Needs

The essay needs to be improved with respect (a) brevity, clarity, validity of argument and persuasion (b) statistics and interpretation (c) the following outline

Outline

1. Most commentators appear regard DUI traffic deaths with approbation while disregarding traffic deaths due to other kinds of recognized impairment and sources. The real traffic concern is minimizing the total number of deaths (and accidents) on the roads. Some emotion and resources spent on the DUI problem may well be allocated to other kinds of driver, automobile and highway problem

2. It is true that any death due to DUI is one too many. However, the same is true for all causes of traffic death. Therefore, interpretation of statistics is important

3. The principle of punishment should be that equal harm should receive equal punishment. Yet, DUI punishment is far severer than other driver impairment and other crimes (a BAC of .08 where the driver is punished severely even if there is no harm to person or property—this has been called the only political crime in America; regardless, if it is punished, then cell phone use and other recognized impairment while driving should receive the same punishment as an equivalent alcohol impairment.) Many people believe that punishing a BAC is ethically unfair, legally indefensible (in terms of legal principles rather than legal fact, when comparing to other crimes.) A comparative analysis of crimes and punishments should be made and followed up with rational punishment across the board (aside: perhaps fines should depend on income)

4. The high level of punishment of DUI may have the following causes: scapegoating, revenge, and political and economic profit for numerous players including the ‘DUI industry;’ and results: unfair punishment, not solving the real problem

Note—There is a phenomenon in which entire blame and punishment is placed on an innocent or partially responsible individual or weak minority group—the ‘other,’ e.g. the Salem and European witches… the Jews in Europe; and, as a result of this blame and punishment, problems are perceived as having been resolved, tensions are defused (meanwhile problems are not resolved, special groups profit politically and economically.) This phenomenon falls under the umbrella meaning of what is sometimes referred to as scapegoating

5. Interpretation of statistics. Some estimates are that while 30-40% highway deaths are ‘alcohol related,’ perhaps as little as 10% are caused by alcohol (and even this figure may not factor in accidents in the only damage is to the driver and his or her property.) That the figures have dropped over the years may be due to more driver education (workplace,) safer cars, more cars with air bags, more air bags, better air bags; the argument that it is due to law and punishment is either invalid or partially valid. The statistics need to be obtained with precision (they probably are) and interpreted properly (they are not) and without any bias especially the biases of group thinking, revenge, error on the side of caution, and mere correlation of BAC levels

6. The DUI ‘affair’ in recent world history and, especially, in American history is a small symptom of a much larger pervasive and corrosive problem. There is a problem—actual and or perceived, there is a fear campaign, an innocent or partially responsible person or group but in any case a weak or minority group is depicted as being entirely responsible, they are punished out of proportion, people feel better; meanwhile, the problem is not adequately addressed, various special groups and politicians profit politically and economically

