Instigator / Pro
FourTrouble's avatar
1
FourTrouble
1502
rating
8
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#3049

Drunk driving should be legal.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

FourTrouble
Tags
Cars
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
fauxlaw's avatar
0
fauxlaw
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

"Drunk" means "having a blood-alcohol level of .08 or above." "Driving" means "the control and operation of a motor vehicle." "Be," "should," and "legal" have their ordinary meaning. Basically, this debate is about the DUI laws in most states. The criminal offense is "driving while you have a blood-alcohol level of .08 or greater, regardless of whether the alcohol has had any effect on you."

This is a normative topic, so burdens of persuasion are equal on both sides. Starting points are equal. Pro must show that drunk driving should be legal. Con must show the opposite.

Round 1
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
Pro
#1
Drunk driving should be legal for one simple reason: because DUI laws don't serve any interest of our criminal justice system. As such, we should regulate drunk driving as we do any other form of specialized driving. 

1. DUI laws don't serve any interest of our criminal justice system

The underlying purpose of criminal law is retribution & deterrence. Retribution is the idea that there's inherent value to punishment. Deterrence is the idea that the law can discourage certain conduct through punishment.

a. DUI laws don't serve a retributive purpose

Retribution is about punishing people who deserve to be punished, like rapists and murders and thieves and sex traffickers. People who drink alcohol don't deserve punishment, and people who drive well don't deserve punishment. So too people who drive after drinking don't deserve punishment as long as they drive well. Drunk drivers don't intentionally hurt anyone, after all, and many of them don't even realize their BAC (“blood-alcohol level”) is .08 or above. These people don't deserve punishment. 

b. DUI laws don't deter drunk driving

It doesn't matter how strictly you punish drunk drivers, people are still gonna get drunk & drive. There's a couple reasons for this. First, drunk people misjudge their BAC all the time. After all, it's pure feeling & guesswork. Many people feel no effects at .08 BAC, so they drive after drinking despite DUI laws.

Second, police have no way to stop or punish drunk drivers unless they drive bad. So drunk drivers usually have very little worry about getting caught, because most drunk drivers believe they're capable of driving no worse than sober. Remember, alcohol may impair judgment, so many drunk drivers might think they're capable of driving well when they aren't. 

c. DUI laws are over & under inclusive

The ultimate social goal is to increase the safety of our roads. And the reality is that many drunks drive safely, while many sober drivers recklessly speed or run red lights. As such, DUI laws are over & under inclusive when it comes to targeting the actual problem: unsafe drivers. Which brings me to my final point:

d. DUI laws aren't necessary

Reckless driving laws already punish the bad drivers, so we don't need an extra layer of criminal laws punishing people just because they have some alcohol in their blood. Indeed, there's no evidence that adding multiple layers of criminal prohibitions leads to greater deterrence.

2. Regulation mitigates harms much better

In the US, citizens must pass a licensing test to drive. And for specific types of driving (e.g. trucking, or transporting hazardous materials), drivers must pass an additional test. These tests make the roads safer, as they ensure that people are able to drive safely before taking to the roads.

Therefore, I propose an additional licensing test for drunk driving. The test is simple:

  • First, individuals must consume enough alcohol to reach a BAC of 0.08 or higher. We measure BAC based on the body mass of any individual using multiple quantitative techniques. Then, the drunk individual must take a driving test focused on basic hand-eye coordination, reaction time, and the ability to comprehend severe driving conditions, to determine if the individual is capable of safely driving drunk. The test includes a computerized simulation before any actual driving, and drunk individuals are held to a much higher standard than ordinary driving tests. If the individual passes the test, they earn a drunk driving license.
This license would mitigate a number of problems. For starters, people who fail the drunk driving test would know that they shouldn't drive after drinking, without needing to perform any guesswork about how drunk they are. The licensing test would thus have a significant deterrent effect on bad drivers, which is the relevant group that we want to deter.

Second, police could go back to focusing on reckless drivers rather than drunk ones. This would improve outcomes at most traffic stops, as it would limit the amount of discretion police have to pull people out of their cars to perform BAC tests. Abuse would decrease. Mutual respect would improve.
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#2
Resolution: Drunk driving should be legal
 
Thank you, Pro, FourTrouble, for this debate.
 
