ONCE IN every half hour or so, a person dies in an alcohol-related accident and in 2000, 40 percent of all car crash fatalities involved drinking, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Drunk driving is one of the biggest problems we face, yet society seems particularly unconcerned by it. Driving drunk is one of the most socially acceptable crimes. Those in the public eye often are caught drinking and driving, yet the consequences, unless someone dies, rarely are far reaching.
Texas state senator Gonzalo Barrientos was pulled over for drunk driving earlier this month and entered a plea this week. He pled no contest to the charge of drunk driving because he, "really didn't know if I was guilty" ("State Sen. Enters Drunk Driving Plea," Associated Press, Nov. 27). This shouldn't be a complicated issue: if you've been drinking, and then drive, you were driving under the influence.
Barrientos was fined and sentenced to community service and alcohol awareness classes. His license was suspended for 180 days, but this was because he refused to take a breath test when he was pulled over, not a direct result of his drinking and driving. He said, "I accept responsibility for the consequences of my conduct." Typically, those consequences are slight.
In another recent instance of drunk driving, Ohio State quarterback Steve Bellisari was arrested for drunk driving and consequently suspended from the football team. His team then lost to Illinois and, the day following the game, Ohio State coach Jim Tressel made the decision to reinstate his quarterback for the season's final game against the University of Michigan.
Again, the consequences of driving drunk for Bellisari are hardly lasting. The implication of the coach's decision is that winning a big football game is more important than facing real consequences for a potentially fatal decision to drive drunk. Every time anyone - public official, student athlete or average Joe - is let off easy after driving drunk, it sends the message that drunk driving is not a serious infraction.
The lack of concern for adequately punishing, educating or reforming drunk drivers is evident in the large number of repeat offenders. According to MADD in 1999, one out of every nine drunk drivers in fatal car crashes had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in the last three years. According to data collected from 12 states, one in three drivers convicted of driving while intoxicated is a repeat offender.
If repeat offenses are to be stopped, stronger penalties must be enforced. It's hardly more than luck that a drunk driver makes it home or is arrested before he kills someone, yet the penalties for driving while intoxicated are drastically less than for fatal crashes involving alcohol. By no means should the consequences be the same, but the penalties for driving drunk should be considerably stronger.
At a minimum, driving drunk should be accompanied by a mandatory license suspension. Drunk drivers should not be allowed on the road, it's that simple.
This is already the case in Virginia, where first offenses are subject to a one-year license suspension, although a judge may issue a restricted license. Counseling or alcohol awareness classes should also be mandatory for all offenders. Again, this is already true in Virginia.
Penalties also should be higher for repeat offenders. The goal of punishment is reform, but, should that fail, penalties should reflect the offender's repeat status. Although some states, Virginia included, have implemented mandatory license suspension and alcohol awareness training, it's not nationally required. State's laws often are at odds and many states, including Virginia, according to MADD, don't share information about previous convictions with other states. National standards would allow for even application of the law.
Beyond legal consequences, driving drunk should have social consequences. Police officers cannot possibly catch all drunk drivers, so instances of drunk driving only will decrease on a fundamental level when it becomes socially unacceptable to get into a car after drinking. This particularly is true among younger generations. In college, drinking to the point of drunkenness is not only socially acceptable, it's often seen as a rite of passage. This is unlikely to change, but what must change is acceptance of driving after drinking.
Alcohol-related fatalities are rising again, according to MADD, and driving under the influence arrests are most prevalent among 21 to 24 year olds. This should be a major concern of our generation, but it is not. In order to curb drunk driving, penalties must be heightened, but legal measures can only go so far. To truly stop drunk driving, enough people have to take a stand against it.
(Megan Moyer's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 22 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
