Potential jail time isn't a deterrent for ANY crime but I don't see what that has to do with punishing murderers and protecting their future victims. For me, half the reason I want drunk driving scum bags locked up for longer has more to do with keeping them off the streets so they can't kill and maim anymore. I know a lot of people nowadays are more concerned with rehabilitation, treating the criminal "fairly" and minimizing jail time because "it's not a deterrent" than justice and preventing future crimes (hard to drive drunk when you're in jail for 15 years) but I'm afraid I just can't see that angle. Harsh punishment is best because it ensures that at least one loser won't do it again, even if it won't stop others in the future.
I've been drunk hundreds of times but have never driven in that state. I'll walk before I do that. I can't understand how anyone would think it's okay even if they are drunk and using the excuse that their judgment is impaired. Well, maybe you should stop drinking then because you clearly can't handle your booze. Booze impairing your judgment as an excuse to drink and drive is literally the stupidest shiat I've ever heard. If you do this, you're nothing more than a selfish piece of garbage, end of story.
Seriously, does it harm society on some level to give drunk drivers harsher penalties and revoke their driving privileges? I can't see how it would. I suppose that criminals would be inconvenienced/incarcerated to a greater degree but I don't see how it would adversely affect society at large in any meaningful way. Oh wait, it wouldn't deter others and would cost money so why bother? Also, we don't want the murderer's life to be too adversely affected, that would be a real tragedy.
|