Combining Law Enforcement and Society to Stop Drunk Driving

Introduction: The Scope of the Drunk Driving Problem

Drunk driving has been a legal and social issue in America for many years. Each year, states enact stricter laws regarding drinking and driving, yet the news continues to broadcast deaths, accidents, and other problems directly related to the problem. Every few minutes, one person is killed in a drunk driving accident and another fifteen are injured (Mejeur, 2003). Impaired drivers killed more than 17,000 people and injured more than 258,000 in the United States in 2002 alone, and the problem has been getting worse (Mejeur, 2003).

For several years the nation enjoyed a marked reduction in traffic deaths caused by drunk drivers, but since 1999 the numbers have been on the rise again. One in four families has been negatively impacted by the actions of a drunk driver (Mejeur, 2003). Various laws have been enacted throughout the nation in an effort to reduce the number of drunk driving accidents and fatalities, but it seems that laws alone are not effectively curbing the problem.

The laws are usually founded in tragedy, from which the family of the deceased works to turn a death into a positive measure for society. One example is a New Jersey law called John's Law. John Elliot had graduated from the Naval Academy and was on his way home to celebrate his mother's birthday when a drunk driver killed him (Mejeur, 2003). The driver had already been arrested once that evening for drunk driving. When a friend picked him up from jail, that friend dropped him off at his car. He then went to another bar, drank more, and upon leaving killed Elliot in a traffic accident.

John's Law requires law enforcement officers in New Jersey to impound any vehicle a drunk driver is stopped in and not release it for a minimum of twelve hours, giving the driver time to sober up before getting behind the wheel again (Mejeur, 2003). In addition, the law mandates that when someone arrives to pick up a friend or family member charged with drunk driving, police officers must inform that person that if they allow the suspect to drive while still impaired and an accident results, they can be held criminally and civilly liable as well.

John's Law is one of many examples in which societal responsibility meets legislation and works together to reduce the incidence of driving while impaired. If America is ever going to reduce the fatalities and injuries caused by drunk driving, it must recognize that this is both a social and a legal issue, and combine educational programs with punitive actions to stop drivers from drinking and driving (Mejeur, 2003). New Jersey and eight other states have enacted laws allowing them to hold drunk drivers until their blood alcohol levels fall below the state's legal limit. While this helps prevent an immediate accident, the root of the problem remains and must be addressed from a societal standpoint.

Drunk Driving Laws and Their Limitations

Drunk driving laws have never been stricter. Almost every state has already adopted a core set of drunk driving laws: a 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit, administrative license revocation, implied consent, open container restrictions, repeat offender provisions, and zero tolerance for underage drunk driving. Many states have gone further, creating high-BAC offenses, enhancing penalties for those who drive drunk with children in the vehicle, or requiring ignition interlock devices. However, how those laws are implemented — through arrest, prosecution, adjudication, and punishment — is what makes the difference (Mejeur, 2003).

Every state has adopted laws requiring drivers pulled over under suspicion of drunk driving to submit to a blood alcohol test. If they refuse the test, they automatically lose their license for a year. If they submit and are found to be over the legal limit, they are convicted of drunk driving. In theory, it is a sound policy. In practice, it is not working as well as intended (Mejeur, 2003).

Research has shown that a third of those pulled over under suspicion of drunk driving refuse the BAC test. Failing the test means loss of license, a drunk driving conviction, higher insurance rates, possible loss of employment, and jail time — whereas refusing the test means only the loss of license. The incentive to refuse is significant. Eleven states have addressed this by enacting penalties for refusal that are equivalent to the penalties for a DWI conviction, thereby removing the primary incentive to refuse.

The estimated level of alcohol required to impair a person also varies by body weight and gender. The following general estimates illustrate how many drinks within a given time period it takes for a person to exceed the legally permitted blood alcohol limit, underscoring that impairment is not uniform across all individuals.

Field Sobriety Tests and Enforcement Challenges

Law enforcement officers are charged with asking suspects to perform field sobriety tests at the scene of a traffic stop. This, too, can create problems for prosecution, as suspects may refuse, or defense attorneys may argue that the administering officer was not objective in conducting or scoring the tests (Newaz, 2006). The tests are frequently challenged in court due to their subjective nature, which can discourage law enforcement officers from pursuing drunk driving charges in the first place.

The United States is the only nation that relies on field sobriety tests to prove that someone has been driving while impaired, even though research indicates that such tests do not conclusively prove or disprove intoxication. Given their drawbacks — including reliance "on subjective definitions of impairment… making the arrest and successful prosecution of inebriated drivers difficult" — the United States has much to learn from the international community about how to effectively and fairly regulate drunk driving (Newaz, 2006).

Conclusion: A Combined Legal and Social Approach

The problem of drunk driving is twofold. It must involve law enforcement as well as societal pressures so that a person thinks twice before drinking and getting behind the wheel. Law enforcement officers continue to enforce the laws, yet frequently encounter the same offenders repeatedly. Laws that punish are necessary to provide justice to victims and to satisfy societal demands for accountability. However, it is the combination of education, socially based programs, and legal consequences that offers the best chance of deterring drunk driving.

Research has shown that 30 to 40% of all accident fatalities in this country are caused by a drunk driver. In addition, there is a nine-billion-dollar annual deficit for employers nationwide due to drunk driving-related issues. Families are destroyed, lives are disrupted, and children of drunk drivers often grow up to become drunk drivers themselves. All of these consequences underscore the importance of addressing the issue from both a sociological and a legal standpoint.

Past attempts to handle drunk driving as a purely legal issue have failed, as evidenced by persistent statistics. Efforts to make it a purely social issue will also fail, as society demands and deserves restitution for the actions of drunk drivers. The time has come to combine both approaches in a comprehensive and encompassing solution. Alcoholism is an addiction; however, the decision not to seek help is widely viewed as a personal choice by society. The legal system has the power to mandate treatment, and in doing so, it may save the drunk driver as well as those he or she would otherwise have encountered on the road.