Laws do not tolerate drunk driving and will likely result in any civil punishment. A punishment could be in the form of community service or imprisonment for the certain duration of time. High consumption of beers could change a person’s state of consciousness due to intoxication. Millions of people drive using their cars daily in order to reach their destination. Many people associate themselves with both drinking and driving as part of their cultural lifestyle. In addition, it is important to understand the implications behind drunk driving because it addresses important issues correlated to cultural aspects of human life.
Cultural drinking habits shape drunk driving patterns and may be more concentrated on weekend nights in prime time places for heavy drinking (Scott et al., 2006). Most of the heavy drinking may occur at night, but that does not have to take out the situation of being drunk on daylight. Regardless of the time, implementation laws on drunk driving should always be strict. People who both drive and drink are simply enjoying their life, but they should still be aware of the health and mental complications it can cause. Those mental complications could make them drive a car while intoxicated. Drunk drivers could potentially cause accidents and unlikely killings on the road – and could play a hand on earning a charge of DUI (driving under the influence).
Drunk drivers may not be behind the bars on their first offense depending on the outcome. However, they may be subject for imprisonment if such actions are intentional, coupled with contempt and utter disregard for driving laws. The paper discusses the role of the police on apprehend drunk drivers and proper use of technological devices to ensure accurate detection of alcohol infestation. These issues are particularly discussed because all of them are major determinants in imprisoning the person caught driving under the influence of alcohol.
There is a corresponding result for every action. The action could be caustic towards benefits or could be detrimental to a specific norm. Such is the case for drunk driving, a risky action that has harmful consequences from the behavioral and physical aspects of a person. The direct cause of drunk driving has something to do with the mindset of an alcohol intoxicated person. However, there are specific causes of drunk driving from a philosophical perspective.
Asher (2012) explains the causes of drunk driving through Aristotle’s four different models of causes (“Aristotle on Causality,” 2006), and it can be a major determinant on whether the accused should be subject for imprisonment. The material cause of drunk driving could be a society where one can drink alcohol and can drive a car freely. The formal cause of drunk driving lies on the fact that alcohol potentially harms the driver’s dexterity. The efficient cause - relying on the visible existence of a material - theorizes that alcohol is the cause of drunk driving. The final cause of drunk driving is the desire to get home by driving a car after drinking too much beer for hours.
Asher’s above explanation on causes drunk driving seems to follow a stage-by-stage pattern as the final cause would only be determined if the elements within the causes are present. However, what does it have to do with the investigation of drunk drivers caught in the act? Every investigation involving drunk driving should be thorough and free from bias. More importantly, a sequence of events and the presence of material evidences play a big role in analyzing the role of drunk drivers caught in the act. It is the role of jury to ensure that moral and political laws and litigation processes are enforced with fairness. Moreover, state police officers and the elements of justice are responsible in analyzing the whole situation of drunk driving.
The Role of Police and Various State Laws
It is the responsibility of police officers to be aware of the state jurisdiction laws regarding drunk driving. Hence, police officers must increase on-road activity and visibility while exercising vigilance on apprehending drivers who commit traffic violations (DuPont, et. al, 2012). If a drunk driver can regulate and control himself when driving, then it is likely that he can drive normally, potentially escaping police apprehension instances in the process. However, it is the right of police to ask drivers to stop at a checkpoint. If a driver simply refuses to comply with the checkpoint procedures, then police officers could simply get the car details of a driver in target. If a driver is found to be violating traffic rules, then the police could politely ask if the driver could surrender himself/herself for testing. For police officers to determine the drunkenness of the driver, they must perform a field sobriety test and chemical blood/breath test.
The drunk driver may have the right to refuse in partaking to field sobriety tests. However, suspicions would only arise on the part of the police officers. Nevertheless, it is still the role of police and the acting jury to give a fair stance on the drunken driver’s side, while ensuring that all procedures are taken in accordance with the laws and standard operating procedures. Loopholes are present in field sobriety tests, and could not be the sole basis on determining if a person caught in the act is either under the influence of alcohol (Artz, n.d.). Therefore, police departments must focus more on breath testing because if they want to be more accurate with data collection on the person’s drunk state. Tin Win (2006) reiterates the effectiveness of breath analyzers on determining drunkenness, but there is room for inaccuracy and involves high costs. Highly advanced technological equipment such for detecting alcohol levels within one’s body are effective in general. That alone could be a major determinant on whether the apprehended drunk driver should serve a specific duration of time behind bars.
Determining the causes of drunk driving in detail is very important; because they serve as material evidences in ensuring that the laws are implemented fairly, and that drunk drivers are caught on the act. More importantly, evidences give a clear stand on whether such action and situation took place. However, the effectiveness of drunk driving laws rely on the shoulders of responsible police officers. Police officers must be the acting forces on strict implementation of laws while using efficient and technological means of ensuring the accuracy of events leading to an instance of drunk driving. Critical data from incurred causes and tests conducted by police are instrumental in determining if the drunk driver should be imprisoned or not. Police officers and state laws should continue to follow the stipulations on imprisonment to ensure that the laws are effective. Should the person caught driving under the influence of alcohol be captured? Collected data suggest that there should be an imprisonment. However, duration for imprisonment should be only determined depending on how the corresponding action and its gravity of the negative scenario took place upon the situation and the person itself.
Artz, J. (n.d.). Tests used to determine if you are driving drunk. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://expertbeacon.com/tests-used-determine-if-you-are-driving-drunk/#Field Sobriety Test
Asher, L. (2014, April 12). Philosophy Weekend: Genocide and Drunk Driving and Causality. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.litkicks.com/GenocideAndCausality#.VG_kCtKUdZM
DuPont, R. L., Voas, R. B., Walsh, J. M., Shea, C., Talpins, S. K., & Neil, M. M. (2012). The need for drugged driving per se laws: a commentary. Traffic injury prevention, 13(1), 31- 42.
Scott, M., Emerson, N., Antonacci, L., & Plant, J. (2006, February 1). Drunk Driving. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p094-pub.pdf
Win, D. T. (2006). Breath Alcohol Testers-Prevents Road Accidents. Assumption Univ J Technol, 10, 75-80.