Note: All Pro arguments in R1 make declarative statements without offering scholastic support by sources to bolster the arguments, rendering all Pro arguments as opinions, only. I say this once, and apply it across Pro’s entire R1.
 
I Rebuttal: Pro R1: Lack of serving public interest in DUI law
 
I.a Pro offers four arguments to the lack of service of DUI law to public interest:
1] No service of a retribution purpose, 2] do not deter drunk driving, 3] is over/under inclusive, and 4] lack necessity.
 
I.b Pro assumes that criminal law serves but one purpose: retribution, or punitive justice. Criminal law actually serves three public, or social purposes:  punitive, curative, and preventive.[1]  Of the three, punitive is the most frequently and commonly known: criminals face the judicial system to determine an appropriate punishment for their crimes, if convicted. This is jurisdictional justice: the people [society] are at risk to criminal behavior and demand punishment for that behavior.
 
I.c Two other purposes exist: curative [the court system of justice to resolve criminal cases], which offers the process of criminal justice, and preventative [to deter criminal action by defining expected social behavior], thus protecting society from criminal behavior.
 
I.d Pro virtually ignores the protection of society accomplished by curative justice, and combats the protection of society by the claim that prevention is ineffective. The lighthouse argument defeats the latter claim: we know ships at sea have accidents, even with operational lighthouses, but we have no scale by which to determine the number of otherwise endangered ships that are protected by the use of lighthouses on shore to warn of dangerous waters.[2]
 
I.e Pro argues that DUI laws are over/under inclusive in that different people react differently to consumption of alcohol, and suggests a DUI test of individuals along with the standard driving test to obtain a driver’s license. This argument ignores that a driving test encounters drivers of variable skills, yet applies a single standard of acceptable driving skill. It also ignores that a DUI test would have variable thresholds of acceptance, i.e., multiple standards. It is simply illogical and impractical to eliminate a common standard in favor of imposing a standard for one, another standard for another, and so on, when a universal standard can by applied: if you drink alcohol, of any amount, do not drive. It is such a common theme, I need cite but one example: 
 
I.e.1 “There’s no doubt that major changes in policy, like the establishment of 0.08% as the legal limit for driving, has been responsible for preventing many deaths when combined with more effective law enforcement.” [3]  
 
I.e.1.A Pro argues that people who drink and drive may not be impaired even when their blood alcohol level [BAC] exceeds the legal minimum threshold of .08%. The following CDC data demonstrates otherwise, under the tab “BAC Effects”[4]
 
I.e.1.B A With a consumption of just .02% BAC, the typical driver effect is:
1. Loss of judgment
2. Relaxation
3. Body warmth
4. Altered mood
 
These effects influence driving skills:
 
1. Declines in visual functions; inability to track moving objects [such as a child chasing a ball into the street]
2. Decline in ability to perform two simultaneous tasks [such tailgater response to encountering stopped traffic ahead: hit car ahead, or swerve; hit car at side.]
 
I.e.2 This universal standard actually applies to other criminal behavior: if I intend to murder a person and thus face criminal justice, it would be prudent if I control my thoughts and actions toward society such as: expressing my anger toward another person already puts me at risk of any lesser injury caused to that person, such as by assault and battery, which can be committed with a simple threatening touch.[5] This behavior aligns with the third purpose of criminal justice: preventative.[6]
 
I.f Pro argues that vehicle deaths occur for other reasons than just drunk driving, and would continue in the lack of DUI law. This is a true statement, but ignores the fact that unnecessary deaths occur because of drunk driving, and that drunk driving can cause these other variant sub-causes of death on our roads. This is so because most people who drink are in complete control of what goes in the pie hole before reaching an inebriated state wherein personal control left the barstool long ago.
 
