Do Laws Deter Crime? Education vs Fear

[Bratticus]

Education is the best solution to solve any problem but not everyone able to get good education - children with poor/uneducated parents who unable to raise their children in good environment. If a child doesn't get good environment, you can't do much so education wouldn't work in that case.

I beg to differ, poor children are as capable of learning as rich children. Using ones background as an excuse goes out with adulthood. As an adult you should be able to think for yourself and not use your background as an excuse for your own failures. We have too much of that already.

The standards of education should be the same for the poor as for the rich. And if help is needed, a mentoring program appears to work very well, so why not establish more of them.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I beg to differ, poor children are as capable of learning as rich children

Yes, but poor children are less likely to have access to the proper tools to learn as rich children are. Not to mention more likely growing up in a culture where education is undervalued or even looked down on

 

[Integral]

Perhaps one of the best way to encourage respect for laws is to minimize the number of laws. A bare minimum of essential laws would by definition reduce the crime rate. For example; attempts to legislate morality results in mountains of laws which encourage disrespect for not only those laws but laws in general.

Now just what a necessary minimum number of laws is, I have no idea. That is a matter for discussion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This suggests a judgment problem among those persons - - - probably related to their drinking proclivities.

Generally speaking, people who commit crimes have judgment problems for one reason or another.

What about the frequent victims of these drivers? Example, my brother and his son were badly injured by one who was driving drunk (very). Should we not try to protect the health of these victims? If you can think of an alternative which would work, that would be appreciated by all of us.

The best way to protect people from a crime is to prevent it from happening. That is my whole point. In many cases, including drunk driving, the law and punishment in and of themselves seem to be fairly ineffective at accomplishing this. Education has most likely been the best preventative. It seems that there is still a problem with this though since the number of DUIs among females seems to be increasing (up approximately 30% in the last decade). Considering that the severity of punishment has only increased in the same time frame it has obviously not had the intended effect.

Continually increasing the severity of punishment for a crime to the point where it could completely ruin a persons life is not a very effective means of dealing with the offenders. Felons are more likely to be drinkers, do drugs, commit further crimes, ect. When you catch a person who is driving after a couple of beers and it results in loss of license, loss of vehicle, loss of job (and possibly career), jail time, strict and numerous parole/probation guidelines, and a few thousand dollars in fines fees ect; just what do you think is going to be going through the mind of the offender? Gee I really oughtn't drink and drive. or Holy *&%$!@##+%$ what are you people doing to me?!

Apparently increased severity of punishment does not seem to be working. Wouldn't you think we ought to do something more effective? Or do you subscribe to the vengeance school of crime and punishment?

Education is the best solution to solve any problem but not everyone able to get good education - children with poor/uneducated parents who unable to raise their children in good environment. If a child doesn't get good environment, you can't do much so education wouldn't work in that case.

General crime prevention strategies tend to focus on two things. Education is one of them and a sense of community is the other. People who care about their neighbourhood and the people who live there are more likely to consider the possible effects of their actions on others. The average person living in an urban area hardly knows any of their neighbours. They see hundreds or thousands of faceless individuals roaming the streets daily. Consider that a neighbourhood watch not only creates an organized effort to report crime it also creates a relationship between the neighbours who participate and gives them the sense that their neighbourhood and the people in it are worth caring about.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it is as frequent as it is made out to be. The same day your brother and his son were injured, there were thousands maybe even a million drunk drivers who made it home without hurting anyone. Even if it was only 100 people drinking and driving that day, you want to punish the 100 to stop 1(even though punishing the 100 isn't at all guaranteed to stop the 1), that doesn't seem very efficient to me. No, we shouldn't try to protect the health of these victims because we can't succeed, accidents happen. I think we should punish those that hurt others (the 1) and leave the other 99 alone.

This made me curious, so I looked up some stats:


-In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving related crashes (about 30% of all fatalities)...
-Over 1.46 million drivers were arrested in 2006 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
-Fifty to 75 percent of drunk drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive.
http://www.madd.org/about-us/about-us/statistics.aspx

These stats tell me a few things:
-Traffic accidents are a somewhat significant problem (not huge, though, given the amount of driving people do).
-Drunk driving causes a significant fraction of traffic fatalities, so it should get a significant fraction of the attention.
-1.46 million arrests is a HUGE number and an awful lot of arrests in proportion to the number of fatalitles. How many fatalities does that prevent? I'm not sure if it is worth all that effort or not though. It might just be one of those things that has to be done even if the cost/benefit ratio isn't really there.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Given the potential for fines for those arrests, what IS the net cost? A first time offense is usually a minimum of a couple hundred dollars, so there's close to a half billion dollars of income at least (probably more)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Given the potential for fines for those arrests, what IS the net cost? A first time offense is usually a minimum of a couple hundred dollars, so there's close to a half billion dollars of income at least (probably more)

I think he means "cost vs benefit" in the sense of the cost being people who are not necessarily a threat being arrested and the benefit being the number of people who are a real threat being arrested. Note the post by Jason that he is responding to.


