Our state needs stricter drunken driving laws, even if that means there must be a small increase in taxes. The two candidates for attorney general seem to have differing views on this. Wisconsin is currently the only remaining state in which a first time drunken driving offense isn’t considered a crime, but instead a municipal violation. Democratic Attorney General candidate Scott Hassett wants to make that a thing of the past. On the other hand, Republican incumbent J.B. Van Hollen doesn’t think it would be worth the costs it would entail.
It’s a relief that Hassett is making this a point in his campaign. Two hundred and thirty-eight people died and almost 4,000 were injured in accidents where alcohol was involved in 2009 alone. A human life is worth more than any amount of money. That many lives lost is tragic, especially from something so preventable. If you’ve ever seen how many people feel the ripple effect caused by one drunken driving death, you’d no doubt agree with this.
Obviously, being intoxicated hinders your ability to decide whether or not you’re fit to drive. That still by no means excuses driving drunk. The problem is that a lot of people make the wrong decision on multiple occasions and get away with it. As long as nothing too terrible happens when they try to get behind the wheel of a car they won’t face a punishment that is equal to what they’ve risked. It’s one thing to do harm to yourself, but another to take the chance of hurting others. It’s selfish to get to a level of intoxication where you can’t think straight when you have no planned alternative way of getting home. People still do it all the time, and it’s unfortunate that it takes something so serious to get some of them to wake up. When a person is caught driving drunk it is more than likely not the first time they’ve done it. There’s no reason to let them off easy when in all likelihood they’ve done it before and will continue to until they’re caught a few more times or kill someone.
It’s sadly inevitable that some people will still be harmed or even killed by drunk drivers even if the laws are made stricter. However, this number could be greatly reduced if offenders were punished more severely after their very first offense. If you want to look at it in a purely monetary way, you still have to look at the bigger picture. Sure, it would cost more to prosecute and incarcerate offenders. If fewer people drank and drove though, the costs for things like investigation, premature death, wasted productivity and cleanup would more than likely go down. The money saved may not equal what it would cost for everything associated with increasing the strictness of laws, but lives would be saved.
Justice is really what has been lacking when it comes to drunken driving. The loved ones of people affected by drunken driving deserve justice, as does everyone who drives sober on the same roads as those who don’t. Nobody’s a fan of raising taxes, and politicians accuse each other of attempting to raise them all the time. It’s an easy way to make the other look bad. That’s why I give Hassett props for standing up for what is right even if it may raise taxes a bit.
Public safety should be important to any politician. Drunken driving presents a direct threat to that safety. The candidate that looks out for the best interests of the people he or she represents, regardless of party, will get my vote. Drunken driving is not okay, and I’d gladly have a little taken off my paychecks to put the people who do it where they belong.
Kevin Boettcher ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in communication arts.