Following the Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett's, post on DWI being a "victimless" crime, Shawn Matlock, Republican criminal defense lawyer has decided to "one-up" Bennett (who, by the way, had a great profile of him in the Houston Chronicle) and argues that drunk driving should not be a crime at all.

Ah, those Republicans, always arguing about how their individual right to drink (no mention of gin, but we know the gig) trumps any effort by government to rein them in.

I read through Shawn's post a couple of times and, to be frank, remain unclear about why he thinks DWI shouldn't be a crime.  He writes:

DWI should not be a crime. There I said it. I don't think the criminal justice system should be consumed with the "crime" of DWI. I would venture to say 85% of misdemeanor court dockets are DWI cases. Think of the efficiency we could have in our justice system without DWIs bogging us down. But that's not the reason I think DWI should not be a crime.

So it's not because DWIs clog the docket.  Fair enough.  So why?

I would say around 70% of the people that come to see me about a DWI are more concerned with their drivers license than on the fact they might get a criminal conviction that is never going away. There is more genuine concern about losing their license than the possibility they might go to jail. Something is wrong with that.

But you're in Texas, Shawn.  We can't expect rational thinking (note that I always try to include a gratuitous slam against Texas whenever possible).  So why?

Money, money, money.

Of course government tries to capitalize on DWI.  It tries to capitalize on anything it can get away with, which generally means that any subset of inappropriate behavior without a well-financed lobbying group is going to get financially penalized.  That's only to be expected.

As Bennett astutely notes, the only different between a basic DWI arrest and one where someone is killed is "dumb luck."  The wrong is not that the drunk driver mowed someone down, but that he drove drunk in the first place.  Everything after that is mere kismet.  Most make it home without causing any harm.  Some kill people.  But the conduct at risk is exactly the same, driving when incapable of doing so safely because of volitional behavior.

While the penalties for ordinary drunk driving have gotten way out of hand, pandering to the visceral reaction of the public to the tragedies that happen when the drunk kills, that doesn't make the act less criminal. 

So we are busy dumping on drunk drivers, using them as a piggy bank and a punching bag.  That doesn't make the conduct any better, or reduce the degree of moral culpability for putting the rest of society at risk because you feel like having a couple of brewskies (or gins, as you Republicans prefer). 

It's a crime.  It should be a crime.  If you want to complain about the ridiculously harsh penalties, that's another matter.  But DWI is properly a crime.