Nicole looked across the room at Andy, who was pouring back another shot of Jose Cuervo. "Andy, you ready to go," she called to him. "Yes, ma'am. You're driving, right," he replied. "Yep, I only drank four beers," Nicole stated. They headed home around two o'clock am, swerving across the dotted line with confidence. They did this sort of thing every weekend, never realizing the danger in it. One of the two would offer to be the designated driver, and just promise not to drink quite as heavily. In this particular situation, the teenagers were lucky enough to not wreck; many drunk drivers are not so lucky. Drinking and driving is a crime that is taken lightly by those who are not even old enough to drink. From personal experience, I can recall times when I'd hear high school guys showing off about how drunk they were, and about how they did not know how they managed to drive home.
Aside from the fact that most people do not take drinking and driving seriously, most people also do not associate it with other criminal behaviors. In the year 2000 alone, 16,653 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol. There is also evidence that drivers aged 21-29, drive the greatest proportion of their miles drunk (MADD online 1). Driving while either intoxicated or drunk is dangerous because the driver is at an increased risk of car accidents. In fact, each year over 20% of all traffic fatalities in the United States are a result of drunk driving. It is also true that alcohol is far more likely to be a factor in fatal crashes at night than at daytime, and nearly half of all fatal accidents involving a drunk driver occur during the weekend (White House Drug Policy 1).
With an understanding of facts such as these, the behavior of drinking and driving can be better recognized as a crime. The danger that results from impaired driving is serious, and can easily affect all the innocent citizens of this nation. As a violation of public safety, impaired driving is defined as a criminal behavior, and is punished accordingly. Most who act in such a criminal manner, do not realize the potential harm that they are creating for others. Because of this cultural belief, many continue to commit the crime, unknowing of its negative effects.
Although the majority of it remains unnoticed, most of the existing drunk driving is detected by the police. Police officers could work much harder at protecting our citizens and arresting drunk drivers. "In many communities, for every drunk driver arrested by police another 500 to 2000 are not" (Golden 33). Most drunk drivers have no fear of getting caught because of this. Police officers should be better trained for detection and arresting drunk drivers. The judicial system also presents a problem in the arrest process of these criminals. Many times, after a number of continuances in the courtroom, drinking and driving arrest cases are just forgotten about or dropped. Police officers and judges have too many other cases within the six- month wait for a re-trial to remember every case. Wasting too much time with arrest procedures leads to no punishment at all, and allows the criminal to continue with their behavior (Young).
A way in which the public detects the criminal behavior is dramatically stated with every car crash resulting from drunk driving. Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving also help make the public aware of the problem. Detecting presently occurring acts of drunk driving would have to involve other drivers informing the police of dangerous, under-the-influence drivers. The job of detecting drunk driving is tough and usually does not happen until the damage has already been done.
Matt Young, a Raleigh Highway Patrol Officer, had a lot to say in a personal interview about the arrest process for drunk drivers and those who are most likely to be arrested. In Raleigh, North Carolina, the majority of arrests made are for DUI's and DWI's. Young states that when stopping impaired drivers, a major obstacle is encountered when trying to understand non-English speakers. Sometimes they do not carry identification, and do not speak enough English to even be arrested or given a ticket. For this reason, many Hispanics are let off the hook and sometimes, even avoided on the road. Many other officers are known to avoid dealing with such situations also.
In the Raleigh courtroom, Young complains that drunk driving arrests are also the hardest to make. Not only is the Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level required, but, proof of intoxication is necessary in addition. Even when the BAC in certain cases exceeds 0.12 or 0.13, and intoxication tests are taken, there are still ways around an arrest. The defendant's lawyer usually comes up with an extensive excuse for their sobriety, and the defendant remains uncharged.
