lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
We have been talking about this in my public finance class. A lot of economists agree that drunk driving is over enforced and the penalties are too steep. The reason we punish drunk driving is that it can cause negative externalities, however when you fine someone for an externality the money should be used to compensate the victims, which it isn't.If the local authorities really cared why don't they position themselves outside of parking lots and nail people before they get into their cars or at least before they go too far?
The road blocks also take police off of roads where they can actually see the worst drunk drivers and arrest him. If you see a roadblock you can legally turn around and drive away from it.
Someone half a block from home barely over the limit isn't a threat imo. There's too many scenarios. Its all about raising money for the state. If it wasn't profitable it wouldn't be done imo.
No one is compelled to answer the questions or be detained for that sole reason. Always pays to know your rights.
University of Chicago law school professor Richard Posner's analysis of the economics of drunk driving:
"But punishing just the ones who
kill might be more efficient--there wouldn't be as much need for policemen, there would
be fewer trials and prison terms, and probably many drunk drivers are quite harmless, for
it is unlikely that everyone who drives while drunk has an equal probability of causing an
accident. In general, heavy punishment of fewer people is chaper than light punishment
of more people."