Alcohol kills one person every ten seconds

backseatLover12

I'm waiting for the day that alcohol becomes illegal and weed is legal everywhere. But that's a day that'll never happen. And people continue to die.

I've known someone who had 7, that's right 7, DUIs. And continues to drink and probably drive…

Drowned Out

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

Maybe you have to blow to start the car but then again randomly again at some point during the drive when the car is at a stop light?

Ya, the interlock thing requires you to blow every 10 or 15 minutes, or your car is disabled. Not sure how it works on the highway...Apparently they can be ultra-sensitive, tho...I have a friend who had one, who insists that the anti-freeze in his wiper fluid gave him a false-positive and left him stranded one winter day...that's just his story tho.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with making these standard on cars. Same with cell phone signal scramblers. I'd prefer that over random checkstops...
In the end, as hedo said, impaired driving is so much more than just drinking. I honestly feel zero detrimental net effect from certain substances that some people insist slow reaction times and increase distraction (weed), while others say there is no way they could drive high...people are in a massive panic to control this before proceeding with full legalization....while other things: script drugs, cell phones, fatigue, are not even on the table for discussion. Personally, I would feel safer with the road filled with people who would blow a .10% than people who can barely keep their eyes open.
There should be some kind of standardized reaction time testing or something that the car can perform. I don't know....

PJ_Soul

Well they've already tried prohibition of alcohol. I think it's been proven that making alcohol illegal doesn't work at all.

vant0037

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'm not trying to deliberately be confrontational, but I'm having a little difficulty fully comprehending exactly what it is you are trying to say. Your points are fair, but what are you speaking to? When you speak to the effect of alcohol on habitual users... are you suggesting we be more understanding of drunks that get into deadly accidents? When you allude to the infrequency of these events or categorize DUIs as 'just another crime' are you saying we should not get too worked up about these (as you put it) 'lapses in judgement'?

It's not "just another crime." Just the opposite. If we continue to treat DWIs as "just another crime," you'll continue see people go to jail, come out and do it again. Why? Precisely because DWIs are not like other crimes. They are crimes committed under the influence of a drug, one that many, for whatever reason, are unable to avoid. Start there.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

When you say, "Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug"... I say that the people who commit these crimes did not get out of bed drunk. In short, knowing their propensity for getting drunk or the likeliness of them getting drunk, they had better have a plan to get home after getting drunk without using their vehicle. If they drive to a pub sober, get drunk, and then drive home- killing someone for not having taken the precautions necessary to safeguard the public and themselves from the drunk driving situation... then this is tantamount to negligence in my eyes.

That's the problem. Most DWI offenders are either regular, normal people who make a one-time mistake, OR they are habitual offenders who have a chemical dependency problem.

Most one-time offenders are just like you and me: people who occasionally make mistakes. I'm not willing to refer to them as rodents or throw away the key, just because there are others who make the same mistake but with far worse consequences.

Most habitual offenders are people with chemical dependency issues. Serious issues. While some of those repeat offenders are just bad people, there are many more who truly need some sort of intervention. In short, it's easy to say to an alcoholic "just stop drinking" OR "don't drink and drive," but the disease is at least half the problem. That's what alcoholism does - it quite literally impairs your judgment when you're sober.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I know there are moments when things get out of control and someone gets drunk someplace where they had not planned on doing so. In these moments, if someone makes the drunken choice to drive home and runs over people at a crosswalk... I would not be inclined to support them. From my way of thinking, getting drunk is a progressive thing and at a very minimum... at some point in the process of moving from sober to impaired... such an individual should weigh the risk factor associated with continuing to drink... knowing they have to drive home.

Again, if every person who commits a crime were to just "think better" (as this paragraph seems to imply), crime wouldn't be an issue. My point is that DWI, like most crimes, involves a serious lapse in judgment. The difference in DWIs is that the lapse in judgment in some cases can at least in part be directly related to a disease, like alcoholism. I'm not excusing it, but I'm also saying that it is far too simple - and perhaps naive - to presume that its just a matter of thinking ahead of time. That is helpful advice for people who are one-time offenders. For alcoholics, there's a lot more to it.

