Introduction
In recent decades in the United States, relevant federal and state agencies have embarked on developing and implementing a series of deterrence laws targeted at reducing incidences of drunk driving. Specifically, some states are adopting severe jail sentences and license sanctions for drunk drivers, with the hope of preempting the possibility of drunk driving and its potential consequences.
To date, however, there is nothing much to show for these strict drink and driving laws, and available evidence demonstrates that the general public is yet to be deterred from drinking and driving by jail sentences and license sanctions. In light of this, the present paper seeks to evaluate if lengthy jail sentences and license sanctions are indeed effective in reducing alcohol-impaired driving in the United States.
Unmasking the Controversies
While it is clear that legal sanctions such as lengthy jail sentences and license cancellations are administered by the courts with the view to punishing the offenders and forcing compliance with the law, it appears that these sanctions are creating other challenges in the American society while demonstrating incapacity to deal with the real issue of drunk driving. The following sections provide a well-described account of each of the legal sanctions with the view to unmasking the controversies.
Mandatory Jail Sentences
We are often faced with rhetorical suppositions that imposing mandatory jail sentences on individuals who drink and drive will serve to modify their behavior due to the fact that imprisonment for drunk driving is perceived as being certain, swiftly applied and severe in line with the deterrence theoretical lens.
However, statistics released from law agencies demonstrate that more and more people are flouting drinking and driving laws even after having full knowledge that such an action as driving while drunk may be a sure ticket to a lengthy period of incarceration. Consequently, it would be prudent to argue that the jail sentence sanction as currently incorporated into the American drinking and driving laws lacks the potential or capacity to reduce drunk driving.
But as mentioned above, the implementation of the mandatory jail sentences for repeat drunk driving offenders in several states in the United States has generated other challenges, such as increase in drunken driving arrests, increase in court workloads, increase in incarceration rates, as well as increase in a variety of financial and non-financial strains placed on the correctional system.
Consequently, it is clear that while jail sentences for flouting drinking and driving laws have generated a whole new set of problems within the American society, there is minimal evidence to show that they are able to reduce recidivism among offenders who receive them.
In cases where it has been found that jail sentences may temporarily reduce recidivism for first-time offenders, it can always be countered that the benefits associated with the use of jail terms to improve the effectiveness of drinking and driving laws in the United States could also be achieved using less severe sanctions.
Following the above exposition of facts, therefore, one can always argue that the criminal sanction of mandatory jail sentences for repeat drunk driving offenders is controversial in that it is unable to achieve its objectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution.
Another controversy involving the sanction of mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders concerns whether this type of sanction has the capacity to achieve swiftness, certainty and severity in line with the deterrence theoretical perspective.
While it is known that the effectiveness of drinking and driving laws is to a large extent evaluated using these characteristics, the application of mandatory jail sentences depends on conviction for an offense following formal charging and pleading, not mentioning that such a process is contingent upon a finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the individual indeed committed a crime by driving under the intoxication of alcohol.
Owing to the fact that the traditional court process is often lengthy and, because of the rigorous standards of proof required to convict an individual for drunken driving, it can be argued that the sanction of mandatory jail sentences not only fails to achieve the objectives of swiftness, certainty and severity, but most guilty offenders end up obtaining the leniency of court for lack of sufficient evidence.
License Sanctions
Although license revocations and sanctions would appear to be an integral and indispensable component of removing drunk drivers from American highways, particularly in light of the fact that license sanctions have been positively correlated to reductions in recidivism, it is yet to be explained why more and more cases of drunk driving are being reported in the United States despite the deterrent effect of these sanctions.
Consequently, the main controversy here revolves around the fact that while there is no question that license revocations and suspensions has substantial effect in minimizing the accident and drunk driving frequency of already convicted offenders, there is no clear explanation as to why this type of sanction is unable to modify behavior of individuals who drive while drunk but are yet to be convicted of this crime.
Another controversy relates to the fact that although the United States judicial system exercises its jurisprudence in license revocations and suspensions for drunk driving, there is compelling evidence to demonstrate that many offenders continue to drive during periods of suspension and revocation due to the fact that the perceived risk of being identified and prosecuted for driving while suspended is exceptionally minimal. Such a scenario demonstrates that license sanctions may still not be effective in the fight against driving under the influence of alcohol.
The Way Forward
Following the above elucidation of controversies affecting drinking and driving laws in the United States, it is important to come up with the several recommendations to make these laws and sanctions more effective. In the context of mandatory jail sentences for repeat drunk driving offenders, it is recommended that the relevant agencies come up with social and administrative processes geared towards educating the driver about the dangers of drunk driving right from the driving school.
It is appropriate to include a rehabilitation component in dealing with drunken driving cases rather than condemn individuals to lengthy jail terms. In the event that the individual is a repeat offender, it should be the imperative of relevant agencies to commit such an individual to specialized facilities with referral to treatment and behavior modification, hence substantially reducing recidivism.
In the context of license revocations and suspensions, the recommendation for effectiveness is to always ensure that a solid strategy is put in place to ensure that drivers whose licenses have been cancelled or suspended are not allowed back into the roads. To achieve this, the government and other relevant agencies must invest adequate resources with the view to facilitating random roadside verification and testing procedures aimed at getting individuals who are still driving even after their licenses have been cancelled or suspended.