DUI

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports a decrease to about 33% alcohol related traffic deaths in 2009—out of about 34,000 total traffic deaths in the US. “Alcohol related” is interpreted as anyone involved in the accident, even a passenger or pedestrian having consumed alcohol. Therefore, “alcohol related” and “caused by drunken driving” are not identical; recently, the statistic ‘one or more drivers having a BAC or blood alcohol content of 0.08% or greater has emerged; while more reliable than ‘alcohol related’ this statistic is still not identical to ‘caused by alcohol.’ Not all alcohol related accidents or deaths are caused by drunken driving. It is hard to estimate how many deaths are caused by drunken driving. Suppose someone who has consumed alcohol is driving at legal speed through a traffic intersection while the traffic signal is green and his/her car is hit by the car of a sober driver who drove through a red light and one or more drivers or passengers die. The death is considered alcohol related although it is most definitely not caused by drunken driving. There are estimates that only 10% of traffic fatalities are caused by drunken driving; this information is difficult to verify or find; the anti-drunk driving sentiment is so high that sites that publish such data are pressured to close or are difficult to find due to search engines queries being ‘overloaded’ with sites that use ‘alcohol related’ as synonymous ‘caused by alcohol’ (the following site http://drunkdriving.com/home-2/ cites a 10% figure as the approximate % of traffic deaths caused by drunken drivers but does not say what % is caused by drunkenness—the distinction arises because even if someone is drunk it does not follow that an accident was caused by the drunkenness; I don’t know whether the distinction has any significance it is reasonable that NHTSA should conduct research into this and other questions raised here.) Actually, the number should be even less. We do not punish someone who drinks or smokes him or herself to death. Similarly, an accident in which only the driver dies, the car may be wrecked but it is the driver’s care and in which there is no other harm to person or property, should not be counted as a fatality for the purposes of law and attitude. Perhaps the figure is as low as 8%. Yet laws and attitudes are based on about 40% deaths. The typical response to this is “any number of deaths” is too many. This is of course true but also somewhere in the range of ignorant-hypocritical-abusive. Why? Various reasons arise. (1) It focuses on the cause of 10% of traffic fatalities while resulting in a tendency to overlook the remaining 90% whose primary cause is excessive speed combined with other factors (impairment due to other factors such as old age, using cell phones / vehicle design / highway design.) Thus while causing focus on 10% deaths; it results in overlooking the real problem of the remaining 90%. Why do we do this? Why is a death caused by a drunken driver worse than one caused by a badly designed car (the motor industry would not like that) or a sleepy driver or a poor traffic intersection? I think the answer lies partly in our conflicted relation with alcohol. In our society, alcohol is a common way of having a good time or relieving stress. The flip side is addiction and its effects on the individual, families and even the workplace. Therefore we have a huge segment of the population ready to negatively judge an alcohol caused event more so than a similar event caused by other causes even when those other causes are under the control of an individual or a corporation or society. A second reason is due to the campaigns of organizations such as MADD. MADD promotes the higher statistic of 40% as measure of traffic fatalities due to alcohol: this is dishonest; a MADD official was told that cell phone use is as dangerous as alcohol but the punishment is much less and the official said that he did not care; it has often been remarked that MADD mothers are more about revenge and anger than about safety per se; I am sure that this is not true of all MADD members; I am an admirer of Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD—even though as should be clear I do not agree with the application of her reasoning but it is interesting that she left MADD because disagreed with their moving away from the plain theme of drunken driving. A third reason has to do with politicians who wish to appear tough on crime and also to pander to organizations such as MADD (it’s OK to declare an irrational war in which thousands die; it’s OK to ignore the cause of 90% traffic fatalities; I suppose that a MADD mother would grieve less if a second child were killed by an accident caused by a cell phone user)

I think that there are a number of factors that should make up any reasonable approach to DUI laws. First, we should know the correct numbers. DUI fatalities appear to lie between 10 and 40%. Where do they lie? Even though it may not be easy, NHTSA should conduct research (this would perhaps be unpopular in the present climate of opinion.) Second, the law should be consistent. It is not true that every driver is equally impaired by alcohol. Possessing a firearm is a fatality risk (even for unimpaired persons.) Should we punish an individual for mere possession of a firearm just as we punish drivers with more than .08% BAC because they might be dangerous, Or should we punish those drivers who cause harm as a result of any impairment, just as we punish only those gun owners who hurt others accidentally as a result of impairment or not taking proper precautions such as allowing children access to firearms? The DUI punishments have been described as the only political crime in America because we punish people who have not caused harm or even been shown to be impaired (the .08% BAC laws.) Second the law should be rational. The justification of the .08% law is that the drunken driver knows that he or she is in control of a “dangerous weapon.” Similarly the sober driver knows that he or she is in control of a weapon that is the source of 90% traffic fatalities. Two alternatives arise (a) we should lower speed limits to say 25 mph or (b) accept the risk posed by having a high speed society and punish only drivers and all drivers who cause harm by impairment of any kind (provided of course that the driver knows he / she is impaired: someone who has a traffic accident because of a seizure but has no history of seizures should not be punished; someone who has not taken their seizure medication and then has an accident due to a seizure should be punished.) Third, the law should be consistent. The punishment for the individual who has not taken their seizure medication and someone who is drunk should be comparable. If DUI with injury is a felony; not taking medication that results in injury should also be a felony; if one goes to prison, so should the other; and the fines and other elements of criminal and civil penalties should be comparable. I have argued that the .08% laws are wrong. But if they are right then, simply driving when not taking seizure medications should also be a crime and the punishments should be comparable. So far, I have compared different impairments to driving: punishment should be the same if the level of impairment is the same (provided of course that the driver is aware of the impairment which might include alcohol, drugs, medical conditions, loss of ability to drive safely due to old age, driving while sleepy, driving and fighting, talking or texting on a cell phone.) But punishments should also be consistent for different kinds of crime. It is well known that punishments for DUI without demonstrated impairment (the .08% law) or accident or injury are far more severe than for other crimes (and in one view a punishment is applied to something that should not even be a crime.) Precise comparisons across crimes are difficult but the attempt should be there. We should ask—what is the actual damage, what is the general threat of this kind of behavior? This does not of course exhaust the questions to be asked. But we should also ask why we are so harsh on DUI in relation to other crimes and behaviors. This question has already been addressed above—the present political climate and our tenuous relation with alcohol, and the opportunism of politicians. But it is more than that: it is also counties using the political climate to make money (therefore the harsh DUI fines.) Finally, the issue of penalties and punishments should not be placed in any hands that are incompetent or beyond the law. I refer, particularly, to the suspension of licenses and the imposition of alcohol counseling etc. by departments of motor vehicles. The licensing section of CVC does not define licensing as a privilege even though some other non-defining sections of CVC refer to the privilege to drive. In general, however, society requires its members to drive. Therefore, suspension, without good reason is an economic liability. Therefore, even if driving is a privilege, suspension should require due process; our only institutions that understand due process are, for all their limitations, the courts. It has been argued that having DMV suspensions takes the drunken driver of the streets without having to wait for the courts; but the whole point of having court processes is that no limitation should be the result of unproved claims (unless defendants waive rights to due process.) Not only is the DMV not an institution of due process, DMV is in fact judge and jury: it has no checks; even its reviews are entirely internal (in California;) and, finally, DMV hearing officers do not have the legal training required of an attorney or the knowledge of a judge. The state of Washington has taken a step in the direction or reversing excessive penalties in allowing drivers convicted of DUI to drive on a license that is unlimited except that ignition interlock is required (the DUI should be alcohol and not other drug and there should have been no injury or property damage.) In my opinion and the opinion of many others this is a move in the right direction. In the direction of allowing individuals who have cause no harm to continue to be economically productive; in the direction of moving away from out of control limitations that tax our social institutions to a limit while providing less safety than possible with rational limitations