I.f.1 According to the NHTSA and USDOT, 8 separate, leading direct causes of traffic deaths are listed, and that some traffic deaths have multiple causes, to wit,distracted driving and speeding.[7] The fact is, drunk driving can be the root cause contributing to every other listed cause of traffic death, and that drunk driving, alone, was the direct cause of 10,428 deaths in the U.S. in 2016, 28% of all traffic deaths [37,461] in that year.[8] It was, in that year, and most years, the number one root cause of traffic deaths.[9]
 
I.f.2 Given these statistics, it is prudent that current DUI law ought to remain in force.
 
I Argument: Personal freedom ends with one’s nose
 
I.a Any action a person may do that has no damaging or losing affect on another, or their property, is generally legal action. Thus, are we granted by the Declaration of Independence life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[10]  Further, the Constitution of the United States grants its citizens the rights at least stipulated in the Bill of Rights, consisting of Amendments I – X.[11]
 
I.a.1 These rights are violated by any person, or institution, whose actions have direct effect on any person of any age, including the unborn fetus of a pregnant woman,[12]  or any other person and their houses, papers, and effects, per Amendment IV.[13]
 
I.a.2 Therefore, the act of driving drunk, i.e., with an excess consumption of alcohol causing a  “blood-alcohol level of .08 or greater, regardless of whether the alcohol has had any effect on [the drinking person]”[14]  is currently illegal by every U.S. State law.[15]

I.b Given the understanding of the multiple purposes of criminal law in general, the current standing of DUI law in particular, the statistics of DUI law-breaking that is the direct cause of so many deaths on U.S. roads, and the simple logic and practicality of there being a universal legal limit of alcohol consumption, particularly considering the effect of alcohol on driving ability within legal allowance of alcohol consumption, that the Resolution fails.
 
R2 to Pro.
 
 
 
 


[9]ibid





Round 2
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
Pro
#3
1. The truth isn't mere "opinion" just because it lacks so-called "scholastic support."

"Scholastic support" isn't necessary to discover truths, or in this case to evaluate the merits of DUI laws. This isn't academia. My argument analyzes DUI laws; the controversy emerges from this analysis, not from a factual dispute requiring extensive evidentiary support.

2. DUI laws don't deter drunk driving.

Con asserts otherwise, but offers no evidence or data supporting that claim. To the contrary, Con's own source shows that DUI laws fail to prevent over 10,000 traffic fatalities related to drunk driving each year. As I explained in R1, DUI laws don't deter because (a) drunks misjudge their BAC, and (b) police officers can’t distinguish between sober & drunk drivers until after-the-fact. Con never disputes these underlying facts.

Con refers to a speculative "lighthouse." But (a) speculation doesn't prove anything, and (b) Con's own sources contradict any "lighthouse," as Con's [3] concludes that stricter DUI laws don’t correlate with lower traffic fatalities. See also Balko 2010 (finding that stricter DUI laws correlate with higher traffic fatalities due to unsolvable enforcement problems). Questionable speculation isn't enough to continue criminalizing acts that don't harm anyone.

3. Unsafe driving, not alcohol consumption, is the problem.

Yes, alcohol causes impairment. But so do common in-car distractions. See Balko 2010 (citing studies that show eating, adjusting a radio, talking on the phone, or having kids in the backseat, cause more impairment than having a few drinks). The problem isn't drinking, but rather unsafe driving caused by a significant degree of impairment. 

Con fails to distinguish different levels of drunkenness/impairment. DUI laws currently prohibit driving with a BAC of .08, but some people can't drive safely at a BAC of .03, while others drive safely with significantly higher BACs. As I explained in R1, DUI laws are under- and over- inclusive. So police officers can't do anything about an impaired driver with a BAC of .079 because they don't meet the legal threshold. This leads to inconsistent & unreliable enforcement, a problem that Con doesn't address at all.

4. Reckless driving laws render DUI laws unnecessary.

Con doesn't address this point at all. Reckless driving laws already punish impaired driving, regardless of whether the impairment is caused by alcohol, fatigue, medication, in-car distractions, or road rage. And as I explained in R1, there's no evidence that adding multiple layers of criminal prohibitions leads to greater deterrence. To the contrary, the evidence shows that stricter DUI laws isn't correlated with lower traffic fatalities. 

