Drunk Drivers - Essay Example

Should Drunk Drivers be Imprisoned on the First Offense or Not Name: University: Instructor: Course Title: Date: Introduction Drunk driving/drink driving is a thorny issue in various countries across the globe. Drunk driving or impaired driving is mostly categorized as driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under influence (DUI). The former implies driving while intoxicated specifically with alcohol. On the other hand, the later refers to driving under influence which can either be alcohol or other drugs that impair individuals, decision making capacity and muscle coordination (Random Facts, 2009). The statistics across various countries point at an alarming fatalities as a result of drunk driving. For instance, approximately 30 people die daily as result of alcohol impaired driver actions in the USA. This translates to 1 death per 48 minutes and an estimated annual cost of $ 51 billion (CDC, 2012). In New South Wales State in Australia, 18% of fatal road crashes are associated with ‘drink driving’ (NSW Government-Transport Roads & Maritime Service, 2011). In the UK, approximately 90, 000 people are convicted annually in relation to drunk driving. For instance, in 2006, 83, 000 people were charged with drunk driving as a principal offence. In 2007, 6, 998 people were charged in Scotland with drunk driving as a principal offence. These UK’s statistics excludes those charged with drunk driving as a secondary offence. (Drink Driving. Org, 2013). Based on these statistics, there has been a legal debate and social oriented debate of whether drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense. The aim of this discourse is to present an argumentative essay of whether drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense or not. Punishing Deviance (Drunk Driving) vs. Deviance as an Indication of Societal Problem The first rationale that is presented by the proponents that drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense is based on the fact that it amounts to disobedience of legal provisions, deaths and destruction of property. Moreover, drunk driving is associated with destruction of property. In Australia, drunk driving accounts for 30% of roads death annually. In addition, in 2011, there 1, 292 deaths associated with the same. The major culprits of drunk driving are those aged 17-25 (ANZPAA, 2012). The question that emerges is why spare that person. This concern is still corroborated by the observation that “a first-time drunk-driving offender has already driven drunk more than 80 times before being arrested” (Van Tuyl, 2006). Thus, it can be concluded that drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense because they kill and maim people. On the other hand, the opponents dispute the rationale of arresting drunk drivers on the first offense. Their argument is tied on one factor. This is a holistic approach whereby they see drunk driving as exhibition of social disorganization thus the root cause should be addressed. For instance, they ask how people become deviant in relation to the national culture of a country. To place this in context, we can introduce Hofstede’s (2001) idea of national culture in terms of uncertainty avoidance and compare national culture of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and USA or Norway. Uncertainty avoidance relates to how far people are socialized to be nervous by conditions that they perceive as unpredictable/ unclear or structured (Hofstede, 1984, p.390). According to Evett (2005), if Saudi culture is subjected to uncertainty avoidance scale, they rank in the middle. This means that they are not made nervous with such conditions. However, they have not completely ignored such cautions and that’s why drunk driving is very low. This is opposed to countries like Norway & USA where uncertainty avoidance is low and thus people are likely to take risk by engaging in deviant ways like drunk driving. Deterring Drunk Driving vs. Jails not Being Points of Reformation The second argument by the proponents is based on the fact that jailing the drunk drivers on first offense should act as deterrence and a learning lesson for the offender and others who might wish to do so if the vice is to be tamed. For instance, in 2007, USA fatality rate per 100 million VMT decreased to 0.43 from 0.45 in 2006. Moreover, these statistics accounted for 32% of total vehicle fatalities (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008, p.1). For Australia, during the month ended December 2001, they recorded a downfall of 4.4% deaths associated with drunk driving, decrease of 21% over the last decade and 32% decrease in fatalities per population (ANZPAA, 2012). All these reduction in drunk driving is associated with stringent measures applied by the police. Theoretically, this is affirmed by social learning theory which states that behavioural patterns are acquired by links or contingencies established between the behaviour and its consequences (Borum, 2004, p.13). Thus, if an action is punished, people keep away and vice verse. Correlation that can be used was the introduction of zero tolerance to false start in the athletic. This has helped reduce significant the number of false starts (The false start, 2011). Thus the same can apply to drunken driving. On the other hand, the opponents oppose such approach since jailing an individual does not solve the problem. There has been question about the effectiveness of jails as rehabilitation centers. Halsey (2007a, p.342); Halsey (2007b, p.1212) notes that this approach has not achieved much in converting offenders to be desisters since those convicted are likely to go back to crime and be hardcore (Halsey, 2007a: 347). This nexus is best captured by Halsey (2007a) on how inmates perceive these containment facilities. The first perception is of incarceration being a familiar and secure source. This means that those convicted to confinement as they go there they are sure of getting old friends who they were subjected with to care and protection order (Halsey, 2007a, p.341).Thus, the option to them would be to find options that are effective such as creation of awareness, rehabilitation programs, and empowering joint owners not to sell excess alcohol to those who are already drunk among others. Reactive Vs Proactive/ Preventive Measures Punishing first offence drives the sense into that individual that driving while intoxicated