> If you want a long prison term for some number of DUI convictions, then I hope you're okay with having prison populations much higher than any other first-wor

> If you want a long prison term for some number of DUI convictions, then I hope you're okay with having prison populations much higher than any other first-world country, because they're the same thing. There's no way to cut that number down much without more lenient sentences for DUI, sex crimes, assault, murder, etc. TLDR; Yes, a habitual drunk driver deserves punishment (up to and including jail). -- By sheer numbers, the US will have more convictions for drunk driving due to the vast number of cars. There will be some portion of the population that drives drunk. A portion of that that drives drunk a second time. A portion of that will get a third conviction. So on, so forth. I don't think it is unreasonable to punish someone for a third DUI/DWI conviction. This isn't stop and frisk or police/government overreach. You literally have to drink enough to be over the legal limit (which everyone with a license knows), get in a car, and drive (and honestly it has to be bad enough that you get pulled over for it). You have to then be convicted (probably receive probation and classes) for the first offense. You then have to repeat that a second and third time... That is a series of choices that are made. Why do you think more leniency is needed at that point?