leff@smu.UUCP (11/26/83)
#N:smu:16500006:000:5611 smu!leff Nov 25 16:14:00 1983 As we approach this holiday season, there will be calls from various parties and groups to get tough with drunk drivers. However, is drunk driving a criminal matter or should it be handled as an administrative matter? That is a person who is caught driving drunk should have their license revoked and should be required to pay a fine proportional to their income. This is similar to the way a person who builds an unsafe building or pollutes the environment is handled (with the exception of the proportionality part). The only people who should receive a jail sentence is someone who drives with their license revoked. This would have several advantages: 1. The punishment would be handled cheaper than going through the courts. The courts are designed to handle criminal matters and prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A matter for a criminal trial requires the presence of the defendant, his lawyer, the district attorney, the court reporter. An administrative matter could be handled by an administrative law judge and the defendant in most cases. This would reduce the expense. 2. It would eliminate plea bargaining. Currently in Dallas county, anyone who is charged with a first time drunk driving offense is offered a chance to get a way with probation and a $400.00 fine. That is they keep their license and they serve no jail time. An administrative system being cheaper and having a less strong standard of proof would be able to impose stronger sentences (a proposal as to what they are will be outlined later.) 3. Most drunk drivers are not criminals. Many people who are basically law abiding folks and who hold responsible positions in society drink more than the allowable amount. If arrested they may be thrown in jail if there is no one around to make bail where they are in physical danger from violent individuals who fit our stereotype of 'criminal.' They will be strip searched as a routine matter. I know of at least two people who drove home and who were slightly above the legal alcohol limit. They were wrong in what they did but did not deserve the physical danger and abuse present in a jail environment. I hear the same thing from police and lawyers associated with the criminal justice system. 4. In Texas there is a tendency for police not to charge people with drunk driving but the less offense of 'drunk in car.' Drunk in car is a violation of a municipal ordnance which leads to a $200.00 fine paid to the town. If they are charged with driving while intoxicated the fine is paid tothe county. Knowledgeable people have estimated that in two towns in the Dallas area, 40% of all drunk drivers are charged with drunk in car. This makes more money for the town who is paying the police officer. (This admittedly is a peculiarity of the Texas law which probably does not apply to other states.) 5. Last but not least, an administrative penalty is more on the lines of how we handle other gross negligence issues. A polluter, an employer who maintains unsafe working conditions, and a doctor who recommends unneeded surgery to make more money may be shut down (have their license revoked.) A drunk driver is not intentionally harming someone, just being extremely negligent. Of course if a doctor who has his license revoked continues practicing medice or a polluter continues polluting after being ordered to stop, they can be jailed for practicing medicine without a license or contempt of court, etc. The administrative penalty structure I propose is: first offense: loss of license for one year (mandatory), a fine equal to ten percent of one year's income paid monthly. minimum $200.00) second offense: permanent loss of license, a fine equal to thirty per cent of five year's income paid monthly. This is a lot more severe than any penalty that is used in any place that I know about. It can handled cheaply since it can be imposed by an administrative judge. Also a breathalyzer test or the failure to take such a test can be used here since no criminal guilt is involved. If a person refused to take a breathalyzer test it is the policeman's word against his. Now in some cases, videotapes and the like can help but is not as conclusive. F. Lee Bailey beat a drunk driving rap by 1. refusing to take a breathalyzer test. 2. when questioned about it in court he claimed the policeman was drunk. The jury bought it hook, line and sinker. In an administrative system, failure to take a breathalyzer test can be used as grounds for assessing the fine. Driving is a priveledge, not a right! What about people who use their cars in their work, i. e. taxicab drivers, delivery men, computer repairmen, etc. If the person was not engaged in practicing their profession when arrested arrangements could be made to allow them to drive in practicing their profession, e. g. when in company car or during certain hours etc and to have such restriction stamped on their license. To discourage using this exception indiscriminately, the penalties should be twice as severe. That is for a first offense, they should pay 20 per cent of their income instead of ten per cent and lose their license for other driving for two years. For a second offense, they should pay thirty per cent of their income for ten years and probably here the exception perhaps should not even apply. Of course if they were caught drunk while on the job, too bad. I think many people might be drunk when driving home after a party but not on the job. To those who simply drive to work, tough. Take a cab, join a car pool, move or use a bike.