In the late hours between Friday, Oct. 29, and Saturday, Oct. 30, two Wisconsin men were arrested on individual counts of drunken driving. They were repeat offenders, and between them they had ten “operating a vehicle while intoxicated charges.” These drivers, while surely not wanting or intending to kill other people, have a greater chance of doing so given their repeat history of negligent driving. It could very well have been that this past Friday night instead of just having another OWI conviction that they would also have a manslaughter charge against them.
The inability to drive even moderately OK while intoxicated has been proven without doubt, and this fact is, of course, reflected in the statistics. In 2009 alone, there were 251 fatalities caused by drunken drivers on Wisconsin roads, which accounts for slightly less than half of the vehicle-related deaths in Wisconsin. The problem of drunken driving is preventable but not by making more anti-drunken driving commercials. Let us return to those gentlemen who between them received ten OWI convictions and ask: How is it even possible to get five-plus OWIs?
It is possible to get many OWIs because the current Wisconsin laws easily allows it. Consider that on the second offense, your license is suspended for up to 18 months; on the third, fourth, fifth and sixth offenses, your license is suspended for up to three years. That is right; there is no increase in maximum license suspension between the third and sixth offense. The maximum period that your license can be suspended in the State of Wisconsin following an OWI (omitting the occurrence of any other charge) is three years. If you commit a homicide while you are intoxicated, you will then have the terrible inconvenience of having to wait five years before you can receive a license again.
Shouldn’t it be that someone who has killed another person while driving drunk has his or her license revoked for the remainder of their days? Assuming, of course, that the death was legitimately the person’s fault, how can the State justify giving a license to an individual that has operated a vehicle so negligently that he or she killed somebody because of it? One may ask, “How will they get to work or travel”? Public transportation, taxi systems, friends and family, etc. are options. What should not be an option is letting somebody whose driving has caused a death get back behind the wheel.
Turning back to the issue of repeat offenders, is it really a good idea to have a three year maximum restriction on how long an individual’s license can be revoked? Certainly for the first offense it is reasonable to have a maximum period of license revocation of a year or so. This is in light of the idea that people make mistakes, especially when they are young and that a few nights in jail and a license revocation will drastically affect their behavior and outlook.
However, it seems that the second and third offenses ought to be much greater periods of revocation and punishment. Every time an individual is driving drunk, he is threatening the lives and well-being of all others on the road, and repeat offenders clearly show a great risk of being drunk on the road often. After the fourth OWI offense, should an individual really be allowed to get his license back? It is certainly apparent that after a fourth offense, this is going to be a lifelong issue for this person. Allowing them back on the road is just unnecessarily risking the lives of others and is morally irresponsible.
An additional provision that ought to be included is that the penalty for operating without a license should be severe for individuals who have a drunken driving record. The level of severity should be directly proportional to the number of OWI offenses that one has. This provision is necessary to support the effectiveness of the law. Nobody would take license revocation seriously if the penalty for driving without it was mild or just a mere fine.
The laws have one good provision. It involves mandatory Interlock Ignition Devices, which require that individuals with OWIs cannot operate their vehicles without undergoing a breathalyzer test. However, this is one of the few sensible policies under the law. The current drunken driving laws and punishments do not accurately reflect the seriousness and destructiveness of this crime and ought to be changed.
Matt Jeffers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy and economics.