5. Drunk-driving regulations improve outcomes. 

Con doesn't address this point either. A drunk-driving licensure test could help identify unsafe drivers & alcoholics before-the-fact. It would also deter reckless driving by providing would-be drinkers with individualized feedback about their drunk-driving skills. As a result, people who fail the licensure test would know they aren't capable of driving when they drink. This results in better education about the risks of drunk driving, leading to broader & greater deterrent effects than DUI laws.




fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#4
Resolution: Drunk driving should be legal
 
III Correction of Con R1
 
deleted.
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro R2: 1. Value of sources
 
IV.a Sources are not a must for a debate, but a significantly profitable idea.
 
V Rebuttal/Defense: Pro R2: 2. Deterrence
 
V.a Con claims my lack of sourcing to bolster my rebuttal in R1 of the value of deterrence had by DUI law. My R1, I.d: “The lighthouse argument defeats the latter claim [that prevention is ineffective]: we know ships at sea have accidents, even with operational lighthouses, but we have no scale by which to determine the number of otherwise endangered ships that are protected by the use of lighthouses on shore to warn of dangerous waters.[2][1]  Please note my source [2] for the argument in R1.
 
V.b Further, while each State has a BAC minimum allowance at 0.08, some states have aggravated DUI, imposing stiffer penalty for conviction, at higher BAC levels.[2]“The estimated effects suggest that having BAC above either DUI or aggravated DUI threshold reduces recidivism.”[3]   That is called deterrence.
 
V.b.1 Con concludes the R2 deterrence issue with “Questionable speculation isn't enough to continue criminalizing acts that don't harm anyone.”  The lighthouse effect of my R1, called such because it is observable, is, therefore, not questionable, and ignores:  “According to the NHTSA and USDOT, 8 separate, leading direct causes of traffic deaths are listed, and that some traffic deaths have multiple causes, to wit, distracted driving and speeding.[7] The fact is, drunk driving can be the root cause contributing to every other listed cause of traffic death, and that drunk driving, alone, was the direct cause of 10,428 deaths in the U.S. in 2016, 28% of all traffic deaths [37,461] in that year.[8]"[4]  10,428 people harmed with extreme prejudice.
 
V.c Let’s take a look at Pro’s cited source for the non-deterrence argument [and others Pro wages], Balko 2010[5]
 
V.c.1 “Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline.”  The article’s embedded source link supposedly links to Cato Institute, but the resulting “Page Not Found” is disappointing. Did Pro attempt to read Balko’s source? Data is available, directly from NHTSA, and it demonstrates the claim [Balko’s “increased fatalities”] to be false. Prior to 2000, when .08 BAC was established nationwide, the annual traffic fatalities due to DUI was in the mid-to-high 30,000s. From 2000 forward, the numbers continued increasing to high 30,000s for 5 years, then declined steadily to 2018, the last year of the NHTSA report. Con’s sourced “data” is now 11 yeas old.[6]
 
V.c.2 Further, Con’s source [from 2010] begins by law enforcement in TX suggesting lowering the BAC to less than .08, but to maintain a single standard, rather than the article author’s [Balko] suggestion, repeated by Con, of a standard for each individual, as my rebuttal VIII, below, combats. In addition, my argument IX, below, further details why lowering the single standard would be the better course, but that is not my distinct BoP.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro R2: 3. Unsafe driving, not drinking
 
VI.a I have prepared R2 argument on this very point and defer to that argument, IX, below.
 
VII. Rebuttal: Pro R2: 4: Reckless driving, not DUI law
 
VII.a Pro argued in R1 that, “Reckless driving laws already punish the bad drivers, so we don't need an extra layer of criminal laws…”  If only traffic accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol did not result in many deaths, Pro might have a point. But, thousands of traffic accidents by DUI do cause death. And, as if, by Pro’s argument, there were not  “extra layers of criminal law” in other matters of death by criminal action on innocent victims, let us recall the distinctions of manslaughter, 1st and 2nd degree murder, etc. as varying severities of charges, convictions and sentences for death by criminal action. And, contrary to Pro’s belief that deterrence is not effective, I’ll re-cite NBER,[7].  argued in my R1.
 