Everyone seems to interpret statistics to demonstrate their theses. Those who want to show the danger of alcohol-impaired driving equate “caused by alcohol impairment” to “alcohol related.” Others argue that enhanced penalties reduce fatalities caused by drunken drivers. They often do not note that while alcohol related / caused traffic fatalities have decreased so have all traffic fatalities. And they do not separate out the effect of improved highway and vehicle safety. Introduction of air bags in vehicles as well as air bag effectiveness has been progressive. Air bags were first introduced in the mid 1970’s. In 1989 passive restraint for driver became required in the US. A passive restraint definition would be satisfied by automatic seat belt or air bag. Air bags became mandatory in light trucks in 1995. In 1998 dual air bags became US law; and second generation or de-powered air bags were required due to injuries caused by first generation air bags. With progressive introduction of safety features, reduction in all traffic fatalities is expected and is in fact the case. While alcohol related / caused deaths have decreased, so have all traffic deaths. In the relevant period of time laws have become progressively stricter but safety has also progressively improved. Therefore, it does not follow that it is law and prosecution of the law that is the cause of the deaths due to alcohol impairment

There is a political climate in which it is OK to exaggerate and to ignore exaggeration of the danger of alcohol impairment in driving and in which truth is only OK when it is politically correct (any suggestion that DUI is not as dangerous as claimed is viewed with anger and suspicion)

The DUI laws, punishment, and sentencing constitute an industry or perhaps a large pie. MADD works out its hurt and anger rather unfairly and revengefully. MADD and similar organizations serve to spread the myth that drunken driving is the real killer on the highway (of course it’s not OK that 3,000 and not the claimed 16,000 die annually caused by drunken drivers but apparently it’s OK that about 30,000 die on the highway from accidents with other causes.) Politicians ride on ever new laws to appear tough on crime. The real problem is ignored—agencies, government, auto-manufacturers are allowed to not have to pay attention to the real problem. Police meet quotas and police agencies charge intervention fees even though the offender had not asked for their services (there is a class action lawsuit pending regarding CHP charging fees.) Insurance companies charge higher fees and make higher profits. Counties and state make money on fines, jail booking fees, SWAP programs. Attorneys charge up to $5,000 to defend a DUI case and another $5,000 if the case goes to jury. The best attorneys are good but there are many that are not so good and others who do not put in maximum effort knowing that they maximize income through volume of cases (two approaches to maximizing profit in general are via high pricing justified by better quality and high volume but lower prices and perhaps lower quality.) Shops rent out ignition interlock devices at an installment charge and a monthly fee. Alcohol treatment programs, whose employees are often ex-addicts and would otherwise not likely find employment or be employable, make a profit and provide generally low quality treatment programs; it is generally acknowledged that these programs are ineffective; that incarceration is most effective; yet the programs continue. DMV’s are taxed to their limit to enforce suspensions and so on and require additional employees. All this is to address a problem which is of course a problem and should receive some address. However an immense energy is applied to about one tenth of the real problem; the application is grossly unfair, and the essential problem remains unaddressed. There is an analogy to war—sometimes war is unavoidable; sometimes necessary. Other wars are a wasteful diversion of resources. And over and above this, the individuals who are punished are not criminal types in general (that they are contributing members of society is one reason that it is possible to have high fines) they are contributing members of society and as a result of restrictions the contribution to society is diminished. The DUI politics is a politic that is intended (probably) to make the world safer but is barely effective because it does not address the primary problem; it uses hysteria to focus on an easy and obvious target while way of the mark of the real and much larger target; and it is done at expense to society