There is not really a science to looking at which criminals are the most likely to be arrested. In certain areas, different people are arrested. For example, around college campuses, the majority of DUI and DWI arrests are located within the college population. According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, in the year 2000, males comprised 83% of DUI arrests, and females 17%. The male to female ratio of arrests for DUI's remains fairly consistent in past years. The white population also leads the number of arrests for DUI's in the year 2000 at 88.2% of the total number arrested. The African American population only makes up 9.6% of the total DUI arrests. American Indian or Alaskan Native arrests only come out to 3.0% of DUI arrests, and Asian or Pacific Islanders only comprise 0.8% of the DUI-charged population. These percentages may reflect which group is committing the most drunk driving crimes, but may also only reflect these totals in relation to the size of the population in each group. For example, the reason the white population has the highest percent arrested is because most of the U.S. population is white. The majority of criminals tend to be male, age 25-35, and have a history of DWI or DUI convictions and poly-drug abuse. Another factor that may lead to more frequent drinking and driving is social status. One must possess enough money to afford alcohol to drink and a car with which to drive drunk. Or in some cases, these materials could be stolen and then used to commit the crime.
It is necessary to discuss what actions constitute the offense of impaired driving.
The N.C. General Statutes state that "a person is guilty of the offense of impaired driving if that person drives a vehicle other than a riding lawn mower, bicycle or horse, on a highway, a street, or a public vehicular area while under the influence of an impairing substance or with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at any relevant time after the driving" (Loeb and Drennan 77). This is the most basic and necessary group of assumptions in assessing this criminal behavior. There are two specific theories to follow when convicting an impaired driver. The first is called the Impairment Theory, in which no particular form of evidence is required, except evidence of some impairing substance, by some means. Even if a person does not blow a 0.08 or above, they still may be guilty based on other grounds, such as the way a vehicle is operated, personal demeanor, pinpoint pupils, lack of muscular coordination, a mental stupor, etc. The second theory is called Per Se Theory, in which the level of impairment is not relevant. The crime, in accordance to this theory, is understood as committed if alcohol concentration exceeds the stated level (79-80).
Once convicted for impaired driving under these conditions, sentencing for the crime becomes the next step. In any DUI or DWI case there are no prayer for judgments allowed. There are five possible levels of punishment; determination of these depends on the presence of grossly aggravating factors. The more factors a person has, the higher the level of punishment they will receive (81). Punishment at level one is the most severe, and results from two or more existing grossly aggravating factors. A person may receive up to two years in prison, a $4000 fine, or both. The least punishment at this level is thirty days in prison. Level five is the least severe and is received only if there are no grossly aggravating factors and no other factors involved. The punishment at level five ranges from 60 days in prison, a $200 fine, or both, to 24 hours jail-time/community service (92). In addition to all of these punishments, every conviction adds twelve points to one's insurance. These punishments aside, this criminal behavior still occurs.
In trying to understand the reasons for the existence of impaired driving we can look at two different theories. Neutralization theory is strongly supported by this behavior. By assessing the key question, "Why do men and women violate the laws that they believe," we can incorporate reasons for drinking and driving. In such a crime, most offenders live their lives 90% of the time within mainstream ideals, as drinking and driving may or may not be an everyday occurrence. Therefore, the few times an individual does choose to drift into the path of deviance, the choice may seem less criminal. Because of the belief that the criminal behavior does not lead their lifestyle, justification is automatic.
An individual who chooses to drink and drive may justify their actions by denying responsibility and explaining how "no one else could drive," or they "did not mean to wreck-it was an accident." Another technique for justifying their behavior might include denial of injury. This could result from the repeated action of impaired driving, and being lucky enough to not wreck. In such situations, clearly, no one is hurt, and no problem is posed. A more popular technique for justification might be in condemnation of the condemners. When men and women are accused for a crime in which no trouble was caused, it is very common to compare that behavior to a crime of greater severity. For example, one may believe contributing to drug addiction or committing murder is a lot more serious than drinking and driving. Someone may also feel that their motives are non-criminal in comparison to a serial killer's. In considering the ease of this crime, both objective availability and subjective acceptability are easily assessed. Not many resources or connections are needed for drinking and driving. The tools go no further than alcohol and a vehicle. A criminal might also be more willing to accept this action because they view it as less deviant.
