Catching Drunk Drivers Before They Kill
Mike Hashimoto, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, weighs in on the subject of instituting random sobriety checkpoints in Texas. He's against it, natch. So are most of the commenters. Nevertheless, it could become reality if a bill already passed by the Texas Senate becomes law.
The objections are varied. Some complain of inconveniencing sober drivers. Some complain random stops are an invasion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches. Others argue that sobriety checkpoints are ineffective. Some go so far as to say the whole idea is mainly for show, a way of convincing the public that something is being done. Still others argue that sobriety checkpoints aren't even needed, as the prevalence of drunken driving is exaggerated. The conspiracy-minded see greed behind the idea, that cities look to sobriety checkpoints as a way of raising money from DWI fines.
Nicole Stockdale points out a couple of facts from a 2006 editorial that continue to drive the debate today. First, "In Texas, 1,224 drivers with a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater died in motor vehicle crashes last year." And, second, "Texas is among only 10 states that don't allow law enforcement officials to operate such stops."
That tells me that there is a problem, that it's serious, and that unless someone can devise a solution that protects civil liberties, voters are going to accept proposals that don't. It's happening in other states; it'll happen in Texas, too, regardless of the objections cited above. So, from a practical standpoint, people opposed to sobriety checkpoints should start proposing other ways to stop people who have been drinking too much from getting behind the wheel and putting all of our lives at risk. And then the objectors should get their alternative proposals enacted. The public will no longer accept the status quo.
6 comments:
Random sobriety checkpoints don't bother me at all. And the fact that crackpot libertarians like Hackimoto oppose them convinces me all the more that they're what we should be doing. You're right. Come up with a better solution, then we'll talk.
I have mixed feelings about Libertarians like Mike Hashimoto. On the one hand, I admire their steadfast defense of civil liberties. On the other, I'm frustrated by their total lack of practicality.
Libertarians are not for the most part concerned with protecting civil liberties. They are concerned primarily with protecting their own privilege and their "freedom" to do whatever they want without regard for anyone else's welfare or well-being. Libertarians come in two basic varieties: cranky "you kids get off my lawn" old coots like Ron Paul and adolescent "you're not the boss of me" punks like Trey Garrison. And then there are the hacks like you know who. I cannot take such people seriously.
Sobriety checkpoints are a red herring: drivers should be arrested and lose their license if they demonstrate dangerous driving behavior (whether drunk, high, unskilled, texting, stupid, type-a salesman swerve-driver, etc).
Lee Gibson, I agree that cranks and punks might be attracted to libertarianism for selfish reasons, but I won't go as far as to say all libertarians are either cranks or punks.
bloggermouse, I agree with you on the need for tougher penalties for drunken driving.
No, they're not all cranks or punks. Some of them are hacks. :)
Post a Comment