Firstly, it will engage the potential drunk driver with an understanding that their own narcissistic goals are not maximized by taking the profound risk of facing a mandatory prison sentence if they are caught (Friel, 2005). Secondly, it provides those individuals that are caught, prosecuted and imprisoned with valuable time to consider the misdeeds that they have done and rehabilitate themselves via an enforced and required sobriety program. Likewise, individuals that serve mandatory prison sentences might utilize the time spent within the prison system as a means of coming to grips with the way in which their alcohol abuse is destroying their life; and potentially destroying the lives of others as well.Another rationale for increasing the penalties of drunk driving is with respect to ensuring that the punishment for the crime matches the severity of the crime itself. This is mostly engaged with respect to the way in which attempted murder, armed robbery, assault, and other crimes are perpetrated. However, with respect to drunk driving, the potential to kill or otherwise maim several individuals at one time is dramatic (Gastil, 2000). As such, the penalty for an individual willingly making the decision to drive, even if they are fully aware of their inebriated nature, is worthy of the most severe level of punishment that society can provide. However, critics oftentimes point to complicating factors with respect to increasing the penalties for drunk driving. The first of these has to do with the way in which increasing drunk driving penalties would merely clog the prison system with nonviolent criminals. Furthermore, there is the added risk that nonviolent criminals will be exposed to other inmates and may very well turn to other types of crime as a result of the friendships and interactions that they make in prison. Another relevant concern for individuals that oppose stricter penalties for those that are caught drinking and driving has to do with the understanding that texting and driving now kills more individuals each and every year as compared to drinking and driving (Zhu, 1998). With such an understanding in mind, it is only rationale to promote stiffer penalties for texting and driving as compared to drinking and driving. As the reader can appropriately note, this leads to something of an infinite
Friel, B. (2005). Curbing the Carnage. (Cover story). National Journal, 37(26), 2040-2045.
Gastil, J. (2000). Thinking, Drinking, and Driving: Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action to DWI Prevention. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 30(11), 2217-2232.
Kesmodel, D. (2009, June 9). Drunk-Driving Foes Split on Severity of Penalties. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. p. A6.
Zhu, L. (1998). `Stinking drunk and still driving. State Legislatures, 24(3), 8.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples