non-criminal average citizens

Many lives would be saved by car crashes every year. If they are put into jail for at least 48 hours or more, they would learn from their mistakes most likely and won’t do it again. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * If there was more at stake for people, they would be more hesitant about making bad decisions. Drunk driving is a direct result of bad decisions. It doesn’t happen accidentally, and the people causing it are not victims. If the punishment for this horrid crime is harsher, maybe people would think a bit more and decide against getting behind a wheel and being irresponsible.

Posted by: 4uncLife Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Since most drunk drivers are otherwise non-criminal average citizens, I do think a mandatory jail sentence would decrease drunk driving. I do not feel that a small fine and temporary suspension of your driver’s license is a steep enough punishment to effectively deter drunk driving. But, I do think that a mandatory jail sentence would discourage the average citizen from committing that crime. Posted by: ToughEfrain26 Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Jail deters those who are currently freed and those who served the time.

Many of the cases of drunk driving are repeat offenders who received warnings, fines, or points on their licenses that drove up their auto insurance rates and other monetary fines but rarely any thing that made them stop driving drunk. Mandatory jail time for drunk driving literally drives the lesson home, that drunk driving will take the drunk driver away from their life. Increasing the jail time per incident also shows the increasing penalty for the decision and takes away the leniency of some judges who give a slap on the wrist until someone is killed. Posted by: Pir4And Report Post LikeReply 0 0 48 hours is a slap on the wrist to some. Being from a rural area, many people consume alcohol because there is simply, “nothing else to do”. These same people fight, drive and do other thoughtless acts because their brain is not processing the full concequences of their actions. People like this have run-ins with the law on a regular basis, so 48 hours in jail is a slap on the wrist to them. Two years ago two young boys were riding an ATV on the road in this same rural town when they were struck and killed by a drunk driver. This would have never happened had he been imprisoned for a few months.

Not many people can have a true life changing experience within two days. when 211 children die in one year thanks to drunk driving then something must be done to prevent drunk driving from ever occuring. At some point people will realize that drunk drivers are a threat to society and should be locked up for a long peoriod of time so that they can not hurt anyone, and hopefully change their ways. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I agree completely that a mandatory jail sentence on the first offense would decrease the number of drunken drivers.

If you have a mandatory sentence people would be less likely to drive under the influence, they would more likely to stay at home or use the common idea of a designated driver. There are repeat offenders I know that havent done a bit of jailtime for their crimes and they still drink and drive. They dont find the penalties that bad because they haven’t been properly punished. There are a select few who learn from their mistakes but that is few and far between. The treatments last 30 to 90 days and most alcoholics just go throught the paces and continue on their merry way.

The treatment plans aren’t working, so why not try this? Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * A mandatory jail sentence would help decrease the instances of drunk driving, because people would be more careful. You have a variety of people who get stopped for drunk driving. A mandatory jail sentence would help decrease the instances of drunk driving for those people who are more casual, or only social, drinkers. It might help some of those who love to party, but it is hard to say. Nothing would stop those who are alcoholics. Posted by: eyeslikethat Report Post LikeReply 0 0 Yes, a mandatory jail sentence will decrease the instances of drunk driving, because the perpetrators will be sitting in jail, instead of driving drunk on our streets. It has been shown, over and over, that people who drive drunk are often repeat offenders. They do this over and over. I don’t know if a stint in jail will stop them from drinking and driving, but at least it will remove them from the streets, so that they are not out there doing the same thing. I am sure that, for lots of people, the threat of an automatic jail sentence will also make them think twice about drinking and driving, or letting a friend or relative drink or drive.

