS a Hell's Angels bar if you read the article -- and didn't stop?
There is a disconnect in your logic. The first quote I used you are implying, in my opinion, that a cop would be acting as a friendly neighborhood adviser. “Hey Bill, you look a little rough, maybe you shouldn’t drive home. Let me call you a cab.” Or, “Hi there, we are out tonight reminding people that drinking and driving is a crime, we are here to let people blow and see what the legal limit is and learn how to recognize that condition. You are free to give it a try, we are just here to help.”
That is way different than the scenario of finding someone with a warrant that you quote above. To do that, the police would have to be taking ID, running checks, and proactively forcing a confrontation. There is a big difference between allowing people to voluntarily be educated and a checkpoint. Your first quote suggests the former and the latter is a checkpoint.
What if the wasted driver plowed into a family coming home from the movies and killed a few people? No amount of jail time will bring them back to life.
Sorry, but that is just the way it goes. That is the price you pay to live in a society where people are allowed free choice. It isn’t pretty but it is what you have to accept. Let me be harsh, Mom and Dad shouldn’t have their kids out at 2AM watching a movie if they were concerned about an accident with a drunk. They increased the risk to their children unnecessarily by their own choice. It is no different than going to an ATM at 2:30AM in 5th Ward Houston and fanning yourself with $100 bills.
THEN would you accept that it would have been a much better idea to stop the drunk BEFORE the crime, than just satisfy the chief's desire for statistics and headlines?
I will never support locking up people because they COULD have committed a crime. When you think about it, all crimes are preventable with that attitude. You just have to ban anything dangerous, make sure nobody has any possessions that another person would want, make everyone get along, and monitor them 24x7. No thanks, I’ll take my chances with a drunk driver. After all, you do consider the safety ratings of your car before you buy it, right? You are in condition yellow thinking about your safety in planning your purchase, right? You wouldn’t carry a gun that only worked ½ the time, why would you drive a car without the maximum level of protection for your family if you are concerned?
My biggest thing is that driving drunk, most of the time, is a victimless crime. The driver may not be 100% as good as he would be stone-cold sober (although you can't prove that), but who is to say he is worse than Grandpa Jones with impaired night vision, or Judy Jones who is trying to spank her kids while driving, or Buddy Teen who just got his license? We are conditioned to say that an accident due to inexperience is more forgivable than an accident due to drinking. Drinking is evil!
That is like saying a murder perpetrated with a gun should be punished more than one perpetrated with a knife. Or that a murder involving a minority is more important than a murder involving... oh wait...