No one is saying there shouldn't be criminal sanctions or that they shouldn't be exactly what they are. But I worry when crimes involving chemical dependency are framed with overly simplistic takes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Van...

You have said: But I worry when crimes involving chemical dependency are framed with overly simplistic takes.

You expressed this after stating: The difference in DWIs is that the lapse in judgment in some cases can at least in part be directly related to a disease, like alcoholism. I'm not excusing it, but I'm also saying that it is far too simple - and perhaps naive - to presume that its just a matter of thinking ahead of time. That is helpful advice for people who are one-time offenders. For alcoholics, there's a lot more to it.

To my way of thinking... I worry that lenient attitudes developed through 'overly complex takes' allow for multiple offences to occur. In the case of my friend who died midday going to work on his motorcycle at the hands of (counting Gerry's death) a four time offender... such leniency cost him his life.

The discipline for drunk driving offences should be progressively stronger and at some point... very strong. As I expressed earlier, a first time offence should not mean the end of the world for the offender: you made a mistake- a big one- but fortunately nobody got hurt... don't do it again. However, the fourth offence should mean something. Did I mention the shitbird that killed Gerry got the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'? I wanted to punch his face in, but the courts felt differently- and I should feel good about that because what the fuck do I know about justice? Who knows what the dumb fuck is doing now? He may have had a fifth and sixth charge for all I know.

The thing is... if it had been his first offence... I'd feel angry, but more understanding. I'd say to myself, "What a fucking idiot. Got shitfaced and killed Gerry. Dumbass." But... this was his fourth. The pattern had clearly been established... and ignored. Thinking about it though... why wouldn't this guy have ignored the feeble ramifications for his previous offences? Sitting in a rehab session... yawning away... counting down the weeks or months before he can get back out there and really tie one on.

What's really brutal is the fact that Gerry's story is not a unique one by any stretch of the imagination. Every day some perennial loser kills some family (or parts of one) because the 'fireside chats' resulting from his previous convictions failed to do their job protecting the public.

A colossal joke. Sorry. But it is.

hedonist

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The discipline for drunk driving offences should be progressively stronger and at some point... very strong. As I expressed earlier, a first time offence should not mean the end of the world for the offender: you made a mistake- a big one- but fortunately nobody got hurt... don't do it again. However, the fourth offence should mean something. Did I mention the shitbird that killed Gerry got the proverbial 'slap on the wrist'? I wanted to punch his face in, but the courts felt differently- and I should feel good about that because what the fuck do I know about justice? Who knows what the dumb fuck is doing now? He may have had a fifth and sixth charge for all I know.

The thing is... if it had been his first offence... I'd feel angry, but more understanding. I'd say to myself, "What a fucking idiot. Got shitfaced and killed Gerry. Dumbass." But... this was his fourth. The pattern had clearly been established... and ignored. Thinking about it though... why wouldn't this guy have ignored the feeble ramifications for his previous offences? Sitting in a rehab session... yawning away... counting down the weeks or months before he can get back out there and really tie one on.

What's really brutal is the fact that Gerry's story is not a unique one by any stretch of the imagination. Every day some perennial loser kills some family (or parts of one) because the 'fireside chats' resulting from his previous convictions failed to do their job protecting the public.

A colossal joke. Sorry. But it is.

This, exactly.

The fact that he even reached a fourth time is ridiculous. At that point, some jail time should've been done. No fear of repercussions almost ensures the behavior will continue, and sadly, get worse.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

I literally have never known anyone who hasn't driven while over the legal limit. Except me, since I've always been proudly car-free.

That is very cool!

=D> ^:)^

vant0037

Look, no one is excusing what happened to your friend. That's a truly horrible thing that should've never happened. My point is that it's a really bad practice to extrapolate broad strokes based on vengeance (lets call it what it is) when everything we know about chemical addiction suggests punitive interventions ALONE won't work. Pay close attention to what I said. I didn't say lenient. I didn't say excusing what repeat offenders do.