VIII Rebuttal: Pro R2: 5: DUI regulation improves outcome
 
VIII.a Con’s R2 claims, “Pro doesn’t address this point…”  My R1, I.e, though not mentioning “regulation,” does rebut Pro’s argument of adding a test of alcohol consumption and resulting reaction [a “regulation,” or “standard”] as a feature of earning the privilege of a driver’s license. My rebuttal concluded: “It is simply illogical and impractical to eliminate a common standard in favor of imposing a standard for one, another standard for another, and so on, when a universal standard can by applied: if you drink alcohol of any amount, do not drive.”  That is a very effective, and inexpensive suggestion that is not even a regulation. See my cited quote in R1, I.e.1, as it is also a good argument for deterrence.
 
IX Argument: Effects of Blood Alcohol Concentration [BAC]
 
IX.a According to the CDC, the physical effects on a person drinking alcohol begin long before the countrywide minimum legal limit of a BAC of .08 is reached; the first predictable effects on driving begin at BAC .02:
“1. Decline in visual functions (rapid tracking of a moving target)
2. Decline in ability to perform two tasks at the same time (divided attention)”[8]

#1 is exemplified by a child running into the street chasing a bouncing ball.
#2 is exemplified by a] seeing traffic stopped ahead,  b] driver must turn to avoid impact with the car ahead, and c] assure the turn will not cause an alternate accident, or d] try to stop before impacting the stopped car ahead, but potentially fail.
 
IX.a.1 Driving ability is diminished by just .02% BAC. Regardless of not being legally drunk, the driver’s diminished condition may affect his ability to avoid an accident just by failure to drive defensively with due caution, such as the above suggestion: If you drink, don’t drive, which is a necessary driving caution even for fully unaffected drivers of any debilitating condition.
 
X Argument: The economic impact of DUI
 
X.a According to the NHTSA, in the U.S. in 2010 [reported to be the last year such data is available] drunk driving crashes [fatal and non-fatal] resulted in an economic cost of $201.1 billion.[9] That amount includes costs of property damage, productivity loss, legal and medical expenses, and insurance administration. We may note a missing expense, and it will be noted by and by. That is, effectively, a billing of $609 per individual man, woman, and child; all 330 million of US population, in one year.
 
X.b It is prudent to avoid that bill if possible. By economic argument, it is prudent to defend against DUI by a single standard. After all, whether an innocent victim of DUI dies at the hand of someone inebriated at .02, or .15, that victim is dead, and that statistic of $201 billion in 2010 has not even begun to account for the value of human life [the missing expense].
 
I rest my case for R2.
 


Round 3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
Pro
#5
My argument was simple: (1) drunk drivers don’t deserve punishment; (2) DUI laws don’t deter dangerous driving because drunks misjudge BAC, and law enforcement can't distinguish sober & drunk drivers; (3) DUI laws are under- and over- inclusive, leading to unfair, inconsistent, & unreliable enforcement; (4) DUI laws aren’t necessary because they overlap with reckless driving laws; and (5) a drunk-driving licensure test would lead to safer roads & better policing.

Con failed to rebut this argument, and thus Con has lost this debate. For starters, Con asserts with no concrete evidence or data that DUI laws deter dangerous driving. But his own sources show (a) stricter DUI laws don’t correlate with lower traffic fatalities (meaning that even if DUI laws deter drunk driving, they don't deter dangerous driving), and (b) DUI laws fail to deter thousands of deaths each year related to drunk driving. So Con’s assertion amounts to nothing more than highly-suspect speculation.

Even if Con proved some amount of deterrence (he doesn’t), he fails to quantify any impact. He never says how many drunks stopped driving, or how many lives were saved. If there's any deterrence, how do we know it deterred dangerous drivers rather than the safe ones? Con doesn't say. As such, Con fails to show (a) that DUI laws deter dangerous driving more than individualized feedback from drunk-driving licensure tests, and/or (b) that reckless driving laws would fail to deter dangerous driving in the absence of DUI laws (and in combination with drunk-driving licensure tests).

