Whilst this will no doubt sound like playing devil's advocate, I genuinely disagree with the drink-driving laws. I abhor dangerous driving ? but how that driving has become dangerous (whether it is as a result of inebriation, talking to a child in the back of the car, texting on a mobile phone or BlackBerry) is, to my mind, less relevant than the fact that someone has allowed themselves to become distracted from what is, in essence, a potentially very dangerous activity.
In other words, being drunk/texting etc etc should be taken into account when determining the level of punishment ? i.e. it could be seen as an aggravating factor ? but it should not be illegal to drink and drive per se. I do not like the law being fashioned in such a way as to make it harder to break a law that already exists, because it reduces our capacity to demonstrate responsibility.
Driving dangerously is irresponsible and, when it causes an accident, should be punished. When alcohol is found to be the cause, then the punishment should be severe (life imprisonment where death has resulted, I suggest). But to simply drive home from the pub, drunk?and hit no-one and cause no damage, should not in itself be a crime.
No-one has been hurt and to argue that someone might have been is very dangerous. Lots of things might happen?but to punish people for possible harm is wrong and actually encourages us all to act irresponsibly because it removes our opportunity for deciding for ourselves. Allow us to regulate ourselves and punish us when we clearly fail to limit our own excesses by causing harm to others.
To return to the examples already discussed ? in my Brave New World, each of these should have been punished far more severely?but had no harm or damage been caused to anyone else, the people concerned would have committed no offence. The value of deterrence has long been forgotten, alas?and this should be re-introduced to our criminal justice system.