Unfortunately, you're being unfair by (1) implying that my suggested view of DWIs somehow justified your friends death (as if a comprehensive approach to criminal justice = the supposed leniency that allowed this guy to kill your friend) and (2) describing a fact pattern that I know nothing about.

My view is that if you're only punishing an addict for their criminal act, you are ensuring they will do it again. Criminal psychology essentially proves that. My view is you punish and you rehabilitate. You do both. See?

I have no doubt that the guy who did this to your friend is a piece of shit. But I'm unwilling to toss out everything we in criminal justice know about chemical addiction and Criminal behavior because of that. Perhaps that's not what you're suggesting at all. But when you refer to some DWI offenders as rodents, it makes me wonder what's driving the view: effective policy or vengeance?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 said:

Look, no one is excusing what happened to your friend. That's a truly horrible thing that should've never happened. My point is that it's a really bad practice to extrapolate broad strokes based on vengeance (lets call it what it is) when everything we know about chemical addiction suggests punitive interventions ALONE won't work. Pay close attention to what I said. I didn't say lenient. I didn't say excusing what repeat offenders do.

Unfortunately, you're being unfair by (1) implying that my suggested view of DWIs somehow justified your friends death (as if a comprehensive approach to criminal justice = the supposed leniency that allowed this guy to kill your friend) and (2) describing a fact pattern that I know nothing about.

My view is that if you're only punishing an addict for their criminal act, you are ensuring they will do it again. Criminal psychology essentially proves that. My view is you punish and you rehabilitate. You do both. See?

I have no doubt that the guy who did this to your friend is a piece of shit. But I'm unwilling to toss out everything we in criminal justice know about chemical addiction and Criminal behavior because of that. Perhaps that's not what you're suggesting at all. But when you refer to some DWI offenders as rodents, it makes me wonder what's driving the view: effective policy or vengeance?

I'm not saying your views 'justified' Gerry's death. I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion? I value your opinion on these forums (not just MT) and I sought clarification from your first post. You offered clarification, but at that, I had a 'little bit' of a problem with some of your wording that 'seemed' to offer either a defence of the offenders or a defence of the legal system that operates to the benefit of these same people.

The prick that killed Gerry had three previous DUIs. I've said this every post and never introduced it on the one you are referencing as a fact pattern that you knew nothing about (if this is the fact pattern you are referencing).

Don't be so unwilling to toss out 'some items' relevant to criminal justice- especially when these items are flawed. Are you 100% sure we have things figured out the way they should be? To me... when something looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit. 3, 4, 5... 10 impaired charges are too many. It's a particularly bitter pill for survivors to swallow knowing their son (friend in my case) was killed by a dude who liked to drive drunk and had been convicted of doing so on three previous occasions. The death seems preventable to me under such a scenario.

I'm not talking about vengeance either. I very clearly laid out my idea that there needs to be progressive discipline applied to those that make driving drunk a habit. If they simply cannot refrain from driving while drunk... then ultimately... they need to stay behind bars. Law abiding society (Gerry) does not need to assume the risks associated with affording some guy an incredible length of rope to operate with in the name of rights and law. Do we have to wait for a drunk to kill someone before we begin to operate a little more sternly?

This attitude we possess for being so sympathetic to criminals and their rights is straight across the board. What the fuck is with multiple offences for, say, pedophilia? We have numerous people with multiple cases of pedophilia stacked against them and, in similar fashion... we tend to lean towards the offender's rights in the name of the law and... ultimately... place more kids at risk and hear of even more offences committed. This is not what I would call 'winning'. If it looks like shit...

vant0037

I guess here's my problem then: you keep saying we need "progressive" discipline. I'll assume you mean "increasingly strict penalties for every additional offense."

The problem is that most US states have that. What else are you expecting be done? That's where I'm gathering the vengeance idea from. We are already doing progressively stricter punishments.