As far as fines and such here in CA the fine just for the ticket, after all the fees and such, is about $1500 or more. I know that they increased the penalties just within the last year so it may be more now. They have also been increasing attached fees for tickets in general. I'm not sure from your post if you are referring to the cost to the individual or not. I'll assume that you are and give you some more costs. An offenders car is impounded and the offender may not be allowed to get the vehicle out of impound for up to 30 days during which time the fees for getting the vehicle out of impound are accruing daily. I believe that the initial cost is about $160 or so and the daily increase is about $60. After you are found guilty you will be required to attend a DUI program. The total cost for the program on a first offense so long as you were not well over the limit is about $500. And if you want your license back you will have to pay the DMV about $500 but that is only after you report your DUI to your insurance, which will likely result in a higher rate, and get an SR22 which is pretty much a separate state mandated increase in your insurance rate that you will have to pay for a minimum of three years. Mine only cost about $8 a month. My insurance rate is already particularly low and I am not sure if the cost of the SR22 varies from company to company and person to person.

 

[Bratticus]

Considering the number of arrests for drunk driving, just how does the drunk driving law prevent the crime?

People who do not drive while intoxicated do so, imho, because they themselves consider it wrong to do so, not because of fear of a ticket.

Does anyone know how many states still have a law on the books that makes adultary a crime? And does that deter anyone from cheating on their spouse? Doubt it.

No matter what I read, education is the answer... tougher laws, stiffer fines... harsher sentences... does not appear any of those work, otherwise we would not have an increase in crime.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Considering the number of arrests for drunk driving, just how does the drunk driving law prevent the crime?

People who do not drive while intoxicated do so, imho, because they themselves consider it wrong to do so, not because of fear of a ticket.

Does anyone know how many states still have a law on the books that makes adultary a crime? And does that deter anyone from cheating on their spouse? Doubt it.

No matter what I read, education is the answer... tougher laws, stiffer fines... harsher sentences... does not appear any of those work, otherwise we would not have an increase in crime.

To be fair part of the relatively consistent or increasing rate of DUI arrests is due to decreases in the legal limit and the police striving to make as many arrests as possible because it makes money both in fines and fees as well as state and federal money that goes towards DUI enforcement.

 

[BigFairy]

fining people for everything seems to be the norm these days :(


the latest here is: No riding of scooters or skates/skateboards on roads after dark.

im not kidding either.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

fining people for everything seems to be the norm these days :(


the latest here is: No riding of scooters or skates/skateboards on roads after dark.

im not kidding either.

There have been similar laws here for a while. You are not supposed to operate a vehicle on the roads after dark without lights. So no skates, skateboards, or even bikes though you can easily outfit a bike with lights. I think you are supposedly able to even skate if you can attach proper lights to your own self.

 

[Jasongreat]

This made me curious, so I looked up some stats:


-In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving related crashes (about 30% of all fatalities)...
-Over 1.46 million drivers were arrested in 2006 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
-Fifty to 75 percent of drunk drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive.
http://www.madd.org/about-us/about-us/statistics.aspx

These stats tell me a few things:
-Traffic accidents are a somewhat significant problem (not huge, though, given the amount of driving people do).
-Drunk driving causes a significant fraction of traffic fatalities, so it should get a significant fraction of the attention.
-1.46 million arrests is a HUGE number and an awful lot of arrests in proportion to the number of fatalitles. How many fatalities does that prevent? I'm not sure if it is worth all that effort or not though. It might just be one of those things that has to be done even if the cost/benefit ratio isn't really there.

