The Importance Of Stricter Punishment

The right lesson to learn is that it is dangerous to drive under the influence of alcohol and it is unacceptable. To teach this lesson, the need for stricter punishment is essential. What kind of punishment is necessary? There are many different ways to enforce a stricter policy. In Quebec, a first-time offender pays a minimum of $600, loses all driving privileges and his car is impounded for thirty to ninety days (Reid 1). In the United States, the lenient laws are becoming stricter. Nebraska law states, “the license loss increases and so do the minimum jail sentences” (Krebs 1). Another law was passed in New Jersey, enforcing the installation of an ignition interlock device to a first-time offender (“Stender”). With harsher laws, offenders

These penalties are discouraging repeat offenders and justly punishing criminals. To discourage first-time offenders from becoming repeat offenders, a stricter, initial punishment must be enforced. An outcome is that drunk drivers are paying for their recklessness. The streets are safer for a little while longer. Dodge County Judge Kenneth states that “the change in the drunk driving laws has the potential of taking repeat offenders off the street for longer periods of time” (Krebs 1). Jail time is a major factor. No first-time offender wants to have a permanent record for something as reckless as drunk driving. It is life-changing and frankly, embarrassing. Another embarrassing, but less dramatic technique to punishing offenders is a shame sanction. Shame sanctions were heavily used in the 1800s. However, they are returning in some states. In Ohio, judges can authorize repeat offenders to use marked

There must be a reason why there is no longer a use of pillories and branding. “The chief evil in public humiliation sanctions is that they involve an ugly, and politically dangerous, complicity between the state and the crowd” (Whitman 1059). These sanctions builds a wall between the government and the people. To Society, it is morally unjust to publicly humiliate someone for his crime. To the state, it is an effective penalty. It is a dangerous position to be in. This division between people and state can cause turmoil beyond control. However, they are effective in justifiable ways. Massaro, a strong critic of shame sanctions, admits that there are clear justifications to said sanctions including retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation (1890-1900). Shaming offenders for their crimes does rehabilitate them by embarrassing them beyond any imaginable length. It deters them by giving them just enough of a punishment while instilling the fear of being sent to prison if there is any resistance. Incapacitating the offenders allows the public to feel safe while excluding the offenders from any area that may persuade them from repeating their offense. As for retribution, a conducted survey entails that sixty seven percent of Fountain Central High School alone is associated with someone who has been affected by drunk driving. On one hand, there were multiple