beyond required legal levels is not acceptable. This is the point that those who are for the approach are arguing (World Wide Brewing Alliance, 2008, p.20). Indeed these stricter penalties like execution in countries Like El Salvador and Bulgaria for second offence have helped reduce road carnage associated with drunken driving (World Wide Brewing Alliance, 2008, p.54). While it is integral to punish any kind of crime so as to deter future action and other interested individual, this has not yielded the required results. Punishing first time offenders is like a reactive measure. The opponents notes that despite of various stringent measures including jail for first time offence, the vice has not reduce significantly in certain areas (Lobmann, 2002, p.770). They note that the weakness lies with the preventive measures instead of reactionary measures. Crime vs. Forfeiture It has been established that “drivers who are involved in fatal crashes are three times more likely to have been speeding or not wearing a seatbelt than sober drivers” (Government of Western Australia-Office of Road Safety, nd). Apart from this, “a first-time drunk-driving offender has already driven drunk more than 80 times before being arrested” (Van Tuyl, 2006). The concern for the proponents is that this is a criminal act and thus, should be charged directly in a court of law. To them (opponents), the solution lies with preventive mechanism like holistic alcohol policy, improvement of enforcement and creation of awareness among others (Lobmann, 2002, p.773). Moreover, jailing someone might the situation of the family if he was the sole breadwinner. This complicates the arithmetic instead of solving it. On the contrary, the opponents question this rationale by postulating that “why tag someone as criminal for the rest of his or her life yet the action might have been a mistake”. They say that first time offenders should not be treated as criminals but as those who have engaged in civil violation (Van Hollen, 2009). Van Hollen (2009) notes that first time offenders should be enrolled into treatment since most of them are “willing to plead to it when they are not going to be convicted of a crime” and this is the reason “ why we have so many of our first-offenders who do not end up being second –offenders”. Conclusion The ultimate goal of this paper was to discuss if first time offenders should be jailed or not. Drawing from diverse literature, the paper examined the issues leveled by the proponents and the opponents about the issue. The paper examined for issues which include punishing deviance (drunk driving) vs. deviance as an indication of societal problem, deterring drunk driving vs. jails not being points of reformation, reactive vs. proactive/ preventive measures and lastly, crime vs. forfeiture. In most of the proponents’ arguments, the jailing of first offenders acts as a warning to others and a deserved pay to those who contravene legal provisions which are meant to guard public and individual. On the other hand, the opponents argued that jailing first time offenders is not the solution. Instead, they see drunk driving as societal problem that should be addressed holistically since jailing someone isn’t the solution. From these two contradicting statement, law enforcers and justice system can derive a combined approaches borrowing from the best practices between the two. Thus, for future, the following should be considered: proactive enforcement of drunken driving laws, engaging in community awareness, development of rehabilitation programs, collaborating with stakeholders in liquor industry on responsible drinking, using sobriety check points, revision of BAC up to 0.05 for states/ countries with BAC level of 0.08 and lastly having mandatory substance abuse assessment and treatment for addicts. References ANZPAA (16 April, 2012). Road Policing Statistics. Available at: https://www.anzpaa.org.au/current-initiatives/operation-crossroads/road-policing- statistics. Borum, R. (2004). Psychology of terrorism. Tampa: University of South Florida. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention-CDC (2 October, 2012). Impaired Driving: Get The Facts. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired- drv_factsheet.html. Drink Driving. Org (2013). Drink Driving Statistics UK. Available at: http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_statistics_uk.php. Evett, J. (20 April, 2005,). Virtual Public Diplomacy: A Profile of Saudi Arabia’s Culture. Available at: http://academic3.american.edu/~zaharna/evett/website/culture.html. Government of Western Australia-Office of Road Safety (nd). Drink Driving Campaign. available at: http://ors.wa.gov.au/Campaigns/Drink-Driving.aspx., Halsey, M. (2007b). Assembling recidivism: the promise and contingencies of post-release life. The journal of criminal law & criminology, Vol. 97, No, 4, pp. 1209-1260. Hasley, M. (2007a). On confinement: resident and inmate perspectives of secure care and imprisonment. The journal of community and criminal justice, Vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 338-367. Hofstede G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Hofstede, G. (1984). The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept. The Academy of Management Review, 9 (3), 389-398. Lobmann, R. (2002). Drunk driving: probability of detection and its perception. Policing. An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.770-788. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2008). Traffic Safety Facts: Alcohol Impaired- Driving. Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810985.PDF. NSW Government-Transport Roads & Maritime Service (3 November, 2011). Accident Statistics. Available at: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/accidentstatistics.html. Random Facts (28 August, 2009). 34 Random Facts about Drunk Driving. Available at: http://facts.randomhistory.com/2009/08/28_drunk-driving.html. The false start rule. (2011). New York: About.com. available at: http://trackandfield.about.com/od/sprintsandrelays/p/The-False-Start-Rule-History- And-Controversies.htm. Van Hollen, J. B. (16 January, 2009). First drunken driving offense shouldn’t be crime. Available at: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/37748539.html. Van Tuyl, C. (2006). Drunk Driving. Chicago, IL: Greenhaven Press. World Wide Brewing Alliance (2008). Drinking and Driving Report: Recent trends and programs. Read More

