On the heels of a national survey that puts the great state of Wisconsin in the not-so-stately top spot for driving drunk, I can only imagine what the reaction will be.
First, interest groups and the state legislatures will call for a crack down on drunk driving, sending out deputies to patrol the highways and make more arrests. Second, the legislature will be pressured to increase the penalties on drunk driving to discourage the behavior.
First, interest groups and the state legislatures will call for a crack down on drunk driving, sending out deputies to patrol the highways and make more arrests. Second, the legislature will be pressured to increase the penalties on drunk driving to discourage the behavior.
Somehow, the public will be sold on the program that these remedies will fix the problem.
I just do not have that much confidence in those fixes, I’m sorry. First of all, drunk driving is in itself a very subjective offense. For the purposes of determining how drunk we are to drive we are all treated as if we had the same body, i.e. the same metabolism, the same liver, the same blood. This is utterly ridiculous.
Measuring all people by the same standard when we all have a unique DNA is like having a blood transfusion and not being concerned that the donor is Type A and the recipient is Type O. It’s just not done. And yet we are led to believe that despite each person having our own unique physical body, we should all be treated as if we are all identical twins.
If we are going to get serious about drunk driving in this state, we need to look at how we handle these cases in the court system and how we make assessments about intoxication in the field. Blind increases in jail time have never proven to discourage people from behaviors. Already in this state, the number of people who offend a second time is far less than people who offend the first time. In essence, the threat of the minimal jail time already in place is enough to discourage the vast majority of first time offenders. Will increased jail for second offenders really stop any more people than the current system already does?
Measuring all people by the same standard when we all have a unique DNA is like having a blood transfusion and not being concerned that the donor is Type A and the recipient is Type O. It’s just not done. And yet we are led to believe that despite each person having our own unique physical body, we should all be treated as if we are all identical twins.
If we are going to get serious about drunk driving in this state, we need to look at how we handle these cases in the court system and how we make assessments about intoxication in the field. Blind increases in jail time have never proven to discourage people from behaviors. Already in this state, the number of people who offend a second time is far less than people who offend the first time. In essence, the threat of the minimal jail time already in place is enough to discourage the vast majority of first time offenders. Will increased jail for second offenders really stop any more people than the current system already does?
People who are risk loving and irresponsible will always be with us in our world and scarily on our roads. No amount of jail is ever going to discourage them from getting on the road. We are never going to get all the most hazardous people off the road and that is something that we have to understand as a society. We need to look at how we assess the needs of drunk drivers and make determinations whether punishment or warnings are appropriate.
On first offenses, apparently warnings are sufficient incentive to keep people from repeating. Maybe someone does not understand how much liquor their system can handle before they end up slightly over the limit.. Being stopped by the police and ticketed seems to scare them into being more conscious of how much they have to drink before they drive. Is jail really an appropriate remedy in these situations where apparently a warning works quite well.
Thinking about it from another perspective, do we want to tie up the court system trying 1st offense intoxicated driving cases to twelve person juries? Is that a good use of our resources when the current system seems to discourage the behavior sufficiently?
See also Wisconsin Drunk Driving Laws
T. J. Perlick-Molinari, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com
No comments:
Post a Comment