What a hellish day. The last three hours were a scramble and I couldn't wait to get out of there.
But then a guy who lives in my neighborhood tells me that my normal route home is crawling with cops. So, for obviously reasons, I went a different way.
He must have been right because I didn't see a single cop anywhere.
I've been thinking about law enforcement lately, not just as it pertains to my case, but in general. The drug war, excessive force, stupid unenforceable laws, increasingly intrusive and draconian laws.
The trend, I think, hasn't been good, not just from a crime rate perspective, but from a more general
effectiveness perspective.
Take
this story, for instance, with the shocking headline:
1 in 3 DUI arrests repeat offenders
A Denver Post analysis has found that about 10,000 drunken drivers arrested in Colorado each year are repeat offenders.
Police arrest roughly 31,000 drunken drivers a year, so about one in three has at least one previous DUI.
This is concerning for a number of reasons.
Obviously drunk drivers are a danger on the road, and 31,000 drunk drivers is a lot. It's also concerning because those are just the ones who
got caught.
The ones who got caught
twice? Here they already suffered the penalty --getting arrested, having their car towed, paying the fines, losing their license, all that-- and it was
still no deterrent.
So the impulse is to get tougher, pass more laws, enact more penalties. As the article says:
The numbers come a generation after a national crackdown on drunken driving. Colorado legislators made it tougher to plea-bargain drunken-driving cases and increased sentences for both driving while under the influence of alcohol, or DUI, and driving while ability impaired by alcohol, DWAI.
A 2004 law lowered the threshold for DUI, to 0.08 minimum blood alcohol content from 0.10.
They also have those "Heat is On" campaigns where they round up and shake down everybody. (It's real fun, let me tell ya.)
But is drunk driving any less of a problem?
If you're drunk, and you've got to get home...are you even going to think about that stuff? Maybe, but maybe you've made it home before one night when the Heat
wasn't On. So you get behind the wheel...
And bam, you're a statistic. (Arrest or death. Flip a coin.)
I have this philosophy in life that says you have to be smarter than the dog. A dog is going to be a dog, right? You put a plate of steak on the floor in front of him,
he will eat it.
You could punish the dog and maybe next time it will leave the steak alone. But if your aim is to
prevent the dog from eating your steak, then you must out-think the dog.
You must invent something called the table. Put your steak up there and the dog can't get to it. Problem solved.
Not everything can be solved this way of course, and I've seen some pretty well-trained dogs that probably wouldn't go for the steak under any circumstance. But as a general principle, it seems to work pretty well.
Which is why I don't think
punishment works too well in the case of drunken driving. It's after the fact, and in the tragic cases, after people are dead. I'm not saying strip all the punishments away, but maybe there's other ways to engineer around the problem.
If I was king and dictator of this fine land, I'd create entertainment districts in the suburbs, concentrate all the drinking in one place, with cabs and buses and trains running at all hours to ferry the merry revelers home. These hubs would be connected to the other hubs - like Disneyland! - and you could travel between them, from burb to burb, drunk but safe. There would be streets, but no parking lots, no parking
period.
By decree of the king and dictator -that would be me- you do not bring your car down to party town.