Drunk driving should be legal.

He's given me a great starting point for analyzing this issue. Because, what he did violated my rules and the social norms on DDO. And yet, it was a harmless violation. And harmlesss violations shouldn't be punished. The problem is the rule and social norm, not Yraelz's conduct. There's simply nothing morally culpable about what Yraelz did. And drunk driving is just like that. There's simply nothing morally culpable about having alcohol in your blood. Nothing. But I'll get to that in a second. First, a preliminary note: Yraelz and I have agreed to a tie. It doesn't matter who you think won, you must vote for a tie. That said, please feel free to give us your opinion and RFD in the comments. == Definitions == I didn't have a chance to define anything before Yraelz accepted, so I'll take this opportunity to narrow the debate's scope. I'm gonna assume Yraelz accepts all definitions, because they're gonna be pretty standard, and I don't want to have a semantic debate, and he kinda put himself in this position by accepting without approval. "Drunk" means "having a blood-alcohol level of .08 or above. " "Driving" means "the control and operation of a motor vehicle. " "Be," "should," and "legal" have their ordinary meaning. Basically, this debate is about the DUI laws in most states. The criminal offense is "driving while you have a blood-alcohol level of .08 or greater, regardless of whether the alcohol has had any effect on you. " Yraelz must argue these are good laws; I'll argue the opposite. == Why do we have criminal laws? == The underlying purposes are (1) retribution, and (2) deterrence. Retribution is the idea that there's inherent value to punishment. Deterrence is the idea that the law can discourage certain conduct through punishment. == Why is drunk driving illegal? ==I have no fvcking clue. Seriously. Punishing drunk drivers simply doesn't further any of the goals underlying criminal law. Retribution? Nope. There's no inherent value to punishing drunk drivers because drunk drivers aren't morally culpable. Drunk drivers don't intentionally hurt anyone. They don't intentionally drive bad. Sh! t, most drunk drivers, intentionally or unintentionally, don't actually drive bad or hurt anyone. Most drunk drivers -- statistically -- harm nobody. Most drunk drivers commit a crime simply because there's alcohol in their blood. They haven't actually done anything wrong. These aren't people who inherently deserve punishment. Retribution is about punishing people who deserve to be punished, like rapists and murders and thieves and sex traffickers. Deterrence? Nope. It doesn't matter how strictly you punish drunk drivers, people are still gonna get drunk and drive. All the evidence -- and I'm not gonna cite sources because I don't have the time to actually go and look for them, but I know they're out there, and plus it's common sense -- shows that DUI laws don't prevent drunk driving. People still do it. They do it a lot. Most of the people I know who drink drive after drinking. And they're usually way above .08 but they drive fine and they get home safe. I suppose Yraelz might argue that the problem is we need bigger punishments for drunk drivers so that people will stop doing it. But I bet even then, people are still gonna drive drunk. And, there's also something wrong about that. Are you gonna punish drunk drivers the way you punish rapists? The moral culpability of a rapist ain't equivalent to the moral culpability of a drunk driver. Punishing them the same doesn't compute. And, even if you punish drunk drivers the same way you punish rapists, there's still no evidence that it's gonna prevent drunk driving. You're just hoping for the best. == Implementation ==Besides the fact that laws against drunk driving don't further the goals of criminal law, there's a bunch of practical concerns about the laws. First, there's no way for someone to know if they're blood-alcohol level is .08 or above. It's all guesswork. Punshing people for a miscalculation about their own blood-alcohol level is fvcked up. These people aren't morally culpable; they haven't done anything wrong. They just misjudged their blood-alcohol level, based on how they felt. Tons of people feel a slight buzz when they're at .08 because their tolerance is huge. If you drink even a couple times a week, then your tolerance is gonna be at the point where .08 feels like a slight buzz. And those folks are criminals when they get behind the wheel, even though they're perfectly capable of driving, all because they thought they weren't drunk (i. e. they thought they were below the limit). Second, how are police supposed to stop drunk drivers? If they're driving bad, punish them for driving bad. We already have reckless driving laws, so the drunk driving laws are completely unnecessary. If they're driving fine, then police have no reason to stop the drunk drivers. And if police have no reason to stop the drunk drivers, then they're effectively letting tons of criminals just get away. In fact, most drunks drivers don't get stopped, because they drive perfectly fine. And, if police stop a drunk driver for bad driving, how are they supposed to determine if the driver is drunk? It's guesswork. Practically-speaking, there's tons of problems implementing these laws. And laws that leave lots of holes are ripe for police abuse -- and we know there's tons of police abuse already -- so adding drunk driving to the list of crimes just gives police an excuse to stop someone and abuse them, based on the idea that they're drunk. == Overinclusive == This is a huge impact. There are tons of drunk drivers who drive safely. And tons of drivers who aren't drunk who drive recklessly. The idea behind punishing drunk drivers is ultimately -- at its core -- to punish bad drivers who make the roads unsafe. But there's tons of drivers out there who drive badly, and who drive recklessly, and who aren't drunk. And there's tons of drunk drivers -- the majority of them -- who drive perfectly safe. It's crazy to enact a criminal law that's so ridiculously overinclusive and underinclusive. And note, drunk driving is strict liability. There's none of that "reasonable doubt" stuff that applies to murder and rape. If you drive drunk and your blood-alcohol level is above .08, you're fvcked. There's no worry about punishing the innocent -- and let's be real, drunk drivers who haven't harmed anyone are fundamentally innocent. And, unlike murder laws or rape laws, drunk driving laws are underinclusive: they don't punish the problem, which is reckless drivers. Also, the real irony of DUI laws, is that they're totally unnecessary. Reckless driving laws already punish the bad drivers, so we don't need an extra layer of regulations punishing people just because they have some alcohol in their blood. NOTE: I'm writing this round up after driving home from my local bar. I had multiple drinks. I don't know what my blood-alcohol level was but I felt a good buzz. Yet here I am, home, safe, alive.