5 ms·

> Why not hand out serious prison time for first-time drunk drivers? It would increase road safety so much. Research suggests that you might be wrong. http://

> Why not hand out serious prison time for first-time drunk drivers? It would increase road safety so much. Research suggests that you might be wrong. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/twitter-politics-drunken-driving-and-tax-deductions/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/twitter-politics-drunken-... > Key quote: “Harsher sanctions to drinking and driving may generate no marginal deterrent effect if drivers’ perceived risks of receiving the punishments are low. Therefore, rather than escalating sanction severity, increasing the probability of detection and/or enforcement may be more effective in reducing drinking and driving.”

saosebastiao 12y ago
Harsh sentances for murderers also very likely do not prevent murder. But they do keep known murderers in places where the exposure to potential victims is much lower. By doing so, we have a safer world even if we do not have a significant disincentive to commit murder.
- robkix 12y ago
  And now you know why the US houses most of the world's prisoners [0]. This is the same thinking that brings the US security theater at its airports. Anything for safety, even if it only mariginally works. [0] https://www.aclu.org/safe-communities-fair-sentences/prison-crisis https://www.aclu.org/safe-communities-fair-sentences/prison-...
  - saosebastiao 12y ago
    We aren't the worlds largest jailor because we put murderers in jail. We are because we have made jailable crimes out of benign actions that do not harm other people. Drunk driving is not a benign action that does not hurt other people.
  - revelation 12y ago
    Who's talking about prison? Driving is a privilege. Suspending it, possibly forever, doesn't appraoch custodial sentences.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      How does one enforce such a suspension, without resorting to prison? (I suspect someone will mention "fines/monetary penalties", but that's rather begging the question.)
      - praneshp 12y ago
        Taking away the driver's license is how it is enforced, I think. So if you are stopped, you get a ticket/arrested for driving without a valid license.
        jessaustin 12y ago
        Yes, and when you don't pay your fine and drive without a license, and society decides it cares because children, you go to prison. This is what I meant. Now you're in prison, the overall rate of drunk driving is unaffected, and America is still the prison champion of the history of Earth, which was the point of the thread.
HarryHirsch 12y ago
If the laws are on the books and applied in a non-arbitrary way the perception of DUI might change - after all you want people to be sober behind the wheel even when the police aren't looking. Unfortunately, in the US, you can't breathalyze everyone on a Saturday night, you have to have "reasonable suspicion". Which means that on weekends, the roads are less safe than they could be, I avoid driving on the weekend after dark.
- baddox 12y ago
  Sobriety checkpoints without reasonable suspicion were ruled by the Supreme Court to not violate the 4th amendment, and only ten states have prohibited such checkpoints. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_t...
geebee 12y ago
This is a good observation, and reminds me of an article I read a while back about why the parole system works so poorly (it was a great article, sorry that I don't have the link). The theory was that much or our criminal law system makes an assumption of a rational actor. A 1% chance of severe penalty would deter a crime where they payoff is minor (i.e.., the small chance of a severely punished DUI would convince a rational actor to call a cab). But it doesn't appear to work that way. The article suggested that the best way to deter certain types of repeated criminal behavior are consequences that are swift, certain, and measured (in severity). Instead, what we have is slow, random, and severe. Supposedly, that does little to deter crime, but does a great filling up prisons and creating people who have a lifelong criminal history for job applications.
- baddox 12y ago
  Your description of people's reaction to the risk and severity of punishment sounds entirely rational.
  - ianferrel 12y ago
    A rational actor would be twice as deterred if you kept the risk of punishment the same and doubled the severity. But actual people don't respond that way. They respond to the risk rather than the expected punishment.
    - baddox 12y ago
      You'd probably need to define and use "marginal severity," which unfortunately probably ends up being subjective and difficult to analyze.
    - droopyEyelids 12y ago
      The problem with this is everyone's definition of Rational Actor is arbitrary in what incentives it excludes or includes. Talking about what a Rational Actor would do makes about as much sense as claiming your opinion is fully objective.
math0ne 12y ago
This is a purely anecdotal response but I live in Texas now and come from Canada where the punishments for drunk driving are very severe. In short I am absolutely floored by the casual nature of drunk driving here, across all segments of society compared to Canada. In Canada my very alternative friends to whom casual law breaking like illegal drinking and drugs would be nothing, would almost universally never consider drinking and driving. In the US those same type of friends seeming drink and drive 5-6 days a week, often after consuming amounts of alcohol I consider ridiculous. Additionally I regularly interact with professionals and even professors who drink and drive. This is purely my opinion, but the difference I experience here is outa control when it comes to drinking and driving and I do think the harsh punishments have something to do with it.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Texas is not realy the USA, they don't like much law and taxes. Most states come down hard on drinking and driving.
  - szierk 12y ago
    In my experience people are similar to the parent in both California and Massachusetts.
  - mahyarm 12y ago
    I think it depends on which law you are talking about. Airport immigration authorities in texas are a lot worse than SF i've found.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      That is federal law, not state law. Border states are always more harsh on immigration rules than non-border states (though Portland's Japanese nickname before 9/11 used to be Deportland).
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Texas is not realy the USA... An attractive sentiment in general, but it's not true. Texas is just like every other state, in that they spend way too much on the "enforcement" of drunk-driving laws. The reason is obvious: local police and sheriffs get the same ridiculous federal grants that LEOs in all other states get. EDIT: Congratulations to Louisiana, I expect they laugh at Texas' patchwork of dry and "partially-moist" counties.