When you keep harping on something that already exists, you sound like you're creating a scenario that doesn't exist to prove a point or just draconian.

So...if we already have progressive punishment scales, and we still have DWI deaths, I'm confused as to what else you believe should happen, which is why I kept bringing up the rehabilitation piece. Again I think rehabilitation + punishment statistically is more effective.

Maybe were just misunderstanding each other.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

vant0037 said:

I guess here's my problem then: you keep saying we need "progressive" discipline. I'll assume you mean "increasingly strict penalties for every additional offense."

The problem is that most US states have that. What else are you expecting be done? That's where I'm gathering the vengeance idea from. We are already doing progressively stricter punishments.

When you keep harping on something that already exists, you sound like you're creating a scenario that doesn't exist to prove a point or just draconian.

So...if we already have progressive punishment scales, and we still have DWI deaths, I'm confused as to what else you believe should happen, which is why I kept bringing up the rehabilitation piece. Again I think rehabilitation + punishment statistically is more effective.

Maybe were just misunderstanding each other.

I'm speaking from Canada.

I'm glad to hear most states offer progressive discipline. Although it may be in our legal language as well... we do not see it in practice. Up here... we insist on giving our criminals a whole whack of We're serious this time talks before our judicial system moves definitively in a direction that serves the general public.

We are really, really soft.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet.
rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.

to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.

More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.

mickeyrat

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

vant0037 said:

I can tell you that officers stop a lot of people for suspicion of DWI. Most of them do not involve accidents. There are devices like Ignition Interlock, which requires a breath test before the vehicle will start. In many states, convicted DWI offenders MUST use the device before they get their license back. And so there are jails and treatment facilities and "DWI saturations" (e.g. increased officer patrol specifically for DWI in certain areas and times, such as holidays). There are prison sentences and probationary sentences and mandatory minimums and yet there continue to be new DWIs.

The fact that every so often, there is a fatal DWI accident doesn't mean we need more officers or roadblocks or jails or sentences. Instead, we need to remember that like any crime, DWI results from a lapse in judgment. Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug.

For some reason, alcohol is seen as different than other drugs. Perhaps that's the point from which we should start when looking for new and effective ways to curb drunk driving.

I see a lot of people who get DWIs. I can tell you that there are a lot of repeat offenders, and a lot of first time offenders. Quite a lot of them have issues with chemical dependency (whether they realize it or not). Very few of them are evil people.

I'm not trying to deliberately be confrontational, but I'm having a little difficulty fully comprehending exactly what it is you are trying to say. Your points are fair, but what are you speaking to? When you speak to the effect of alcohol on habitual users... are you suggesting we be more understanding of drunks that get into deadly accidents? When you allude to the infrequency of these events or categorize DUIs as 'just another crime' are you saying we should not get too worked up about these (as you put it) 'lapses in judgement'?

When you say, "Unlike most crimes, that lapse occurs while someone is under the influence of a drug"... I say that the people who commit these crimes did not get out of bed drunk. In short, knowing their propensity for getting drunk or the likeliness of them getting drunk, they had better have a plan to get home after getting drunk without using their vehicle. If they drive to a pub sober, get drunk, and then drive home- killing someone for not having taken the precautions necessary to safeguard the public and themselves from the drunk driving situation... then this is tantamount to negligence in my eyes.

I know there are moments when things get out of control and someone gets drunk someplace where they had not planned on doing so. In these moments, if someone makes the drunken choice to drive home and runs over people at a crosswalk... I would not be inclined to support them. From my way of thinking, getting drunk is a progressive thing and at a very minimum... at some point in the process of moving from sober to impaired... such an individual should weigh the risk factor associated with continuing to drink... knowing they have to drive home.

