Drunk Driving: Advocating Stiffer Penalties - Essay Example

Section/# Drunk Driving: Advocating Stiffer Penalties Within the current legal system, first time drunk drivers aregiven very lenient sentences. This can span anywhere from a fine, to community service, to having their license suspended for a brief period of time, or some other slight inconvenience. However, the fact of the matter is that driving while intoxicated is not only inadvisable, it is extremely dangerous and has been proven time and time again to increase the likelihood that the driver, whatever occupants that he/she may have within the car, and others on the road, inclusive of pedestrians, are at a drastically increased risk of being killed. Because of this drastically increased risk of death, it is the assertion of this particular author that the penalties for drunk driving must be increased significantly. One such effective mechanism through which drunk driving can be ameliorated is to change the dynamics of the criminal justice system so that the penalty for doing it becomes so severe that individuals will reconsider whether it is ultimately worth it risk driving themselves or whether they should opt instead for the inconvenience and potentially more expensive alternative of arranging alternate means of transportation. Within such an understanding, it is the belief of this particular analyst that if the penalty for first offense drunk driving was mandatory prison time, the dynamic that is exhibited throughout the United States would significantly shift; promoting safer roads and protecting the lives of thousands that might otherwise be victim to the loss of life, paralysis, and injury that tens of thousands of drunk drivers cause each and every year. The most important rationale behind seeking to increase the penalties for drunk driving has to do with the impulse and nature of the crime itself. As with many crimes, narcissism and the desire to promote one’s own needs and goals above that of society is the root cause of drunk driving. Within such an understanding, the reader can appropriately note that mandatory prison sentences for first time offenders may very well promote two approaches to the dynamic that has been described. Firstly, it will engage the potential drunk driver with an understanding that their own narcissistic goals are not maximized by taking the profound risk of facing a mandatory prison sentence if they are caught (Friel, 2005). Secondly, it provides those individuals that are caught, prosecuted and imprisoned with valuable time to consider the misdeeds that they have done and rehabilitate themselves via an enforced and required sobriety program. Likewise, individuals that serve mandatory prison sentences might utilize the time spent within the prison system as a means of coming to grips with the way in which their alcohol abuse is destroying their life; and potentially destroying the lives of others as well. Another rationale for increasing the penalties of drunk driving is with respect to ensuring that the punishment for the crime matches the severity of the crime itself. This is mostly engaged with respect to the way in which attempted murder, armed robbery, assault, and other crimes are perpetrated. However, with respect to drunk driving, the potential to kill or otherwise maim several individuals at one time is dramatic (Gastil, 2000). As such, the penalty for an individual willingly making the decision to drive, even if they are fully aware of their inebriated nature, is worthy of the most severe level of punishment that society can provide. However, critics oftentimes point to complicating factors with respect to increasing the penalties for drunk driving. The first of these has to do with the way in which increasing drunk driving penalties would merely clog the prison system with nonviolent criminals. Furthermore, there is the added risk that nonviolent criminals will be exposed to other inmates and may very well turn to other types of crime as a result of the friendships and interactions that they make in prison. Another relevant concern for individuals that oppose stricter penalties for those that are caught drinking and driving has to do with the understanding that texting and driving now kills more individuals each and every year as compared to drinking and driving (Zhu, 1998). With such an understanding in mind, it is only rationale to promote stiffer penalties for texting and driving as compared to drinking and driving. As the reader can appropriately note, this leads to something of an infinite regression in which other crimes of greater importance demand the attention of society and the means by which they should be punished. From the information that has thus far been represented, it is clear and apparent that the current level to which drunk driving is punished is ineffective. For this very reason, despite the claims to the contrary, as have been listed previously, the level and extent to which such crimes should be punished is something that should drastically be increased (Kesmodel, 2009). The current trend is such that individuals make a value based determination; with regard to whether or not they should sit behind the wheel or not. Within such an understanding, it is necessary to create a level of profound deterrence for would-be drunk drivers and encourage them to consider the stiff penalties and long-term ramifications that such a decision might necessary have for them, fellow drivers/pedestrians, and passengers. Whereas it is true that stiffer penalties for drunk driving will not solve the issue of drunk driving entirely, it is highly possible that the narcissistic behavior that is exhibited by those who might be tempted to drunk driving is significantly reduced; both by the time they would serve in jail and the threat that such a penalty poses for their own self interests. Naturally, other issues, such as the ability of the tax base to provide the increased room in prisons and the determination to punish this crime over others creates complicating factors; however, it is still the belief of this analyst that the crime of drunk driving is severe enough to warrant such a level of integration as has been defined and proscribed. References Friel, B. (2005). Curbing the Carnage. (Cover story). National Journal, 37(26), 2040-2045. Gastil, J. (2000). Thinking, Drinking, and Driving: Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action to DWI Prevention. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 30(11), 2217-2232. Kesmodel, D. (2009, June 9). Drunk-Driving Foes Split on Severity of Penalties. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. p. A6. Zhu, L. (1998). `Stinking drunk and still driving. State Legislatures, 24(3), 8. Read More