I'm skeptical that harsher DUI penalties are the appropriate solution. Most states already have significant DUI penalties, and think that increasing them is largely a PR move. Drunk drivers are involved in about 20% of fatal accidents, leaving 80% to other causes[1]. About 30% of fatal accidents involve speeding [2]. Perhaps we should consider similar penalties for speeding as for DUI.
Drunk drivers do kill more "innocents" than guns, but also keep in mind that very few gun deaths are innocents. 97% of gun deaths are homicide or suicide [3]
The deterrence effect is a function of both the severity of the punishment and its certainty. And while the punishment for driving drunk is already substantial (maybe even too high), the risk of getting caught is not that large. An effective (but maybe not efficient) crack-down would therefore aim to increase the risk of getting caught and punished.
do you have any ideas for cracking down on drunk driving that wouldn't inconvenience and intimidate law-abiding citizens? the only methods I can think of are checkpoints and large-scale surveillance, both of which I would oppose.
I don't. Which is why I called a non-efficient solution. A theoretical solution would be to require ignition interlocks on all new vehicles. Not that I am advocating for that. A more realistic solution should focus more on officers observing and punishing bad driving, including all the effects of driving drunk or with cellphone in hand.
I could certainly support cops focusing more on reckless driving (tailgating, weaving, no-signal lane changes). if a cop sees a driver doing something unsafe with their own two eyes, I have no problem with them making a stop. I bet they would actually end up catching a decent number of drunk drivers this way.
Checkpoints are very common where I live (they're called RIDE checks, which I suppose is acronym for something). They're more common around public holidays, but can happen at any time.
They're not an inconvenience at all, and I'm not opposed to them in any way. It takes 20 seconds to go through them, and all the officer does is ask you if you've had anything to drink or have used any "wacky tobaccy"[1] recently, shine a flashlight into the car to check for open drinks (and presumably, use his nose too), then let you go.
But then again, I'm a white male, and certain minorities might have worse experiences.
[1] That's a new one that I heard just a few days ago.
I'm honestly not sure why this is considered acceptable. officers should not get to stop me and shine a light around in my car unless they have at least some reason to suspect that I am breaking the law. the fact that I'm leaving downtown on a holiday isn't enough.
> officers should not get to stop me and shine a light around in my car
Why not? Which of your rights are they infringing on by doing these routine checks?
It's not like they're free to do anything they want. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that during a RIDE check, they can only check for sobriety, and any other searches or questioning will result in the charge being dismissed (unless the evidence of a crime is in plain view, like a gun on the dashboard).
Here's a great summary:
R.I.D.E. stands for “Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere.” It is an Ontario sobriety program that was established in 1977 with the purpose of reducing the number of tragic accidents and injuries resulting from impaired driving. The R.I.D.E. program has a narrow and specific mandate, which is to detect and deter drunk drivers. Conversely, R.I.D.E cannot be a tool for arbitrarily detaining individuals without reasonable grounds and in violation of their rights under the Charter. In fact, there have been many instances of criminal proceedings where charges were dismissed because officers over-stepped their legal mandate in the course of administering a R.I.D.E. check.
The R.I.D.E. program provides police officers with the legal right to perform planned roadside checks to identify and charge drivers who are under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of R.I.D.E. as a justification for stopping and checking drivers. In this regard, R.I.D.E. is unique as it gives officers the right to briefly detain and question driver even if there are no grounds or probable cause for believing that a driver is over the legal blood alcohol limit, impaired or has committed any offence. However, while executing the R.I.D.E. program, police are not authorized to perform other criminal investigations or searches, unconnected with the purpose of R.I.D.E. There are many exceptions to this rule, for example, if illegal drugs or other contraband are in plain view in the vehicle.
Especially considering how often DUI's are repeat offenders, there are plenty of chances to permanently revoke someone's driving privileges with due process. One recent "crackdown" in the law called for mandatory jail time only after the 4th offense. That's a ridiculous number of chances to give someone for something so selfish and reckless.
Not in Ontario, where RIDE checks take place. Canada has quite strict impaired driving laws.
Quoting Wikipedia[1],
The minimum sentences are:
For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition,
For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and
For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition.
If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail.
If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail.
If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence.
The link you cited from nhtsa.dot.gov actually said it was 29% of fatalities, and that was only for BAC of 0.08 or higher. I'm not sure it's tracked anywhere, but I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot more where the BAC didn't rise to that level, but was still a factor. I agree that steeper penalties may not help though.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure how to reconcile the 29% listed in the intro and table 4, with the 20% listed in table 2 and table 3.
Table 4 shows BAC >0.01 if you are interested.
I have a relative who has been repeatedly arrested for drunk driving. He had already severely injured someone and will kill someone sooner or later. The courts do nothing, he walks free with his driver's license every time. Even walked after assaulting an officer during one of the arrests. They will not put him in prison or take his license away.
This is in a midwestern U.S. state.
The laws may or may not be strong in theory, but even if they are strong they are not applied consistently. The courts are failing to protect the public from people who present a clear danger to the public.
This person, for example, is white. I am 100% sure that if he was not white he would be dealt with more harshly (and more appropriately, in this case).
It probably helps that mass transit is much more prevalent. In New York state for example, where the population is heavily weighted towards New York City where mass transit is more accessible, the % of traffic fatalities related to alcohol drops to about 5%, not far out of line for all of UK. (Though urban areas like London in the UK might be even lower
