Drunk Driving punishment (kind of long)

[Dan Rutter]

I realize this could maybe go into Politics, but Justice is more of a Philosophy issue. I am not sure if anyone else has thought of this before, if they have let the forum know where any of their information can be found. Drunk driving obviously is somewhat of a problem in the United States. What I am wondering though is if the way we punish those who drive drunk a justifiable punishment. The basic way I want to look at this is by taking a hypothetical example of someone who drove drunk, and was caught, and taking another hypothetical example of someone who drove drunk, and killed someone, and was caught.

First, I want to point out that some of the statistics needed involving these hypothetical cases may not be available in the real world. Second, I am not arguing what the punishment for someone who drove drunk, and killed someone should be. I feel it should be a bigger punishment then it is right now. I hung out with one person and who killed someone by drunk driving, and he received 10 years in prison for his action. So these hypothetical cases will assume that justice is served if someone who kills another human being, as result of their drunk driving, receives 10 years in prison. You can argue for a higher or lower sentence, it does not matter to this argument. We just need a precedent for how long the person will be in prison, so 10 years.

Ok, Person A has spent his Saturday night drinking at a bar two miles from his home. He has a Blood Alcohol Content level of .2, as he leaves the bar at 1:00 a.m. He gets in his car and starts driving home. He approaches a red light on his way home at 1:10 a.m., he does not recognize the fact that the light is red, and he drives through it. A police officer sees the action, and pulls Person A over. Person A is arrested for drunk driving first offense.

Person B has spent his Saturday night drinking at a bar two miles from his home. He has a Blood Alcohol Content level of .2, as he leaves the bar at 1:00 a.m. He gets in his car and starts driving home. He approaches a red light on his way home at 1:10 a.m., he does not recognize the fact that the light is red, and he starts to drive through it. Someone going through his or her green light ends up in the way of Person B’s vehicle. Person B hits this person’s vehicle. The green light driver is killed. Person B is arrested at the scene, and eventually is sentenced to 10 years in prison. This was Person B’s first drunk driving incident in which he was caught.

Overall did Person A and Person B do anything different? No, they both did the same exact thing. Both left the bar thinking, “I am not drunk”, or “I will be fine nothing will happen”. Or, “I won’t likely be caught”. Or even, “I am a good drunk driver”. Maybe they did not think anything. The point is neither thought or did anything different. This is not a case where Person C stole a bottle of whiskey from a gas station, and Person D robbed a gas station at gunpoint for $75. Those two people while doing the same technical thing, robbing or stealing from the gas station, they did it at different levels of crime. Person A, and B did the same thing, they both drank and drove. So is the only reason that Person B should receive a harsher punishment then Person A, is that he was unlucky that someone was driving in the intersection while he was running a red-light. His unluckiness ends up killing someone.

You can look at that Person B was unlucky, but maybe Person A was lucky. Maybe 60% of the time some car is in the intersection, and in the path of Person A’s, and Person B’s car as Person A, or Person B is driving through a red light. So maybe Person A was statistically lucky not to hit someone. To be clear maybe Person A, and B both had a 60% chance to hit someone at 1:10 a.m., at the intersection, and Person A got lucky to not hit anyone. Statistics like this would be hard to use in drunk driving punishment instances, because statistics would need to be available for every single situation that could involve vehicle travel. What if punishment was based upon the likelihood someone will die as a result of drunk driving?

So, remember 10 years in prison is the punishment if you kill someone. Now we will use the .2 BAC level. Lets assume that statistics show that those people who drive drunk at a .2 BAC level end up causing a fatal accident 5 percent of the time they drive. Punishment is then based on these numbers. Take 5 percent of 10 years, and we get 6 months. This could then be the prison sentence whether or not you are just a first offense drunk driver, or you wind up killing someone. If you are just a first offense drunk driver, you still pay some fines, and higher insurance. If you wind up killing someone you still pay restitution to the victim’s family.

Now it may be argued that this will set precedent for other things, and law will soon be out of control. For example say 2 percent of domestic abuse cases, end up in the man killing the woman. So could we then use the formula for drunk driving in this case? While not downplaying the severity of domestic abuse cases the answer is no. The situations are different, because the man in the domestic abuse case has control over his intentions. He could be some guy who just hits the woman in his life a few times, and then she calls the cops. He could never ever be willing to go as far as killing her. Some may want to dispute the fact that a man in that situation has control over his intentions. That is fine, and it may be true. The drunk driver does not have control over his intentions. Both Person A, and Person B plan on driving home fine, neither has control over this, the alcohol does. Neither can say I will drive until I am about to kill someone, then I will stop before I kill them (again not downplaying domestic abuse cases). That person is dead before the drunk can do anything about it.

One reason that people would not accept this punishment is that people would never accept the fact that the two people did the same exact things. They would always think that Person B is the worse person because he actually killed someone. The fact is, is that they are equally as bad. Would people think that a 19 first time offender who killed someone as a result of his drunken driving, is just as bad as a 6 time drunk driving offender who just has been pulled over and arrested each time? The 6-time offender never killed anyone as a result of his drunken driving. The 19 year old is probably going to look worst in the public eye. Why? He’s done the same thing as the other guy, he just got statistically unlucky.

I would think that punishment based on a system like this would deter more people from drunk driving. Right now people who drink and drive are really not thinking that they may kill someone. Hell, I knew that guy that killed someone, guess what a lot of my friends are doing 3 years later, drinking and driving. Most people think that they will avoid the cops, and not get caught. At worst they have a punishment that is not really the biggest deal in the world. Now if people faced the prospect of facing prison time, based on their statistical likelihood of killing someone as a result of their drunken driving, they may be less likely to do so. Sure you will still have a-holes who won’t care either way, but I think that this punishment is more logical, and would deter more people.

So my basic question is, has a person who has just drank liquor and drove, and got ticketed done anything different, then someone who drank liquor and drove, and ended up killing someone as a result? If not, should their punishment be the same?

If some of this does not make sense I will try and clarify.

[chezlaw]

I agree with your approach. If two people drive their car whilst blind drunk and its just a matter of luck that one has an accident and the other doesn't, then in principle they deserve the same punishment.

In practice I suspect its impossible to make this work. People are too results oriented.

chez

[David Sklansky]

Poker, Gaming and Life. Page 199.