Why create new law
Prompted by a post by LongRider about safe limits and drinking and driving I started thinking about his idea that there shouldn’t be a law against drinking and driving as the laws of murder and manslaughter and GBH etc. should cover the injuries and fatalities caused by drunk drivers.
The powers that be don’t trust the population to think for themselves and see laws as ways in which to tell people what is and what is not acceptable. Laws change society is their viewpoint. They believe that no one has any brain cells of note (possibly true after drinking way too much) and by having a law automatically means that the no one will drink and drive. Well the continuation of people drinking and driving has just shot that argument down.
So should there be a law against drinking and driving or should other laws covering the harming of one person by another be sufficient. Should there be a law indicating a level at which it is safe to drink at or should the law say that there is no safe level and there should always be zero levels of alcohol in the blood of a driver.
In the former case this means that people who can’t hold their drink could drink past their body’s tolerance level because the law says they can (or am I falling into the same hole as politicians and thinking the people are stupid and can’t make decisions themselves). This is just like people who drive at the legal limit of 30mph even though the road conditions and environment mean that a speed of 20mph is more appropriate.
The later case of a zero alcohol level means that having had a few drinks the night before means that there is a non-zero level of alcohol in the blood. Not forgetting including diabetics and the odd person who has ethanol in the blood for eating potatoes being caught by this version of the law.
Alternatively there could be a law which states that having alcohol in your blood when you cause an accident and harm someone else increases the punishment and your time in jail. So rather than base a law on trying to stop accidents from happening, make a law that accepts that people are intelligent and can make decisions for themselves. So if they are regular drinkers and can handle a couple of pints with no degradation in their driving ability and don’t cause any accidents then they should be allowed to carry on doing so. Likewise a person who hardly ever drinks and has a couple of pints and ends up staggering all over the place should not be allowed to drive. It’s the intent that is important.
But does ignoring the driver who has a couple of pints lead to the case where society thinks it’s acceptable to drink and drive. Well no. Society makes the decision itself. If a society thinks it acceptable that a few accidents happen so that a people can drive to their pub and have a few drinks then that is that society’s decision. Victims of such accidents can make their case heard and change their society if it becomes a problem. But does it have to be politicians creating new laws or can it be society changing its own ways. In the past society initially accepted high levels of accidents in the work place as a cost of working, but over time, and through unions and better mechanisation and efficiency, changed it’s view to lowering the levels of accidents.
An alternative viewpoint in allowing a certain level of fatalities as acceptable is that no victim’s life is worth that of allowing someone else a bit of pleasure. But again that is that society’s decision to stop any form of pleasure which has any risk of injury or death. Taking it away from the drink driving example for a second, is the life of a boxer worth it in allowing the audience the pleasure of watching a competition between two people?
It could be said that rather than having one monopolistic society it is better to have many different societies so that people can move to and live in the society they like without forcing their lifestyle on the rest of their original society.
Does creating new laws suddenly change society? Not really. Racial hatred was made illegal but it still carries on. Yes it has lessened, but is that due to society changing as more racial mixing takes place or due to people slowly taking note of the law? The problem of separating correlation and causation. What about homosexuality? That was made illegal but there is still homophobia in existence. Making it legal hasn’t changed society’s acceptance of it. What it has done is removed the state’s control of what people do in private. It would be better still that there wasn’t a law allowing homosexuality to be legal – in other words no law about homosexuality at all, for or against.
So should laws exist? Should new laws be created to change society? Should laws be created to right previous wrongs?
Whenever a new technology comes into existence politicians always think that new laws need to cover it. When society changes politicians always think that new laws are needed to cope. However when you look at actual human behaviour you’ll find that there hasn’t been much real change over the last 5000 years. Laws that were created 5000 years ago are still valid today and can cover just about all existing forms of human behaviour. Yes there are exceptions, but that’s the point. They are exceptions. Only a few new laws are needed to cover some differences from life 5000 years ago. Not 3000 every 9 years.
SBML
Photo by smlp.co.uk
-
1
October 9, 2011 at 19:06 -
You make a good point, more laws do not mean less crime, but rather more money for lawyers arguing whether the crime alleged falls within the definition of the law. This applies to all walks of life; a staff handbook which defines exactly what should be done in every situation means people no longer use their own brain to determine the right course of action. It erodes the active practice of ethical considerations in society and infantilises the population: if it’s not prohibited, it must be alright.
-
2
October 9, 2011 at 20:49 -
How about a law stating “No new laws will be made unless first approved by 60% (insert readers own % age) of the voters.”
Critics would point to the alleged huge cost of referenda, but surely the vote could be done by internet, with each voter having a password, is in normal good commercial or banking practice.
A time limit for voting, say 3 months (insert readers own limit) after which the proposed law would become null and void. -
4
October 9, 2011 at 21:11 -
SBML, how dare you bring common sense and personal accountability into the argument, you know nanny state won’t allow that – it would mean that people had to thing for themselves, just as we did in the past.
-
5
October 9, 2011 at 21:13
-
-
6
October 9, 2011 at 21:13 -
After The Welfare Party’s law-making extravaganza (3000 as you said), with many containing easily applied extensions, obviously we need fewer laws. Most people break some of these new laws every day without knowing – TWP made us all criminals.