Yes, Con shows that alcohol sometimes (but not always) causes impairment. But just as DUI laws fail to distinguish between dangerous & safe drivers, Con fails to distinguish between different levels of impairment. Not all drunks are equally impaired or equally skillful at driving. And given the same BAC, some people might drive dangerously, while others might drive safely. So Con never justifies the legal distinction between a BAC of .08 and a BAC of .07, a questionable legal distinction that glosses over the question of safety or impairment level.

This brings us to the problem of under- and over- inclusivity. Con never shows that all (or even most) drivers with a BAC of .08 cause traffic accidents or drive unsafely. And while DUI laws don’t apply to dangerous drivers with a BAC below .08, a drunk-driving licensure test could identify dangerous drivers with low BAC tolerances long before they get behind a wheel. I advocate for a world in which impairment to driving, not BAC level, becomes the relevant legal category. By focusing on BAC levels, DUI laws under- and over- shoot, leading to more dangerous drivers and less safe ones than a world with stricter reckless driving laws combined with drunk-driving licensure tests. Con never shows otherwise.

Therefore, please vote Pro.

---

Below, to ensure I don't drop anything, I address some of Con's miscellaneous (and mostly irrelevant) points from R2:

1. Con misunderstands how a drunk-driving license would work. It's a specialized license, like the ones people get for trucking or transporting hazardous materials. It doesn't apply different standards to different people -- the safety standard is the same for all drunk drivers, just as the standard for truckers is the same for all truckers.

2. Con states: "If you drink alcohol of any amount, do not drive." First, Con doesn't clarify whether he's imposing this standard as a legal matter, or simply offering it as advice. Con says his BoP is to argue for a BAC of .08, not for a lower BAC, so for the purposes of this debate I assume Con's arguing for a BAC of .08. Second, while Con's advice might apply to some people, especially those with low alcohol tolerances & no experience driving drunk, it clearly doesn't apply to experienced drinkers who have no problem driving home after one or two drinks. Either way, Con's advice has no relevance to deciding the outcome of this debate.

3. Con says that traffic accidents cost $201.1 billion in the year 2010. But Con fails to show that this number would go up in a world with stricter reckless driving laws combined with a drunk-driving licensure test. If anything, Con highlights the failure of the current legal regime. 

4. Con repeatedly refers to "lighthouses," but (a) lighthouses have nothing to do with this debate, and (b) the underlying point Con's making is speculative. We know lighthouses help ships, but we don't know whether DUI laws (rather than personal judgment and/or reckless driving laws) deter drunk driving. If "observable," as Con claims, why didn't Con cite data proving deterrence? If anything, the fact that Con turns to "lighthouses" as evidence demonstrates the total lack of concrete evidence for Con's claims. 

5. Con cites an NBER working paper to suggest that DUI laws reduce recidivism. The paper argues that people who get DUIs are less likely to get DUIs in the future when compared with drunk drivers who previously tested below .08 on a breathalyzer. Contrary to Con's claim, this paper doesn't show that DUI laws deter drunk driving or dangerous driving. For starters, NBER working papers aren't subject to review before publication, so we must evaluate this source with a gimlet eye. Second, the paper evaluates data from only Washington, even though Con's [3] from R1 clearly states that the data is very different state-to-state. So this paper fails to prove anything general outside of Washington. And when you look at data from every state together, a different picture emerges. Third, while this paper suggests that people who get a DUI in Washington are less likely to get a DUI in the future, it doesn't show that these people are less likely to drive drunk in the future. It merely shows that they're less likely to get caught in the future. And finally, the paper uses questionable assumptions & regression models, and ignores many potential explanations that have nothing to do with DUI laws (e.g. rehabilitation programs). No wonder the paper didn't undergo any peer review process. 

6. Con deceptively claims that traffic fatalities "continued" increasing after 2000, when .08 BAC was established nationwide. The deception is the word "continued." Con's own NHTSA data (as well as Con's [3] from R1 and Balko 2010) shows that, prior to 2000, traffic fatalities were decreasing, and had been decreasing for years. But when the nationwide BAC standard was decreased from .1 to .08, traffic fatalities started increasing again, for the next five years. There's no getting around what the data shows: a correlation between stricter DUI laws and increased traffic fatalities.

