The Philosophy of Drunk Driving

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It's an interesting distinction to make, though, when you think about it. In any case, the result of a mansluaghter is going to be a dead person, and no amount of punishment would bring them back. Whether inebriated, fatigued, or unattentive, all cases of manslaughter are tied back to incidences of negligence. Why should it matter if the driver is drowsed or generally incompetent?

I can still see a justification for this sort of thing, however. It's an added punishment to curtail preventable accidents.

I don't know if the point I'm trying to make is clear, though. Yes, it seems wrong that two people making the same mistake and causing the same problem (i.e., a fatal car accident) should get different sentences. But considering one of them made a bad choice which could have prevented the accident, it does make sense to have an additional disincentive for willingly making a choice that causes high risk to others.

Economically speaking, it's an externality. Drunk drivers are more likely to incur a cost to others (in addition to themselves). A penalty for drunk driving works to shift the cost of that externality back to its source. Of course, whether or not it actually works is entirely debatable.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I am, but there are crazy libertarians like there are crazy liberals and conservatives. In his New Year's Resolution for 1976, Murray Rothbard wished that the survivalist and free soiler libertarians would actually go off and live in the mountains or start their own country so that they wouldn't be a part of the movement that actually wanted to change things in the real world.

Let's not forget Stan Jones.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by koifox

A large body of scientific research indicates that people will act more recklessly, will react more slowly, and will be distracted more easily when they're tired or drunk (especially both). The physiological and psychological effects on people are well understood. Accidents occur when people don't react properly or quickly enough, or put themselves in a place where it's physically impossible to react quickly enough (like exceeding the tolerances of your car or your grip on the road). If you wish to deny either of those facts, you may as well say it's faeries and leprechans keeping you safe on the highway.

I don't think anyone's denying these facts. What Bradylama's argument stems from is the belief that something is only really a crime if it deprives someone else of life, liberty, or property (perhaps with some rare exceptions).

While driving with a BAC of 0.8 certainly increases the likelihood of someone committing a "crime" (i.e., destroying property, or harming someone), it should not in and of itself constitute a crime. In many ways, driving while under the influence of alcohol is identical to driving without proper sleep -- yet how many millions of people would be charged under a law that penalizes driving while tired?

My natural tendency is to lean towards Brady's style of thinking. Nowadays, too many laws are about prevention of "crime" (again, using the above limited definition) rather than the punishment or rehabilitation of those who actually commit harm to others. On the other side of the fence, there are those who feel that any steps to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place are far better than attempts to punish criminal ex post facto.

I gravitate more towards the middle on issues like this specific one, where there are significant externalities.

Most amazing jew boots