Why is drunk driving so lightly punished?

Back before there were easy means to determine a person's BAC outside of a laboratory, the legal definition of a DUI was usually defined as a lack of coordination rather than a certain BAC.

I wish they hadn't changed it; changing it to a specific BAC made it too easy to get false positives with not-so-dangerous drunk drivers and too hard to catch other influences people might be driving under.

@BH: Agreed. It's a person's competence behind the wheel that's at issue, not how much alcohol is in their bloodstream.

Well, they didn't take any of the rest of the laws off the books, you can still get charged even if alcohol isn't an issue. And I'm pretty sure they still do the rest of the procedure as part of the standard protocol.

Being under the limit doesn't protect you from "reckless driving", "improper lane usage", "too fast (or too slow) for conditions", or a host of other traffic violations.

@del diablo: I think the thing you are asking about (doing something that is very likely to hurt or kill someone, but not actually harming anybody) is called reckless endangerment.

EDIT:
RCW 9A.36.050 Reckless Endangerment
(1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.
(2) Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

edited 4th Jun '11 9:03:02 PM by Glidergun

No drunk driving is not deliberately malicious. Yes, it's vacuously stupid, and seeing how it's the direct cause of somewhere around a third of traffic deaths overall and 100% preventable via trivial means, it still warrants harsh punishment. The law needs to be understanding of the occasional mistake, but not outright catering to the recklessly stupid.

@Pykrete: ...Which is why I agree with Black Humor; sobriety tests instead of BAC.

At least a breathalyzer gives a measure of solid evidence you can't really dispute. Sobriety tests are unfortunately a bit too easy to abuse. Sat in on a jury a while back where the someone got pulled over for wobbly driving (she was inexperienced) and DUI'd because she couldn't recite the alphabet backwards (she was dyslexic).

I get that ideally the best measure of "too drunk" is observation and good judgment, but frankly I don't trust traffic cops to do that if they've got a quota.

edited 4th Jun '11 9:41:47 PM by Pykrete

You can totally dispute a breathalyzer.

@Pykrete: Just because there are flaws in the current system of sobriety testing does not mean that the base concept is flawed.

Also, with BAC level requirements being what they are, you can get a DUI without any alcohol in your system at all (mouthwash, breath spray) or so little as to have no physical/mental impairment. So, either way you look at it the system's broken.

Fair enough. I'm willing to accept a simple "the system is broken all around", sure

There's a reason many jurisdictions prefer the blood test, not just the Breathalyzer.

Still waiting for proper refutal... The one(person) who has pointed at the law, has done(the argument) it properly.

Tuefel Hunden IV: It is not about the function of a gun vs the function of a automobile, it is about intent vs damage.
You can use a gun for 2 things:

• Training to shoot something
• Shoot something
  But that is irrelevant if the scenario is appropriate.
  Drunk driving is intentionally doing something that can end with something very very harmful.
  Taking a AK 47, in a non-deserted area, and pointing it in a random direction, and then shooting is also very very harmful.
  There is a difference: Amount of structural damage they can cause.
  With the car you have 1000-2000+ kilos of metal at a impact of high speed. Either you hit another car(everybody will most likely die), you drive of the road(most likely killing yourself), you hit a building(likely death yourself and destroying a lot of a house), or nothing happens.
  With the gun you hit people(wounding or killing them), or nothing happens.
  The point is: The harm is not intended, but the chance of harm is major. And the harm is great if it happens.
  Hence the 2 situations is equal.
  And do not say "But who would do that?", because after all "Who would drive drunk?".
  
  Edit
  Glidergun: Allright, i missed your post there. It was endangerment I was attempting to convey.

edited 5th Jun '11 12:10:32 PM by del_diablo

Refuting what? I don't even get your second sentence there.

But if you mean your conception of how the law is formed?

If you want to know the reasoning why a given law was written the way it was, you'd probably have to read the legislative discussion.

edited 5th Jun '11 11:34:30 AM by blueharp

: I am going to ask you to stop skimming my posts, and read them.

I'm sorry, but I can't be sure what you mean, since sometimes you've been quite unclear with what you're saying. I don't even know what you're trying to express with your second sentence there.

It really won't hurt you to expand on your words a bit more, and clarify your meaning when it's not apparent.

edited 5th Jun '11 12:00:02 PM by blueharp