Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Robin from Los Altos on May 19, 2007:

I've long thought that the standard penalty for a first time drunk driving offense should be up to the defendant: you can temporarily lose either your driving privileges, or your drinking privileges. If you need to continue driving in order to support your family, be prepared to completely give up alcohol for the duration of the sentence. (This could be enforced by wearing a non-removable bracelet that bartenders would look for.)

Posted by Gary, St Albans, UK on May 19, 2007:

On the subject of drunk drivers, some years back I was given the opportunity to take a test and went with a friend and his wife. The test was to:

(i) drive an obstacle course on an old airfield, get marked,
(ii) have a drink, wait, give a breath-alcohol sample, do the course again, get marked,
(iii) have a drink, wait, give a breath-alcohol sample, do the course again, etc.

Drink was in measured units of alcohol and came as spirits, wine or beer.

My friend, a well-built army major, scored 89, 92, 91, 94, 92 and 94 out of a hundred whilst drinking brandy.

His wife, a small lady who didn't drink, was persuaded to drink brandy also (in the interests of science). Her scores were 73, 61, 0, 0, 0, 0. After the second test, she failed to be able to start the car (in fact she failed to get in it) and the test was abandoned. She was still sleeping when she reached home in the bus provided.

I mentioned this to a colleague, a psychologist, in the context of having a fixed level of alcohol per unit of blood as a determinant of guilt. The colleague said that the trouble was that if people learn a skill whilst sober, they will not perform well when drunk. However, if they learn it whilst drunk, they should perform well...

Should there be two driving tests?

On the subject of public humiliation as or instead of a punishment, I recall an US press article which told of a sheriff or Gaol Warden who punished misbehaving inmates by putting them on a diet of baby food for a week. Unlike those who had been put in solitary and boasted how well they had coped, those on baby food seemed never to boast of how they had survived the week and they seemed to be reformed characters.

I rather admire the US system that allows imaginative punishments, and to some extent regret the passing of the village stocks or pillory.

However, as far as the water-balloon equipped fireman is concerned, I get the impression that he is probably an alcoholic and is more likely to learn not to go in public dressed as he was than not to drive whilst drunk.

---

For confused Yanks, "gaol" is the Brit spelling of jail. -rc

Posted by John, Washington on May 19, 2007:

"WHY are there people with dozens of DUI convictions still out there driving?"

Because too many of them are legislators?

---

An insightful thought indeed. -rc

Posted by Andy, Mission Viejo, CA on May 21, 2007:

First, let me say that drunk drivers should have the book thrown at them. And that I have never been cited (or even tested) for drunk driving.

That being said, I wonder if the blood alcohol levels currently used are too arbitrary. I.e. there are people who are completely capable of driving with a .08 blood alcohol level while at the same time there are far more dangerous elderly drivers out there.

Just food for thought.

Posted by Michael, Adelaide, Australia on July 6, 2007:

I do not condone Drunk Driving, but in his defence he did it in a Park and not on an open road (if my understanding of "Park" is the same as yours). As for wearing the Bikini, he had more clothes on, than had he done the same thing, wearing only Mens Swimmers. On the subject of the Wig, Male Pattern Baldness isn't a joke and many Men fear it greatly. As for the Chinese Safety Boots, no comment.

---

A "park" here is typically a grassy area, perhaps with some swings and such, perhaps a pond, some benches, etc. for recreation. It's typically a place to take children, which isn't the best place for drunk drivers to practice their maneuvers. -rc

Posted by Josh, Seattle on July 7, 2007:

Many people have commented on the arbitrary nature of blood alcohol levels as measures of intoxication. There is some truth to that. But on the other hand, an enforceable law needs to set standards that are reasonably clear to the subjects of the law, and objectively verifiable to the enforcers of the law.

A .08 BAC will seriously impair some people, and have almost no effect on other people. But if the goal of the law is to stop people from driving when they are impaired by alcohol, setting a standard that leaves some drivers only slightly impaired is not a problem, it's a good idea.

The real question should be whether a level high enough to have any drivers seriously impaired is tough enough -- shouldn't the law set a standard tight enough that the vast majority of drivers will not be significantly impaired?

As for the addiction issue, yes, addiction is a medical problem, not a moral failing. But preventing drunk driving is a public health issue, not a moral campaign.

If a tuberculosis patient won't stick to treatment, the government can confine him indefinitely until he poses no risk to the public. That's hardly controversial, yet how few people actually die of TB each year in the U.S.?

The same standard should apply to people who cannot control their drinking yet continue to drive -- if we cannot stop them from drinking, we must stop them from driving, even if that means locking them up when other measures fail. Not because we need to punish them, but because we need to protect the public from a genuine public health menace that kills and maims tens of thousands of us every year.

Posted by Beth, North Carolina on July 7, 2007:

Ten years ago, my husband's aunt was killed by a drunk driver who was driving on a suspended license after three previous DUI convictions.

While I have no problem with men who want to dress as women and enter contests for such (that's entirely their business), I do have problems with people who drive drunk, because they've just made it my business by getting behind the wheel impaired.

I favor much stricter first-offense penalties, that is, penalties so severe that they might actually deter people from driving impaired. BTW, I also favor driver's licenses to be renewed every three years over age 70, every two years over age 75, and every year over age 80, with a mandatory road test after age 75. I don't think of that as "penalizing" drivers for being old, but having lived in states with large populations of older folks, and working with the elderly, I am vividly aware of people whose vision and reflexes are not what they once were ... but who think they're fine. Ever had to stop a nearly blind woman from pouring hot coffee over her wrist instead of into the cup?

Posted by Valerie, Seattle on July 7, 2007:

The real question is... was it a thong bikini??????????

---

I, for one, certainly don't want to know. -rc

Posted by Dan, New Jersey on July 7, 2007:

Well, by way of comparison, let me briefly give you my example. My spouse's check to my insurance company had bounced. (My stupid fault for not noticing.)

At a routine traffic stop shortly after, I was ticketed for driving while uninsured (yes, I fixed the bill the next day). After hearing my story, the judge sentenced me to a $500 fine, court costs, $1000 payment to the state uninsured drivers' fund, $250 state surcharge for 3 years, FULL loss of license for a year and 35 hours community service. (My insurance increased $2000 for 3 years also.) There's no statute of limitations on this violation, and a second mishap mandates jail time; no, it's never going to happen!

So when a guy willingly drives drunk and puts others in danger while he makes a fool of himself, forgive me for having no sympathy.

---

Wow: that makes the fine (etc.) for driving uninsured far higher than many first offenses of driving drunk. Both are obviously a problem, but it sure seems to be that drunk driving is deserving of much worse than driving under a bounced check. -rc

Posted by Sandy, Illinois on July 7, 2007:

I must agree that I have NO sympathy for the man, either. There are way too many alternatives available for anyone to drive drunk these days. That's not to mention the dangers caused by where he chose to drive in that condition.

I wonder, though, if public opinion may have had something to do with the degree of punishment. With the pictures circulating the internet, surely comments similar to the ones here must be circulating as well. What judge wants to appear soft, or worse yet part of the "good ol' boys" group on a case with obvious guilt and no sympathy from the public?