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.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By this Texan logic, would it not follow that running a red light or exceeding the posted speed limit are not crimes either?
In other news, is Texan logic similar to the [deleted] logic used in old HP calculators, where everything was entered in reverse order?
Part of what makes DUI/DWI laws frustrating is the disconnect between science and justice, as well as the standards which change regularly. The driver’s body weight isn’t taken into consideration, the time between drinking and driving and so on. The blanket .08% rule isn’t fair and it isn’t justice. If a driver goes 70 mph in a 65 mph zone, no one gets pulled over. If the driver is going 110 mph however, that’s a different story. Alcohol though gets a blanket number that doesn’t take biology or flawed breathalyser tests into account.
Out of curiousity, what got [deleted] there?
If I wanted anyone to know, I wouldn’t have deleted it.
Umm “reverse Polish logic” isn’t a slam. It’s referring to “Reverse Polish Notation” a very efficient way of inputting mathematical operations into a calculator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_polish_notation
So, no. Texan logic is not like RPN. RPN makes sense.
So I’m going to explain this to you, Allen, as I did to Andrew and Mark when they both made the same point. Many people read these posts. Some will know what reverse Polish notation is. Others will not and will see it as a slur, even though it isn’t.
While I appreciate that you do, I’m the one who will get the 50 emails threatening death for making a Polish joke, which is why this reference was deleted. And since it had nothing to do with the post, and I’m not in the mood to deal with 50 death threats, is it okay with you guys if we leave reverse Polish notation out of this?
DWE
The ever-thoughtful and provocative Frank Pasquale at Concurring Opinions
I have issue with your statement about body weight not being taken into consideration. The fact is that body weight IS a consideration, so it the length of time between drinks. The determining factor? Your BAC. If you have given sufficient time between drinks your BAC will be low enough for you to drive safely. If not, you are intoxicated. If you weigh 300 pounds and are 7’5″ tall, your BAC will be below the .08% if you consume 3 drinks and drive. These factors are the reason that BAC is used: Not everyone who drinks 5 drinks in an evening is intoxicated, but if I drink 3 drinks and drive an hour later, I am plastered if I am 5’2″ tall and weigh 89 pounds. The BAC level of .08% is perfect because it stops you before you kill someone…most of the time. Besides, it is supposed to be a deterrent. DUI and DWI are supposed to make people aware before they go on television saying, “I didn’t mean to. I never thought it could happen to me.”
That’s kinda the problem, Mary. This is what we’ve been told, and it’s become the myth.
How can you call FACTS a myth? How can you claim that your body weight and size don’t have anything to do with your BAC? Explain, please, because I have done more research in the last 30 years since my kids were killed than anyone you can imagine.
I’m not JT, and it’s not clear what he’s referring to specifically, so he’ll have to provide you with his particulars. My point is that sadly, almost the entire body of purported forensic scientific upon which we rely has been created for the purpose of facilitating prosecution rather than the advancement of knowledge (see 2009 report of the National Academy of Sciences), leaving all of us in the position of believing in the mythology.
I’m terribly sorry to hear of your children.
thank you for your kind expression, SHG. I disagree that much of what happens is about “facilitating prosecution rather than the advancement of knowledge”. I speak for diversion programs and MADD; to reporters, drivers who are drinking too much at parties; to students and to anyone who will listen. As does every member of MADD that I have met. At MADD we are not a bunch of zealots who want everyone punished for having a drink. What we want is responsible decision making so we can go home and live our lives without being hounded about picking on some quasi-innocent person. I do this not to cause anyone problems, but to save more lives so others NEVER have to comprehend the way I feel. I do not want sympathy, empathy, recognition. I want to insure that not one other person ever has to feel this way. Not even for a minute. I hope that by telling my story I will make one person realize that it is not about whom they are, whom they love, but about who loves them. If a person has no one who will be affected by the decision they make, they have the right to make bad decisions. Otherwise, they are obligated to protect those who love them by making the best possible decisions, such as paying for a cab or being driven by a sober friend.
[Edit. Note: Post truncated, and additional two comments (because Mary didn’t have enough room for 9000 words in this comment) deleted. Aside from this being borderline psychotic, fundmantally ignorant and utterly absurd, this isn’t you soap box to spew thousands upon thousand of words about your deepest, most emotionally overwrought ideas.]
“The wrong is not that the drunk driver mowed someone down, but that he drove drunk in the first place”
This “logic” is my main problem with DUI laws. If i said
“The wrong is not that the man raped someone, but that he had a penis in the first place”
Almost everyone would dismiss me as an illogical loony! Yet this exact fallacy is accepted in courtrooms all across this country daily! Unless there is a victim, how can there be a crime?