Rather than talk about this proposition perhaps we should take steps to stop drunk driving before it happens? Forget about infringing on privacy and just make the punishment sufficient to act as a deterrent given the (low) risk of getting caught. ie if the risk of getting caught is relatively low because of privacy and rights then you up the consequences of those caught BIG TIME.
First offense $100,000 fine and 5yrs imprisonment, 10 years if you don't have the 100k then 5 yrs of touring schools teaching about the implications of DD. Many will cry that is draconian and unfair? WTF is fair in this context? I don't give a hoot. You had a choice. You knew the rules and you chose wrong and could have killed or injured someone causing massive costs. SO SUCK IT. Money goes to victim services/restitution/education. Many will cry wail and curse the harsh actions "ohhhh that is so not fair people only get 3 years for manslaughter". But I expect they'd ultimately tuck their tail between their legs and get the picture real quick if rules held fast.
But then again I hear from a certain element of the left that punishment never works...so there's that. People never operate based on actions Vs consequence right?
Might not be perfect but I dare say it'd be a might more effective than catching a few more people, infringing the rights and privacy of many more people, while administering a hand slap to the guilty parties who will soon be out to reoffend.
|