It Makes Sense That America Has a Drinking and Driving Problem

Over 28 million people admitted to driving under the influence of alcohol in 2013. That’s more people than the population of Texas.

The criminal offense of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) generally includes either driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it impairs your physical and mental faculties, or driving while you have a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or greater, regardless of whether the alcohol has had any effect on you.

It’s agreed upon that people shouldn’t drink and drive because it’s a public safety hazard, but many people do so anyway. However, even though drinking and driving is often portrayed as something only a social deviant would do, sociologist H. Laurence Ross argues that American culture has created the problem, and it makes sense that it exists:

“Drunk driving is a product of America’s reliance on alcohol as a drug of recreation and commitment to the automobile as the near-exclusive means of transportation."

Both of the components of drinking and driving—alcohol and automobiles—are ingrained in our culture.

Considering that this crime is a predictable result of American culture, the shaming and stigmatization of those caught driving under the influence seems unexpected.

In fact, drunk driving was seen as accidental for decades, something that many people just did when they drank too much and needed to get home. Then in 1980, a mother lost her daughter in an accident caused by a drunk driver. She founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) with the goal of making stricter laws and stigmatizing the act of drunk driving.

Today, it is shameful to receive a DUI, and some "solutions" to drunk driving capitalize on the stigma by using public shaming tactics to try to deter the crime.

For example, more and more states are introducing “whiskey plates” for drivers who have been convicted of DUI or multiple DUI offenses. According to Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal, these plates serve as a “scarlet letter” that signal the public that the driver has prior DUI convictions on his or her record.

Perhaps a benign amount of shaming is necessary, but critics say that this punishment unfairly stigmatizes offenders and their families and is not effective at prevention, according to director of SCRAM systems Kathleen Brown. In 2009, fatal alcohol-related crashes actually increased by 2 percent in Ohio since the “whiskey plates” law had gone into effect there.

Moreover, the psychological effect this has on offenders can be concerning. Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said:

"These sorts of laws just create obstacles to offenders getting fresh starts and moving forward with their lives."

Shame tactics such as “whiskey plates” mercilessly attack offenders rather than address the underlying incentives to drink and drive.

In examining both drunk driving and social issues in general, we tend to want to place all responsibility on individuals, blaming accidents on immoral people rather than on morally ambiguous actions.

However, it is important to examine our institutions and culture to understand the cause of a problem. In addition to examining the motivations underlying the problem, it is important to understand the motivations behind the solutions as well.

For drunk driving, demanding accountability for actions or retribution for damages is not what matters most. The primary goal should be reducing reckless driving and keeping the public safe.