In short, in most cases, I hold the opinion that there are sober moments when people have the potential to make safe choices. Neglecting to do so in this window of opportunity is criminal. I don't care what people think when they are drunk... they're drunk. I care about what people think and do when they are sober and choose to move forward.

as an admitted sober alky, we(alcoholics or potential alcoholics) should certainly be held accountable for our actions, however as part of whatever sentence might be handed down that fact should be considered or included in the sentence not in lieu of. But alcoholism as well as drug addiction is one of those things that unless the person seeks help for themselves and does recovery(by whatever means works for them) then such behavior is likely to continue.

In my state vehicular manslaughter is deemed a misdemeanor unless there have been multiple DWI's at that point it becomes a felony.

Took a long time but our state implemented a multiple offender statute for something like 3 or more loose your license for life( guy I grew up with Mark J was the first test case. He got busted for his 6th). having no valid license doesnt prevent anyone from getting behind the wheel again or even owning another vehicle after seizure of property.

I've heard anecdotally of people with DWIs numbering in the teens? What then should happen to folks like that , that continue to put people in harms way?

backseatLover12

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.

Because the safety of society is not the ultimate priority. It's not.

i_lov_it

backseatLover12 said:

I'm waiting for the day that alcohol becomes illegal and weed is legal everywhere.

I'm almost "Spat" my Beer out after Reading that...I agree with the Weed though

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet.
rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.

to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.

More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.

We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.

This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).

After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?

mickeyrat

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet.
rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.

to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.

More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.

We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.

This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).

After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?

that would disproportionately affect the poor. With enough cash a DWI/DUI goes away and is pled differently.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet.
rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.

to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.

More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.

We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.

This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).

After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?

that would disproportionately affect the poor. With enough cash a DWI/DUI goes away and is pled differently.

Sadly... this is the reality.

But even with that said, let's entertain the idea for a bit... given all things being equal... would people see 30 years in prison as a deterrent for driving drunk? Would we see more people actively taking steps to avoid getting behind the wheel knowing an immense penalty faced them?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

backseatLover12 said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.

Because the safety of society is not the ultimate priority. It's not.

so what is the ultimate priority then?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mickeyrat said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

You can't jail someone eternally for something they MAY do. we don't live in a Minority Report world where we can jail people for something they haven't committed yet.
rehab is essentially the only thing that will work for these people. do I agree that alcoholism is a disease? the jury is still out on that one for me. I've never seen anyone go to the cancer store, buy a bottle of cancer, and choose to open it and drink it.

to me, first offense (with no casualties) is automatic rehab and no more driving for a LONG time. Public shaming might do some good too. Second offense is no driving ever again. invent a bracelet that renders a car ignition inoperable when an offender is wearing it, and if they take it off-JAIL.

More needs to be done to protect society; I absolutely agree with 30 on that point. Why we don't have breathalyzers in each and every vehicle is beyond me. It should be law. law abiding citizens have to endure minor inconveniences all over the place for the safety of others and themselves. I don't understand why we don't do everything we can to ensure the safety of society. driving is a privelege, not a right.

We wouldn't be jailing someone for something they haven't done as much as we'd be jailing someone for what they have done: 4 impaired charges. Obviously, by dealing with any drunk driver, we are trying to ensure the safety of our roads... so I get what you are saying with regards to jailing someone as a precautionary measure.

This is actually interesting, Hugh. This would ultimately fall under the broad umbrella of using punishment as a deterrent (much like the DP topic that we'll leave alone for now).

After having already received 3 previous convictions... would a person refrain from driving drunk knowing that if caught... they'd spend, say, 30 years in prison?

that would disproportionately affect the poor. With enough cash a DWI/DUI goes away and is pled differently.

Sadly... this is the reality.

But even with that said, let's entertain the idea for a bit... given all things being equal... would people see 30 years in prison as a deterrent for driving drunk? Would we see more people actively taking steps to avoid getting behind the wheel knowing an immense penalty faced them?

apparently not. reason being is because studies I've read suggest that alcoholics/drug addicts can not actually control their own consumption behaviours anymore than someone with any other mental disease can.

I really think that therapy is the only real solution, but again, that won't work unless the person is willing.