7. Con says Balko relies on "data" from 11 years ago. But so what? The relevant change in policy happened in 2000, when the nationwide BAC standard was decreased to .08 -- and this data shows that stricter DUI laws led to more traffic fatalities. We could speculate all day about why stricter DUI laws led to more traffic fatalities, though most commentators believe it's due to inherent enforcement problems related to detecting impaired drunkenness before-the-fact.

8. Con attempts to rebut my reckless driving argument by pointing to the example of manslaughter & murder. But these laws aren't comparable. While manslaughter & murder penalize the same act (killing another person), reckless driving laws & DUI laws do NOT penalize the same act. The former penalizes recklessly disobeying basic traffic laws, while the latter penalizes driving with a certain amount of alcohol, even if you carefully obey the traffic laws. The point of having different levels for manslaughter/murder is to distinguish different levels of guilt associated with killing another person, but this simply doesn't translate to the case of reckless driving & drunk driving. Reckless driving involves recklessly disobeying traffic laws, whereas drunk driving doesn't by legal definition involve anything dangerous.

fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#6
Resolution: Drunk driving should be legal
 
X Rebuttal: Pro R3: Results of a new licensure test achieve safer roads and better policing.
 
X.a Pro predicts deterrence by licensure test. The test yields “safer roads,” “better policing.” But Pro offers no further argument to prove the claim. Safer by what measure? Police improvement by what facts? Is it magic? All the benefit Pro offers is to the driver; neither to the road, or law enforcement.
 
X.a.1 Pro claims, in R1, that deterrence is “…a purpose of criminal law.” However, in rebuttal, Pro claims, in R1, “there's no evidence that adding multiple layers of criminal prohibitions leads to greater deterrence.”  Multiple layers, such as a “drunk driving licensure test?” Or Pro’s R2, 2.: “DUI laws don't deter drunk driving.”  To which I rebutted with the “lighthouse effect.”
 
XI Defense: The “lighthouse effect”
 
XI.a Pro argues against, yet supports deterrence without evidence. My argument is deterrence, with evidence: My R1, I.d, and R2, V.a – V.b.1. Here’s more evidence that a drunk driving test is more problematic:
 
XI.a.1 Pro’s drunk test has person consuming at least the legal limit of alcohol, and is then tested. First problem: Personally, I do not drink alcohol at all. The government is going to impose a practice I do not engage? Others like me [there are] have a dilemma. Only persons who do drink are allowed to have a driver’s license? On the surface, that is absurd.
 
XI.a.2 That issue aside, the candidate driver drinks a volume of alcohol. Currently, that person weighs 265 pounds, and, therefore, has a higher tolerance of alcohol by volume than a person 60 pounds less in weight. So, the candidate passes the test, and is issued a license. The person’s doctor advises loss of weight and sets a target of 60 pounds’ loss. The person succeeds, but, in the process, can no longer manage the same ability with the effects of alcohol consumption and causes an accident in which another driver is killed. Regardless of other existing law against taking a life, which would have been charged, anyway, the drunk driver, himself, has not been protected by the very law intended to protect him from criminal action. 
 
XI.a.3  “Generally, the lower your body weight, the less blood and water you have. Weight loss = higher effect of alcohol.”1   What deterrence is achieved by Pro’s new test? Meanwhile, the lighthouse continues, stalwart, always lighted, always there. That some may not pay attention is the very reason we continue to have fatal traffic accidents by DUI.
 
XI.b Pro expects people who drink and pass his test will know the volume of alcohol they drank, and determine they should not drive. What is the difference between that suggestion, and the current minimum limit of .08? How many know they have exceeded that volume? By how they feel? That's a universal standard? It is why I rebutted that such a test is, in fact, variable in its results.
 
XII Rebuttals: Con R3: A list of denial
 
XII.a Pro alleges arguments to which I have not rebutted. Once again, Pro is skimming. My  past  and current rebuttals:
 
XII.a.1  “Drunk drivers don’t deserve punishment.”  Even if Con’s new test were applied, it establishes a legal limit of alcohol consumption. Breaking it, a driver is still punished. My R2, V.b. 
 