Deterring Drunk Driving vs. Jails not Being Points of Reformation The second argument by the proponents is based on the fact that jailing the drunk drivers on first offense should act as deterrence and a learning lesson for the offender and others who might wish to do so if the vice is to be tamed. For instance, in 2007, USA fatality rate per 100 million VMT decreased to 0.43 from 0.45 in 2006. Moreover, these statistics accounted for 32% of total vehicle fatalities (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008, p.1). For Australia, during the month ended December 2001, they recorded a downfall of 4.

4% deaths associated with drunk driving, decrease of 21% over the last decade and 32% decrease in fatalities per population (ANZPAA, 2012). All these reduction in drunk driving is associated with stringent measures applied by the police. Theoretically, this is affirmed by social learning theory which states that behavioural patterns are acquired by links or contingencies established between the behaviour and its consequences (Borum, 2004, p.13). Thus, if an action is punished, people keep away and vice verse.

Correlation that can be used was the introduction of zero tolerance to false start in the athletic. This has helped reduce significant the number of false starts (The false start, 2011). Thus the same can apply to drunken driving. On the other hand, the opponents oppose such approach since jailing an individual does not solve the problem. There has been question about the effectiveness of jails as rehabilitation centers. Halsey (2007a, p.342); Halsey (2007b, p.1212) notes that this approach has not achieved much in converting offenders to be desisters since those convicted are likely to go back to crime and be hardcore (Halsey, 2007a: 347).

This nexus is best captured by Halsey (2007a) on how inmates perceive these containment facilities. The first perception is of incarceration being a familiar and secure source. This means that those convicted to confinement as they go there they are sure of getting old friends who they were subjected with to care and protection order (Halsey, 2007a, p.341).Thus, the option to them would be to find options that are effective such as creation of awareness, rehabilitation programs, and empowering joint owners not to sell excess alcohol to those who are already drunk among others.

Reactive Vs Proactive/ Preventive Measures Punishing first offence drives the sense into that individual that driving while intoxicated beyond required legal levels is not acceptable. This is the point that those who are for the approach are arguing (World Wide Brewing Alliance, 2008, p.20). Indeed these stricter penalties like execution in countries Like El Salvador and Bulgaria for second offence have helped reduce road carnage associated with drunken driving (World Wide Brewing Alliance, 2008, p.54). While it is integral to punish any kind of crime so as to deter future action and other interested individual, this has not yielded the required results.

Punishing first time offenders is like a reactive measure. The opponents notes that despite of various stringent measures including jail for first time offence, the vice has not reduce significantly in certain areas (Lobmann, 2002, p.770). They note that the weakness lies with the preventive measures instead of reactionary measures. Crime vs. Forfeiture It has been established that “drivers who are involved in fatal crashes are three times more likely to have been speeding or not wearing a seatbelt than sober drivers” (Government of Western Australia-Office of Road Safety, nd).

Apart from this, “a first-time drunk-driving offender has already driven drunk more than 80 times before being arrested” (Van Tuyl, 2006). The concern for the proponents is that this is a criminal act and thus, should be charged directly in a court of law. To them (opponents), the solution lies with preventive mechanism like holistic alcohol policy, improvement of enforcement and creation of awareness among others (Lobmann, 2002, p.773).

Read More