Posted by: I0ckHead Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I believe drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense If there was a mandatory jail sentence for drunk drivers, there would be less of them on our roads. On average a drunk driver drives 87 times while intoxicated before being pulled over. And then they get pulled over, and get a warning, or fine, or points on their license. That’s it. If they have driven drunk before they probably will again if all they get is a warning. Think about all your loved ones on the road each day, they are being put in danger of being hit by a drunk driver. nd you’re saying it’s okay for people that drive drunk to get a slap on the wrist! If drunk drivers go to jail, even for 48 hours, they probably won’t do it again. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Because many drunk drivers do not consider themselves criminals, a jail sentence would re-frame the way the public thinks about drunk driving — not just a lapse in judgment but a crime. First of all, drinking is an inherent part of our culture and the line between social drinking and driving drunk can be a difficult one to judge, encouraging many to not take drunk driving seriously.

Moreover, many drinkers who might get a DUI do not engage in other criminal activity and do not consider drinking or it’s consequences to be a criminal offense. Attaching a jail sentence to a DUI would re-frame the way drinkers and the general public perceive a DUI and force them consider the consequences more seriously. A jail term carries a much heavier punishment (as well as social stigma) than the usual punishments for a DUI offense which would make it effective as a means to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol. Posted by: PeytonW

Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * You could end up killing sombody If you just get a slap on the wrist you will be urged just to drive intoxicated again. i mean think of your loved ones who are always playing in your yard and a drunk driver came crashing through your fence and kills your kids? how would that make you feel? In my opinion they should go to jail for at least a few days so when they get out they realize what they did was wrong and it would encourage them to never drive intoxicated again. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 I believe a mandatory jail sentence would decrease instances of drunk driving drastically because it would establish a clear unfavorable consequence for their behavior. When there is a mandatory sentence attached to a crime people are more likely to think twice before doing it. If a person knows that there is more chance than not of them going to jail they are less likely to do it because of the circumstances that would create such as losing your driver’s license, job, children and possibly your spouse. Most people would say that drinking and driving is not worth risking the loss of all those things. Posted by: N4nClar

Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Driving under the influence is a choice and any deterrent is totally warranted. I strongly believe that there should be zero tolerance for driving under the influence of alcohol. A mandatory jail sentence would send a clear message that it is unacceptable behaviour and people might think twice before doing it. Those who do the right thing have nothing to fear. Posted by: Mo2esDonaId Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * People are inherently scared of jail, so a mandatory sentence would help. A more severe punishment would almost certainly decrease the instances of drunk driving, to some extent.

People can deal with fines and community service, but jail is something that no person wants to experience. The fact that assaults occur in jail isn’t really justifiable, and needs to be addressed more thoroughly than it has been. But, it does make many terrified and, as such, stops people from committing severe crimes. Posted by: TwoVic Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I agree with your opinion. A jail sentence would be very helpful in decreasing drug driving. I agree because nowadays, drunk driving is not a crime. They give money to court and that settles that case. Then sometimes they repeat this again.

Mandatory jail sentence help decrease the instances of drunk driving. Posted by: 5h4ngMaxi Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Jail sentences will definitely reduce drunk driving instances. Jail sentences are usually effective in frightening people away from doing certain things. Because people with criminal records have fewer job opportunities and limited futures, people will generally avoid doing things that will get them imprisoned, such as murder, rape, and vandalism. If you start imprisoning people for drunk driving as well, then you will see a dramatic decrease in that area. Posted by: N0bIatina Report Post

LikeReply 0 0 * A no-tolerance policy on drunk driving would cause people to take the offense more seriously. Drinking and driving has contributed to thousands of accidents, injuries, and deaths. In my opinion, I believe a mandatory jail sentence for convicted offenders would cause people to seriously consider the consequences of drinking and driving. Taking a serious civil approach to the offense would cause friends and family to view drinking and driving as completely unacceptable. It would add a risk of job loss, public humiliation, and jail time, to the risks of injury, death and property damage.

Additionally, incarcerated offenders would not be putting other motorists at risk while they are locked up. Posted by: QuietWayne85 Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Cars are just like loaded guns – they can be used to kill If you take a loaded gun and walk around with your finger on the trigger everyone would agree that you might kill someone. At the very least you will be charged with negligent homicide and be imprisoned for 1-20 years. Why should driving a car while impaired be any different? You are intentionally using a potentially fatal machine while you are physically and mentally impaired.

