The deterrence of drunk driving is significantly effective method of solving the existing problem of drunk driving. The number of people using roads to commute from one place to another is numerous; therefore, each person using the roads should be (Overbay 159). The passing of significant laws and their implementation to prevent drunk driving is critical. The legal system should regard drunk driving as a serious crime; therefore, harsh sentences and punishment to offenders will deter people from driving while being drunk. However, blood alcohol levels should be significantly reduced. These measures will ensure that people drive without drinking, hence making the roads safer for passage.
The enactment and enforcement of anti-drunk driving laws will deter drunk driving; therefore, reducing the number of car accidents and deaths associated with drunk driving (Gislason 28). This will reduce the number of resulting casualties in the health care facilities hence a reduction in associated costs.
The implementation of these laws will lead to a reduction of legal costs associated with the prosecution of drunk driving. The savings in costs and time will be redirected to significant areas that require these resources. Therefore, a reduction in casualties, costs and resources will lead to a safe environment for public transport.
Despite the possible benefits that may be realized, the law does not address the underlying causes of drunk driving. Therefore, alcoholics will not be able to control their habits, which may lead to accidents and deaths (Horowitz 84). It is critical to address the reasons and factors that lead to drunk driving; if not, the problem will persist.
The law fails to address the facilitators of drunk driving. Individuals like bar patrons should have a legal obligation to refuse service to any person intending to drink and drive (Ortman, “Drinking and Driving”). However, since the law penalizes offenders only, individuals opting to drive after drinking are sold alcohol. Therefore, despite the stringent measures applying to drunk driving, alcohol dealers are left unobligated towards public safety on the roads.
The provision of information and education detailing the dangers of drunk driving would be a significant solution to drunk driving (Hedlund 32). The use of vigorous media campaigns and educational programs in schools is critical to the prevention of drunk driving. The illustration of accidents and crashes would have a strategic advantage in instilling fear of drunk driving. The advocacy of designated drivers for those intending to indulge alcohol is essential in mitigating potential accidents as a result of drunk driving.
This method would ensure the public is aware of the dangers associated with drunk driving and, therefore, reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road, hence the risk of accident occurrences is minimized.
Provision of information and education of the public towards the dangers of drunk driving would lead to an educated population. Therefore, any individual opting to drive would be appropriately informed about the dangers of drunk driving; while being provided with possible solutions in the event they get drunk like appointing a designated driver.
Despite the provision of information and education, it is difficult to determine whether individuals will act on the information (Barry, “Drunk driving, A solution”). Hence, it is not possible to quantify with a degree of certainty the effectiveness of information and education in deterring drunk driving.
The provision of information and education does not impose an obligation to the receiver to act on the information provided in the prevention of drunk driving. The receiver may opt to act on the information provided to stop drunk driving or dismiss the information. Therefore, information and education can only be depended upon to a certain extent.
Deterrence offers a significant probability of success in the short term and the long term. The creation of an efficient and effective legal system with zero tolerance for drunk driving would prove to be successful in solving the drunk driving problem. The enforcement of strong laws, their adjudication and rehabilitation of all drunk drivers is critical. Abolishment of drinking under the age of twenty-one would be critical in reducing accidents related to young people, while enforcing community policing where everyone is responsible for their safety and the safety of others.
Deterrence has direct implications for the offender where direct consequences are sufferable. However, in the provision of information and education, the offender has the bonus of making the suitable choice. In this case, the offender is not liable to his/her actions unlike in deterrence measures. Deterrence has a higher impact to the offender under the law in contrast to education, the impact of which relies on the individual’s sense of social responsibility.