DWI: What Would It Cost To Reduce The Numbers?

February 06, 2011

A series of blog entries in the New York Times discuss drunk-driving law and what the law generally seeks to prevent--fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths--but how we go about achieving it without severely overstepping constitutional boundaries to due process is a major challenge.

The law against drunk driving in many states has become quite oppressive (leading some to question the hardship placed on a first-time offender who did not cause an accident and whose blood-alcohol content is not extremely high). On the other hand, the tragic circumstances of any serious injury or death calls to mind other nations' severe sanctions for drunk driving.

Sweden's goal, for example, is zero alcohol-related traffic deaths, among other things. Its permissible BAC is .02. This essentially prohibits almost any amount of alcohol from being ingested prior to driving.

No Free Lunch

But there are significant costs associated with enforcing the law.

First, tough drunk-driving laws take significant bites out of individual liberties--the most important perhaps is a person's means to get to work, given that mass transit is not a viable option in many parts of the U.S. The effects on the first-time offender can be huge, especially if society heads toward zero tolerance.

But there's also the financial cost. The use of checkpoints diverts law enforcement personnel and equipment. More checkpoints mean fewer officers out on the road, catching the type of reckless driving that causes traffic injuries and deaths. (Some experts believe that checkpoints are more of a revenue-enhancing tool than anything else: many tickets are handed out for other infractions--think broken taillights and lack of seatbelt use--as opposed to drunk driving.)

And the court system itself is overworked. In some places, there are too few judges and court support personnel. Dockets are clogged. Adding necessary resources is expensive and unlikely in a time of massive state budget deficits.

A Culture of Cars and a Lack of Public Transit

In the U.S. the prime means of transit is the automobile. Unlike the nations of Europe and Japan, most of the U.S. was built without the massive infrastructure investment necessary for large-scale mass transit. When London was beginning to build the first of the subway lines that became its modern "Underground" 150 years ago, many large cities in the U.S. still had dirt roads.

The 20th century and post-World War II era brought with it cheap gas, affordable automobiles and thousands of miles of "freeways"--all of which created the perfect environment for nearly eliminating many modes of mass transit. Passenger rail service was terminated for many cities outside the densely populated northeast corridor; cities tore up streetcar rails as their populations fled to the suburbs; what remained of mass transit was largely left to the low-income population.

In many urban areas in the U.S., the only way to get from point A to point B is by automobile. If there is a transit system, it's an "express bus" from the suburbs to downtown.

Zero Tolerance

A zero tolerance policy would cause many would-be drivers to think twice about getting behind the wheel after a few drinks. What about the repeat offender, addled with an addiction to alcohol, driving with an extremely high BAC and a track record of causing serious car accidents? Zero tolerance is not likely to stop that person from driving, with or without a driver's license, unless that person is given a life sentence.

As the NY Times blog entries note, human beings enjoy drinking and socializing with each other; even with increased sanctions, some people will be willing to continue drinking and driving and assume the risk of getting caught.

For the first-time offender, severe punishment for being slightly above the arbitrary BAC limit--and driving no more recklessly or poorly than some drivers who are 100 percent sober--could mean the loss of many things to the offender, from recurring fines to multiple driver's license issues.

In the end, aggressive DWI laws do not account for the other well-known causes of motor vehicle accidents. Legislators can fashion zero tolerance policies in an effort to reduce alcohol-related injuries and deaths--but doing so would not address the problems of driving while fatigued, texting and driving, talking on a mobile phone, speeding, or any other careless behavior that people engage in while driving.

The focus should be on creating rational laws that prohibit dangerous driving, no matter the cause, without infringing on civil liberties and imposing undue criminal punishment, and without unduly imposing harsh punishment on all drivers who've had a few drinks.

If you've been arrested for drunk driving, contact a criminal defense lawyer to defend yourself.

Article provided by Law Offices of Jed Silverman
Visit us at www.jedsilverman.com