People, it’s a no brainer. Posted by: handrews Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I believe that a mandatory jail sentence for drunk driving would definitely help to reduce the instances of drunk driving, because it would certainly get everyone’s attention. As long as the sentence is reasonable by being enough time to get the drunk driver’s attention, I believe that it would definitely help to reduce drunk driving. For many people, having to go to jail just one time would deter them from drinking and driving in the future. Many social drinkers would want to avoid a jail sentence, so they might change their ways.

I don’t believe it would go a long way in helping with repeat offenders, because these people have a problem with alcohol that needs to be addressed. Posted by: R0d0Ferdy Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Stop the Shaming Let those who are addicted get the treatment, counseling, medical attention, etc. , that they need. Jail won’t help the addiction. Shaming can cause the defendant to repeat the behavior. Some defendants have serious mental illnesses which require a physician’s care. They deserve to get it. Fortunately, most drunk driving incidents do not result in accidents, so it’s best to allow the defendant the opportunity to get help early on.

Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Being silly Just get rid of cars, they pollute kill people, animal(all that road kill), I’m constantly broke because its $5 a gallon. ever 5 years the damn thing breaks and have to go buy an even more expensive model, car companies discontinuing parts. Put a drunk behind a bicycle probably just fall over. BE SMART DON’T DRINK AND DRIVE Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * In 500 years no one will remember anyway Being a true believer in letting each do as they please, no one should be punished for anything they do.

The strong will survive, and the weak and lame will die. Simple as that. It would save the cost of government. Live and let live… die and let die. Callous statement to be sure. But, life is short. Over the course of thousands of years, it isn’t going to matter anyway. If you live to be 90 or 9, you’re just a speck in the universe. You won’t be missed or thought of at all in 500 years, so who should care. We’re all going to die sooner or later, so, it doesn’t really matter. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No. The DUI Process Should Focus on Health

The DUI Process should be an opportunity to investigate the defendant’s health and ensure that medical care is received. Many are suffering from serious health conditions including addiction. Addiction has an insidious onset and the drunk driver should not be blamed for being addicted. Treatment should be sought and maintained. Most drunk drivers are unaware they are over the legal limit. Second offenses will be reduced. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No, people get arrested and put in jail multiple times and still they drink and drive. Drunk people don’t even consider going to jail when they drive under the influence.

When people get behind the wheel that have had too much to drink, they don’t think of the consequences, period. Knowing that they might kill someone doesn’t deter them, why would a mandatory jail sentence? Repeat offenders are a perfect example. These people know for a fact that they will do time, but they do it anyway. I don’t see any way to keep people from drinking and driving unless there’s a breathalyzer attached to the ignition key and it is activated once the person [driver] is in the seat, and cannot be ‘tricked. ‘ THAT is a good idea. I just thought of it. Posted by: PinkMych Report Post

LikeReply 0 0 * Mandatory sentences haven’t proven to effectively lower the rate of any crimes. Mandatory sentences takes the human being out of the situation for both the prosecution and defense. Every scenario has extenuating circumstances that should be taken into consideration before imposing sentencing, mandatory or otherwise. Many of the people who get arrested for driving under the influence need rehabilitation. Our responsibility as a society should be to help people who are sick, and not punish them for doing the things that their sickness tells them to do. Posted by: TownNoam

Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No.. but in certain cases then jail is needed For the drivers that have a problem with the abuse of alcohol or drugs you always gotta see how to help them fix that problem first just punishment is not sufficient in their rehabilitation. I don’t feel that mandatory jail time is helpful in these cases specially where there was no injuries or deaths involved. In fact it might even make their situations worse if they lose their jobs and family because of incarceration. So in conclusion mandatory jail time should be applied accordingly to the specific case.