Nearly a third of all traffic fatalities are drinking related, what are some of the other signifigant #'s,Not paying attention is about equal with DUI in all the studies(some studies even more) I've looked at, are we empowering cops to pull over, arrest, and punish those that look away from the road? Its just as dangerous, but that doesn't just involve a segment of society people have been trying to get rid for quite a while. Also we should remember that if a drunk steps into the road and gets hit, that is considered an achohol related crash and is included in the DUI stats, even though it wasnt a drunk driver. Also remember that even if a car pulls out right in front of you and even if you were sober you couldn't have stopped, it is automatically your fault if you have .08% of alchohol in you system, even if no person on Earth sober or not could have avoided the accident. So stats are exagerated by this.
1.46 million people arrested and still over 11,000 deaths, that seems to me to be concrete proof that the law and the punishment do not deter to any signifigant degree(nor do they seem to fit the crime). I agree that some of those arrested might have been invovled in an accident, but you didnt let them continue down the road where you would then have concrete proof one way or the other, but by pulling them out, you can no longer cite any facts regarding those you removed(since there are none, just assumptions), granted some might have got in an accident just as well as some(most) wouldn't have gotten in an accident, we will never know one way or the other. Of course that doesn't stop people from exerting assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.
It seems to me the outrage towards drinkers is just bigotry, there are tons of other actions that are just as deadly or more so but you hardly ever hear about them. Like the 160,000+ plus americans that die every year from the proper use of prescription drugs. Or the 700,000+ that die from medical mistakes every year. I have never heard a plan to ban prescription drugs or to ban doctors, because that would be foolish wouldn't it, even with the huge numbers of deaths related to these things. The only time it is allowed to punish the majority
for the crimes of the minority is when actions that you don't believe in(and believe will never affect you) are invovled, such as drinking and smoking. I will never drink, but I drive and I might get hit by a driver that does drink one day, so let's ban drinking and driving, even though it has been shown time and time again that banning a behavior never, ever gets rid of that behaviour. Prohibition of alcohol didnt work, prohibition of drugs hasnt worked, and prohibition of drunk driving hasnt worked, nor will they ever work, since laws don't deter.
If I was in a science lab, and kept reaching into the experiment, changing the outcome, and then claimed very precise results, would that experiment pass the muster? Why then do we allow societal experiments to be ran that way? I think the proponents of DUI laws might want to consider that if you started to get into the signifigant areas, such as .15% or higher BAC's. Then your stats might start to be in a range worthwhile, I would assume that if you looked at fatalities caused by someone at .08%, it would be a very small %, but if you looked at fatalities with people over .20% I would bet that is a % that would be signifigant. If you could find the BAC where the chance of being in an accident is over 50%, then you would start to punish the majority for the actions of the majority, instead of the majority for the actions of the minority. You would still be punishing people for what they might do, but you would have the stats to substantially back up your claims as to how deadly a certain % BAC is. The way its set up now with .08% as the line you can't cross, you will continue to not get the support you think you deserve.
If you still think the way to get to where you want to be is by way of punishment, how about a punishment that teaches at the same time. Have the cops film the drunks actions, then gather that drunks peers(friends, family, coworkers) into a room and show the film to all of them. Its easy for a drunk to forget how stupid he acted, it is also easy to keep a dui hidden from your family and friends, but I would about bet my life on it, that if you showed that film to the people he/she cares about and the drunk could see the reactions of those in attendance(I bet you wouldn't want to show people at .08%, it would probably put the friends on the same side as the drunk), and could also see how stupid he/she was acting on tape. That drunk would have a far less recidivism rate than by fiscal punishment, or any other type. Mortification is a far more powerful punishment than governmental coercion, since it comes from within instead of from the outside. Of course you would find some that didnt care what others thought, but youve already got that now, but anytime you can let someone decide for themselves you have a far more consistent outcome, they won't as easily forget why they choose not to get plastered and then drive down the road, since like has been stated in many posts in this thread, if the only thing keeping you from commiting a crime is the fear of punishment, once that fear is gone you will commit the crime. What is booze good at? Removing fear?

 

[Office_Shredder]

1.46 million people arrested and still over 11,000 deaths, that seems to me to be concrete proof that the law and the punishment do not deter to any signifigant degree(nor do they seem to fit the crime). I agree that some of those arrested might have been invovled in an accident, but you didnt let them continue down the road where you would then have concrete proof one way or the other, but by pulling them out, you can no longer cite any facts regarding those you removed(since there are none, just assumptions), granted some might have got in an accident just as well as some(most) wouldn't have gotten in an accident, we will never know one way or the other. Of course that doesn't stop people from exerting assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.

The question isn't how many people arrested would have continued on in that trip to kill someone, the question is how many people decided not to drink and drive because of a fear of being arrested, and how many people didn't drink and drive because of having previously been arrested.

 

[russ_watters]

Given the potential for fines for those arrests, what IS the net cost? A first time offense is usually a minimum of a couple hundred dollars, so there's close to a half billion dollars of income at least (probably more)

I would suspect that a few hundred dollars in fines comes nowhere close to covering the cost of an arrest and prosecution.

A dui isn't like a speeding ticket: a speeding ticket might generate $150 for 10 min worth of work for a cop. A dui is probably 5 hours between a handful of cops, a few hours of a prosecutor, maybe an hour for a judge, plus other court staff. I bet the whole thing costs $5,000 or more.