Combat drunk driving Print E-mail


Operating vehicles or machinery while impaired (OWI) is a dangerous problem that seems uniquely serious in Wisconsin. Fighting unjust state laws at a local level by trying to legalize something (or reduce its penalty) locally is always a tough battle, because the state can still punish people within this locality under state law. However, the battle is easier if the locality is trying to outlaw (or at least increase the punishment for) something that is legal (or not punished enough) under state law, which is the case with OWI.
            Since OWI threatens to deny, and far too often does deny, other people of their rights, it must be illegal. Now, the question arises as to whether the current punishment under state law is enough. My love for abstract political philosophies is not irrelevant here. First, the punishment should be proportional to (or, “fit”) the crime, which is not the case with OWI in Wisconsin, which is selfish, irresponsible, reckless, dangerous and indefensible.
            Second, the punishment exists not only for justice on behalf of society, but also as a deterrent to potential law-breakers, which is hardly the case with OWI in Wisconsin, given its unusually high rate. For example, in 2006, 49 percent of total traffic deaths in Wisconsin were alcohol-related, which is the highest rate in the U.S. and is 12 percentage points above the national average (1). This is completely unacceptable.
State’s inaction
            Calls for tougher penalties in Wisconsin for OWI are falling deaf on some ears in the state legislature. However, some legislators, such as Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), support changes in state law. Kaufert supports requiring ignition interlocks with breathalyzers for repeat offenders, as well as for first-time offenders with blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of 0.15 percent or above, nearly twice the legal BAC limit. However, several more proposals are floating around the state government (2).*
            We the people of Neenah don’t have to wait for the state of Wisconsin to decide on which, if any, law to pass. We the people of Neenah also don’t have to solely rely on a new state law to satisfactorily reduce OWI within Neenah. We can and should protect Neenah from drunk drivers when the state of Wisconsin fails to adequately protect its citizens.
My proposals
            I propose a city ordinance that would allow the city of Neenah to impose its own penalty equal to the penalty applicable under state law, in addition to imposing that penalty allowed under state law, on anyone that is convicted of, pleads guilty to or pleads no contest to a charge of operating while impaired (OWI) within the city of Neenah. For example, should the Kaufert-supported proposal become state law, which would require the ignition interlock for one year, my proposal would allow the city of Neenah to require an ignition interlock for a second year.
            The basic reasoning for my proposal is essentially two-fold. First, should the ignition-interlock law (or any other proposed state law involving OWI) be relatively ineffective due to being easy to circumvent or otherwise “cheat,” my proposal is more sweeping than this ignition-interlock proposal and would thus be better able to combat OWI, because other penalties, such as jail terms and monetary fines, could be doubled within the city of Neenah, not just the ignition-interlock requirement.
            Second, my proposal offers a fairer amount of penalty for such a dangerous crime, which should be treated as such, instead of with a slap on the wrist. Also, these enhanced penalties should serve as a deterrent, preventing people from OWI.
I also propose making the prevention of operating while impaired (OWI) a higher law enforcement priority. In order to deter people from OWI, they not only need to believe that they can get arrested for OWI, but that they will, the latter being made more possible by better enforcement of the law. A law does not adequately force compliance if not adequately enforced.
Note: some possible proposals, such as safe-ride programs or therapy programs for abusers of alcohol, are beyond the scope of this article.
 
 
*My use of this Web site as a brief yet informative source does not necessarily mean that I have an opinion about this business.