Intense treatment plans would work better in my opinion. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Preserve Judicial Discretion! Recognize that every person and every situation is unique. Sentencing is more effective when judges are allowed to make case-by-case decisions that factor in the circumstances of the individual. The statistic that “the average drunk driver drives 87 times before being pulled over” is irrelevant; in America, we are sentenced only for crimes in which we are convicted. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Defendants Need Treatment Some drunk drivers need alcohol treatment.

A jail sentence would result in a life-long resentment, no treatment and contribute to perpetuating active alcohol addiction, employment problems, financial problems, etc. Focus on treatment, not punishment. Tougher consequences should be imposed only if there is a serious accident. The majority of traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No, mandatory jail sentences would not help decrease the instances of drunk driving. Penalties right now are very harsh, and people who are going to drink and drive will do it no matter what the penalties are.

No, mandatory jail sentences would not help decrease the instances of drunk driving because penalties right now are very harsh and costly. People who are going to drink and drive are going to do it no matter what the penalties are. The instance of drunk driving have been decreasing recently and it would be very costly for taxpayers to incarcerate more people. People who drink and drive don’t think about the penalties before doing so or they wouldn’t be drinking and driving now. Posted by: MycCra2ii Report Post LikeReply 0 0 Where it is the culture to drink, no regulations that assume personal responsibility will work, we should focus on taverns who over serve their customers. It is law in most states that bartenders are responsible for not allowing a patron to become too intoxicated, yet it is only enforced if someone dies because of a drunken customer. The bartender is obviously in a situation of being in a conflict of interest, as the more he or she sells, the more they make. If bartenders were more responsible, and it wasn’t the culture to drink, we would have far less drunk drivers. Posted by: daveyxh Report Post LikeReply 0 * I disagree with mandatory jail sentences for drunk driving because I think that raising awareness would be more effective. I do think that repeat offenders and those whose impaired driving takes a life or causes sever injury should receive jail sentences, but a mandatory jail sentence for a first offense might cause a life or family unit to be ruined due to a lapse in judgment. I think raising awareness about what constitutes drunk driving is key — many people feel that there is a difference between “driving drunk” and “driving buzzed,” but in the eyes of the law the difference is not that apparent.

I think that learning what constitutes “impaired” driving would help a lot of people understand when it’s time to had over the keys. I think that effective public transport could help a lot. Posted by: Shim2free Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Small Chance of Fatality You have a greater chance of being killed by a gun than a drunk driver. You also have a greater chance of being killed by a texter, speeder, or general negligent sober driver, than a drunk driver. The DUI Process takes all the money away from the drunk driver that he/she needs for medical care.

Without medical care, there’s an increased chance of a drunk driving incident. Alcoholism is a disease that requires care, just like cancer, diabetes or heart disease. Posted by: Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 What’s Popular Now Are atheists being persecuted in America? Should there be routine HIV testing for all adults? Is the Department of Education making too much profit off of struggling students? Are doctors to blame for prescription drug abuse? Should coaches give players equal playing time? From Around the Web Cheapest Car Insurance for Young Drivers

Best Gerber Daisy Wedding Bouquets Best Used Cars Under 10000 A Secret Phone Companies Don’t Want You to Know Rare Discovery Could Extend Your Life by 30 Years ? * ————————————————- ————————————————- Comments (0) ————————————————- * ————————————————- ————————————————- Replies (0) ————————————————- No comments yet. Leave a comment… (Maximum 900 words) Related Opinions Are you proud to be an American? * Should developed countries cancel debt of developing countries? * Is Africa on the rise? * Does Republican equal conservative? * Should Republicans change their stance on the Violence Against Women Act? * Could momentum in the political world for gay rights actually limit momentum in the legal world? * Should the government help homeowners with underwater mortgages? * Should Republicans give up their fight against Planned Parenthood? Copyright © 2013 Debate. org. All rights reserved. Home | About | Blog | Feedback | Privacy | Terms | Help | Site Map