I know that I am almost alone in my feelings about the DUI laws. For those of you new to my blog, I talk a lot about the consequences of legislation. Primarily, how legislation is never neutral, there are always winner and losers. The DUI laws seem to be a particularly good example of this. The Republic has this article about the Arizona Legislature requiring interlock devices for people convicted of a DUI.
I have several problems with this law and DUI laws in general. First, the point of DUI laws does not seem to be aimed at actually reducing the number of people driving drunk. They are overly punitive and increasing (just my opinion) convicting people who have had three drinks at a cocktail party or happy hour and not really decreasing the number of people drinking and driving. There is a cost/benefit analysis that must be applied here. As restrictions and punishment for DUIs increase and given the level of accuracy of the equipment used to convict people, we are likely seeing a greater number of innocent people convicted and a lower number of truly dangerous people who will alter their behavior. I think we probably hit the level of diminishing returns when Arizona moved from 1.0 to .08 as the legal limit.
Where is the data that the interlock systems are actually affective? Does anyone benefit other than the companies making and installing the equipment? How will a poor person convicted of a DUI deal with this(the equipment is very expensive)? If we really wanted to reduce the number of traffic deaths related to drinking, how about providing free rides to and from the bar on weekends? OR Free rides home from the bar and a free ride back to your car in the morning?
I think we as a society are overly punitive. Punishment cannot solve every problem, but seems like the tool we most like to use. Why do we have such a hard time accepting human nature?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It seems to be obvious though that DUI Laws are meant to crack down on the rising number of people who are driving while under the influence, enforcing the law would be a preventative measure for people to think twice about the ramifications of their actions. One could turn this argument around and say the same thing about seatbelts, the point of citing someone for not wearing their seatbelts is the same point one is cited on for driving under the influence. It’s a point for DUI Laws to alter people’s behaviour, if the cost of installing the interlocking equipment exceeds the cost that is enforced upon an individual who is cited, then one can claim a deficiency, otherwise the mere cost alone is enough to make people change their ways. Now on to your idea about free rides, first off that’s just a ridiculous idea, taxis don’t even give free rides, why should the government pay for someone’s personal expenses when it is the individuals responsibility to hold themselves accountable to their own actions, secondly it’s a waste of money that could be used to fund more suitable ideas.
Believe me I get what you are saying; it is what most people say when I bring up this topic. I am always weary about public policy areas where debate is almost non-existent. It takes an extremely brave (or foolish) politician to even question DUI policy.
First let me take issue with the idea that there are rising numbers of people driving drunk. The numbers of people driving drunk has been continually falling for a decade or so. The numbers are still unacceptably high, but dropping none the less. Let me be the first to say, that I think it is the result of policies enacted and public education campaigns undertaken. My primary point is that I think we have already hit the high point in deterrence. Each successive increase in penalty will also have an increase in wrongful prosecution while not having that great of an affect on people drinking and driving.
As far as seat belts, I am not sure this is analogous in anyway. Seat belts are about protecting yourself from harm. Preventing drunken driving is about protecting other people. The problem that I see (and I dare say we all know someone like this) is that most of the people that are still drinking and driving are the hard core offenders that are not likely to stop for any reason. When I refer to someone drinking and driving, I mean those that are truly intoxicated and dangerous. They are the people that simply do not believe that they are a danger to anyone after drinking five or six drinks. A tougher penalty will not change this thinking or convince them to change their behavior.
As far as paying for rides, I would pose this question. How expensive do you think law enforcement, courts and prisons are for offenders? My primary point is just that if we want to reduce traffic deaths, I don’t think that increasing penalties is always the answer. Furthermore, I think that we need to consider the losers in any public policy debate. The losers here are the casual drinkers that are of very little danger, but get caught up in a system that is seeing increasing revenue and an increasing incentive to prosecute people for drunken driving.
Lastly, why should government pay for free rides for people? We should pay for rides because it is cheaper and more humane than traffic deaths, imprisonment and punishment. I want fewer traffic deaths and I don’t think our current course of action will produce that. Finally, it recognizes the reality that people drink and it is ok to have a beer or two and drive without fear of prosecution.
Post a Comment