XII.a.2  “DUI laws don ‘t deter dangerous driving…”   Refer to the lighthouse effect, my R1, I.d, and R2, V.a – V.b.1,  plus R2, V.c – V.c.2, which contradicts Con’s incorrect Balko article.2, 3
 
XII.a.3  “DUI laws are under- and –over inclusive…” Refer to my R1, I.e – I.e.1. Pro repeats his argument by an absurdity, re-quoted from my R2, V.b.1: “Questionable speculation isn't enough to continue criminalizing acts that don't harm anyone.”  Were not 10,428 killed in 2016.4   No harm? 
 
XII.a.4  “DUI laws… overlap with reckless driving laws.”  Refer to my R1, I.f.1,  and R2, I.e.2 The point Pro misses is that criminal law, by design, applies compounding issues of crime: a drunk driver causes an accident  because  he is impaired by alcohol, and  causes  the deaths of people in another car.  The driver committed at least three crimes. That is how the law is applied in practice, regardless of the crime; it is not unique to DUI.
 
XII.a.5 Pro accuses “if Con proved some amount of deterrence (he doesn’t), he fails to quantify any impact. He never says how many drunks stopped driving, or how many lives were saved.”  If I have not proven deterrence [anyone remember the lighthouse?], Con argues for the deterrence of his added test, but offers no data on “how many drunks stopped driving, or how many lives were saved.”  
 
XII.a.6 Pro claims “Con fails to distinguish between different levels of impairment.”  Refer to my R1, I.e.1.B, and R2.V.b. Further, “A DUI arrest can be made on someone who was found to be driving or having the intent to drive a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of . 08 or higher.”5    This also demonstrates the fallacy in Con’s accusation that  “Con never shows that all (or even most) drivers with a BAC of .08 cause traffic accidents or drive unsafely.”  The citations of my earlier arguments, plus my cited data from NHTSA adequately raise the curtain on that claim.
 
XIII Rebuttal: Con R3: If you drink, don’t drive
 
XIII.a Con wonders if this is law. Refer to my R2, I.e. Do I cite a statute? No. Is it common sense? I do cite two examples of it being just that, regardless of law.6, 7    
 
XIV Rebuttal: Con R3 Lighthouse deterrence
 
XIV.a Con accuses that the lighthouse has naught to do with the debate, yet uses an example of his own to explain his new test: a CDL [commercial driver’s license]. Would Con like to withdraw his example as not germane to the debate? I didn’t think so, and that is what the lighthouse is: an  example.
 
XIV.b Con accuses the lighthouse effect is ineffective. Refer to my arguments, R1, I.d, and R2, V.a – V.b.1, anddefense, R3, XI, all paragraphs.
 
XV Defense: Recidivism
 
XV.a Con says recidivism is not demonstrated by current DUI law. The claim was offered by citation, NBER, which was criticized by Con as a “working paper.” However, Con ties his argument to the data I cited from NHTSA that demonstrated a reduction in traffic deaths caused by DUI.8   When .08 BAC was initiated in 2000, that year’s total deaths by DUI were 4.6 per 100,000, according to the NHTSA/FARS.9   Since then, the data indicates a leveling, and a slight rise during the next 5 years, as noted in my R2, and then a decline in 2006, which has been the general trend since then, contrary to Con’s unsubstantiated claim that vehicle deaths have increased since 2000. Deterrence and recidivism are, therefore, demonstrated. 
 
XVI Conclusion
 
XVI.a Con’s final argument, repeated from his R2, that, “criminalizing acts…don't harm anyone,”   says, “drunk driving doesn't by legal definition involve anything dangerous.”  
 
XVI.a.1 “Getting behind the wheel of a vehicle – car, truck, motorcycle or any other motorized vehicle – after consuming alcohol is a serious crime… Some drivers may not even show warning signs of being under the influence, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less dangerous.”10
 
I rest my case for this debate. The Resolution is a failure. Vote for Con.