I should emphasize that nowhere should my comments be interpreted to say that impairment in driving is OK. What I do argue is that equal impairment should be treated equally; and that there should be a rational approach to all traffic accidents that does not emphasize impairment, particularly alcohol related impairment, beyond proportion in relation to all factors. It is true that driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol can be reduced but so can other factors in accidents be reduced and therefore, first, a proper evaluation of the weights of the factors is necessary and, second, no factor should be singled out

The law and MADD regard a death caused by a drunken driver as murder. A first problem with this is that if the driver’s BAC is .08%, the death is presumed to be the result of alcohol. If alcohol is the cause, it is presumed to be premeditated. While responsibility cannot be absolved, the legal criteria for premeditation are not met; it is the political climate that allows it to be regarded as having been met. If it is regarded as having been met, any impairment should be treated equally (if known.) Further, the application of the law and MADD campaigning, if based on faulty interpretation that is easily known to be faulty, and if resulting in severer penalty than just, also constitute criminal acts and should be punished… The principle is that equal harm should be treated equally (what does this say for dishonest politicians who gain personally at taxpayer expense or those who misrepresent facts to send men to war to die?) The law is legally above the law in some essential ways and therefore the judicial and legislative systems have certain legal protections; however in any moral sense these systems are not above LAW and are subject to judgment and punishment. However, actions by dishonest politicians are criminal and by misrepresentation by MADD is criminizable and consequently punishable

Perhaps I am being harsh. But I am not being harsher than MADD and the rest of the “DUI industry.” The essential area where this article could be improved is careful analysis of effect of law versus safety. It remains true, however, that (1) The analysis here is a vast improvement over the net analyses of the DUI industry and consequently the approaches suggested here would result in a far better and safer society than the single focus approach of that industry and (2) The present approach is the best approach in absolute terms (it can be improved but only in the details.) The example of the narrow focus of the DUI industry is brought out by the comment of a MADD official when confronted with the fact that cell phone use is as dangerous as other impairment and should therefore be equally punishable: “I don’t care!” A clear example of ideological hypocrisy

Before closing there are further issues I would like to address. We have become a fear based society. There are two components to this. First, the distortion of information by politicians and the news media… this distortion is multidimensional. In addition to distortion, there is repetition. The Bush administration may have lied about WMD in Iraq. If it can be proved that they lied then they are responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths. What punishment should these people get if they are guilty? Yet they go free. The second component is the kind of information we report. It is high profile information. The terrorist… the drunken driver… the loaded firearm… We apply so much emotion and so much of our resources to terrorism; I can assure that China and Russia are much greater threats to our long term security. The politician reduces funds to state universities as though education is a benefit only to the individual; by eroding our education base in science and engineering, we erode the base of technological, economic, and military power. The effort and emotion inverted in drunken driving results in the feeling that we are doing something while in fact we are grossly unfair in our punishments while we also ignore the real source of the carnage on our highways (and it is a simple statistic that far more children die every year in backyard swimming pools than die as the result of firearm accidents; I cite this as an example of emotional distortion of emphasis: we are far more concerned about an accidental shooting death because it is ‘high profile’ compared to the swimming pool drowning—an example of our irrationality which we would do well to overcome and so truly make our society the safest we can with our given resources.) But perhaps we have become lazy. We want simple answers to complex problems. We want to discharge our emotional pain on easy targets. We do not want to undertake the difficult problem of identifying actual problems and allocating limited resources to their best resolution. We like this; our politicians like this; the corporations like it; we have found the victim and it is us