saosebastiao 12y ago

Harsh sentances for murderers also very likely do not prevent murder. But they do keep known murderers in places where the exposure to potential victims is much lower. By doing so, we have a safer world even if we do not have a significant disincentive to commit murder.

robkix 12y ago
And now you know why the US houses most of the world's prisoners [0]. This is the same thinking that brings the US security theater at its airports. Anything for safety, even if it only mariginally works. [0] https://www.aclu.org/safe-communities-fair-sentences/prison-crisis https://www.aclu.org/safe-communities-fair-sentences/prison-...
- saosebastiao 12y ago
  We aren't the worlds largest jailor because we put murderers in jail. We are because we have made jailable crimes out of benign actions that do not harm other people. Drunk driving is not a benign action that does not hurt other people.
- revelation 12y ago
  Who's talking about prison? Driving is a privilege. Suspending it, possibly forever, doesn't appraoch custodial sentences.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    How does one enforce such a suspension, without resorting to prison? (I suspect someone will mention "fines/monetary penalties", but that's rather begging the question.)
    - praneshp 12y ago
      Taking away the driver's license is how it is enforced, I think. So if you are stopped, you get a ticket/arrested for driving without a valid license.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        Yes, and when you don't pay your fine and drive without a license, and society decides it cares because children, you go to prison. This is what I meant. Now you're in prison, the overall rate of drunk driving is unaffected, and America is still the prison champion of the history of Earth, which was the point of the thread.

HarryHirsch 12y ago

If the laws are on the books and applied in a non-arbitrary way the perception of DUI might change - after all you want people to be sober behind the wheel even when the police aren't looking. Unfortunately, in the US, you can't breathalyze everyone on a Saturday night, you have to have "reasonable suspicion". Which means that on weekends, the roads are less safe than they could be, I avoid driving on the weekend after dark.

baddox 12y ago
Sobriety checkpoints without reasonable suspicion were ruled by the Supreme Court to not violate the 4th amendment, and only ten states have prohibited such checkpoints. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint#Legality_in_t...

geebee 12y ago

This is a good observation, and reminds me of an article I read a while back about why the parole system works so poorly (it was a great article, sorry that I don't have the link). The theory was that much or our criminal law system makes an assumption of a rational actor. A 1% chance of severe penalty would deter a crime where they payoff is minor (i.e.., the small chance of a severely punished DUI would convince a rational actor to call a cab). But it doesn't appear to work that way. The article suggested that the best way to deter certain types of repeated criminal behavior are consequences that are swift, certain, and measured (in severity). Instead, what we have is slow, random, and severe. Supposedly, that does little to deter crime, but does a great filling up prisons and creating people who have a lifelong criminal history for job applications.

baddox 12y ago
Your description of people's reaction to the risk and severity of punishment sounds entirely rational.
- ianferrel 12y ago
  A rational actor would be twice as deterred if you kept the risk of punishment the same and doubled the severity. But actual people don't respond that way. They respond to the risk rather than the expected punishment.
  - baddox 12y ago
    You'd probably need to define and use "marginal severity," which unfortunately probably ends up being subjective and difficult to analyze.
  - droopyEyelids 12y ago
    The problem with this is everyone's definition of Rational Actor is arbitrary in what incentives it excludes or includes. Talking about what a Rational Actor would do makes about as much sense as claiming your opinion is fully objective.

math0ne 12y ago

This is a purely anecdotal response but I live in Texas now and come from Canada where the punishments for drunk driving are very severe. In short I am absolutely floored by the casual nature of drunk driving here, across all segments of society compared to Canada. In Canada my very alternative friends to whom casual law breaking like illegal drinking and drugs would be nothing, would almost universally never consider drinking and driving. In the US those same type of friends seeming drink and drive 5-6 days a week, often after consuming amounts of alcohol I consider ridiculous. Additionally I regularly interact with professionals and even professors who drink and drive. This is purely my opinion, but the difference I experience here is outa control when it comes to drinking and driving and I do think the harsh punishments have something to do with it.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Texas is not realy the USA, they don't like much law and taxes. Most states come down hard on drinking and driving.
- szierk 12y ago
  In my experience people are similar to the parent in both California and Massachusetts.
- mahyarm 12y ago
  I think it depends on which law you are talking about. Airport immigration authorities in texas are a lot worse than SF i've found.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    That is federal law, not state law. Border states are always more harsh on immigration rules than non-border states (though Portland's Japanese nickname before 9/11 used to be Deportland).
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Texas is not realy the USA... An attractive sentiment in general, but it's not true. Texas is just like every other state, in that they spend way too much on the "enforcement" of drunk-driving laws. The reason is obvious: local police and sheriffs get the same ridiculous federal grants that LEOs in all other states get. EDIT: Congratulations to Louisiana, I expect they laugh at Texas' patchwork of dry and "partially-moist" counties.