The Deterrence/Rational Choice Theory is also helpful in explaining the criminal behavior of drinking and driving, and how it is a product of a rational assessment of costs and benefits. The theory assumes that the probability of committing a crime depends on the potential pains of punishments and on the potential pleasures of the rewards associated with law violations. In the case of drinking and driving, most behavior is based on the assumption that one will not get caught, and therefore, the cost of the potential pain of punishment is very low. Deterrence theory focuses on the role of costs in explaining criminal violations. General deterrence involves efforts to make the public fear the punishment of the crime, and as a result, believe it too costly to commit. When caught drinking and driving, sanctions may include anything from a warning to fines, jail time, and loss of driving privileges. Sometimes cars and tags are impounded for a certain number of months or days. These punishments may or may not be severe enough based on individual perception, but more so, may not be likely to be administered. Many criminals that choose to drink and drive do so because the certainty of punishment is not very high. Most drunk drivers go unnoticed, and do not view their behavior as criminal because they don't get caught. One could analyze the number of arrests to number of crimes reported, and see the risk ratio, but so many instances will go undetected, causing the calculation to be ineffective. The tipping effect illustrates that a certain level of certainty must be reached before any reduction in the crime rate occurs. This would explain why drinking and driving occurs so frequently. The risk of getting caught and receiving punishment is extremely low, and until a higher level of certainty is reached, the behavior will continue.
In discussing these theories of criminal behavior, I have found it more easy to suggest solutions for the behavior. One of the best solutions would be to make a law requiring all vehicles to be manufactured with an alcohol ignition interlock recorder system. Blood alcohol concentration levels are measured before and during driving to prevent from someone else blowing into the interlock, allowing a vehicle to sit and avoid a retest, or to prevent the usage of stored air samples. The BAC greater than 0.04% would be the failure level, and if reached, the ignition would be unable to start; drunk driving would be virtually impossible. The purpose of this system is solely for safety enforcement, as safety should be the foremost concern. Thus, the system could be enforced as a law protecting the safety of our nation. The interlock recorder has been shown to be from 50%-100% effective in reduction of recidivism of DUI offenders. The costs of the program are quite high though. Many citizens would be opposed to this system, especially those who do not drink, or those who do not drink and drive. It might be a hassle for them to be required to blow into the interlock system every time they get into the car, especially if they never drink. One could say that the cost of lost lives is a much greater threat than the cost of a simple breath or the cost of the systems.
Since 1982, zero tolerance laws for youth under 21 years of age have been passed, and the resulting alcohol-related fatality rate has been cut in half (Substance Abuse 2). If zero tolerance laws were passed for those of all ages, it is possible that the same result would happen among all drivers; perhaps all age groups would have a lower alcohol-related fatality rate.
One change the police could make in helping to instill fear in the population of drunk drivers would be to have many more DWI checkpoints, at all times. Between the hours of 10pm and 2am on Friday through Sunday nights are the most frequent times of alcohol-related crashes. More DWI checkpoints at these times would also be helpful. Lowering the legal BAC limit to 0.06 or 0.04 might remove some of the drunk drivers from the road, either by causing more risk to drive, or by arresting more who are driving drunk.
There are also a lot of improvements that can be made locally within communities across the U.S. The first important step is to increase awareness of drunk driving as a criminal behavior, and advertise the punishments. Communities can provide after school recreational programs or community-based mentoring, parent training programs, programs preventing family violence, DARE programs in schools, peer-group counseling, etc. These programs can be either non-profit organizations or government regulated. Police need to have direct patrol in crime hot spots, rapid response time, foot patrol, and neighborhood watch.
There are so many options for remedial interventions in the drunk driving problem. The first step though, needs to be informing the public and getting the word out on how they too can help save lives. It is shocking to think that so many deaths could be prevented each year, by simply spending the time and energy to begin extra police training or add additional functions to automobiles. Our nation should focus on the problem instead of just ignoring it because of how out of control it is and hard it is to deal with. No one can predict when someone who has been drinking will get behind the wheel, and no one knows when the next curve they speed around will be their last.