But there are now younger people for whom the ability to think for themselves has been lost – if some of these unnecessary and ridiculous laws were rescinded they would not cope. Everyday I see them standing at road crossings, with no traffic at all, waiting for a light & beep to tell them it’s OK to cross. If the cosy blanket of TWP’s laws were to be taken away, they might starve, unable to reach the shop opposite. -
7
October 9, 2011 at 22:02 -
If there wasn’t a law against drinking and driving I would probably drink and drive. I certainly used to, although perhaps I’m not quite so stupid these days.
-
8
October 10, 2011 at 00:15 -
Because every new law adds a new element of control, allowing an extra stick to threaten people with and in most cases comes with a fixed penalty so saving all that waste of time and money on actual justice.
So yes, adding new laws does change society, very much for the worst. -
9
October 10, 2011 at 00:41 -
People have learned to live with repressive laws throughout history. But it doesn’t stop thought or belief.
Still ‘a leopard does not change his spots’ and ‘birds of a feather flock together’.
Your hate laws just create certain favoured groups. But for how long?
The phrase ‘can I say that ‘ is commonplace on everybodies lips .
Wonder why?? -
10
October 10, 2011 at 06:39 -
In my (admittedly remote) part of Northern Canada, the general rule applied by the local branch of the provincial police is that if you want to join the 15kmh convoy from the bar – headed by the local police officer, back to the end of your driveway then there’s an amnesty.
Say no to that, and then get caught DUI – you’re not only screwed but a social outcast.
-
11
October 10, 2011 at 08:27 -
“Victims of such accidents can make their case heard and change their society…”
… except the dead ones.
Of course, if you’re not killed, but crippled for life, dependent on state welfare, lonely, in incredible pain ,where other people need to provide 24 hour care and give up their own lives, it doesn’t really matter as long as someone else has had a good time. You can still put your case to the court to get their punishment increased – which ruins the driver’s life even more.
I agree we have too many stupid/irrelevant/controlling laws (and the last Labour administration were the worst of offenders in that respect), but this is not one of them.
-
12
October 10, 2011 at 10:02 -
Actually, yes, it was. A drunk driver could still be prosecuted and still face gaol time – just more of it as the offence would be under a different act allowing heftier penalties. We should not need micromanaging laws that specifically outlaw specific practises such as this. Kill someone by driving while drunk, then go to gaol for a long, long time. The law already allowed for this. In the same way, we do not need law telling us not to use mobile phones while driving.
-
13
October 10, 2011 at 10:14 -
The point is, the drink driving laws have changed people’s behaviour and people are more responsible about how they drink, who is driving etc. That is both beneficial to them and their potential “victims” (sorry, that’s a crap word but can’t think of a better one – injurees?), so again, I think this law is worthwhile for its beneficial and deterrent effects – it doesn’t tell you not to drink. Get as drunk as you want – just don’t drive at the same time.
-
-
14
October 10, 2011 at 10:14 -
But there are problems that come with a hard limit. For one thing it takes no account for alcohol tolerance. As a non-drinker my alcohol tolerance is very low and I’m now what the Aussies call a two pot screamer. Last time I drank I had half a glass of champagne at a wedding a few months ago, which was the first alcohol I’d had in perhaps a year, and boy did I feel it. I was fine by the time we left several hours (and a lot of water and food) later and I did drive home, but for a while afterwards I don’t think I’d have been right to drive even though I’d have been under the limit. Conversely there would no doubt have been some people there who could have reached the drink drive limit and been less affected than I was by that half glass. Also, and this is really part of the same problem, it can lead to policing to the limit rather than the risk or the outcome. Had I driven after that champagne and been stopped would they have tested my breath or my ability to drive safely? We all know the answer: they’d have breathalysed me and hoped it was the same thing. Nor do breathalysers detect people who are unsafe to drive for other reasons – drugs (legal or otherwise), lack of sleep, medical conditions, distracted by the size of the gas bill, you name it.
I don’t know that I’d go so far as to suggest that drink drive limits be scrapped because there’s certainly a level of BAC at which everyone will be seriously impaired and at significantly greater risk of crashing, but the fact remains that they’re a very blunt instrument. I’d need to be persuaded that they do more harm than good, perhaps because too many booze lightweights like me are driving impaired below the limit, and I don’t think there’s any reason to think that at the moment. But I do think we’re way too focused on how much people have had to drink and neglect the more important point of how impaired they actually are. Personally I’d like to see US style road side sobriety testing used as well as a BAC limit and breathalysers, with the former being given more weight. Fail the sobriety test and BAC is so irrelevant there’s no need for a breath test – you’re in no state to drive and that’s that. Pass the sobriety test and then you get breathalysed if there are still concerns, with the results of that determining what happens next.
-
-
15
October 10, 2011 at 10:17 -
“two pot screamer” – what a lovely turn of phrase!
-
16
October 10, 2011 at 16:11 -
I am a hard line consequentionalist in such matters.
Laws should punish the actions of those who harm others, they should not punish those who the state has arbitrarily determined to have taken actions that may be potentially harmful to others.
A few years ago, a Scottish police force introduced an experimental series of random breath tests and were shocked to find a much higher level of criminality than the statistical involvement of over the limit drivers in road traffic accidents had suggested. They reluctantly concluded that the drivers who had been drinking were safer than the sober ones and abandoned the experiment.
Of course, they continued to prosecute drivers who had been drinking according to the law…..
-
17
October 11, 2011 at 14:46 -
Drink driving, speed limits, licencing of drivers, compulsory insurance, MOT tests, registering a vehicle, displaying registration marks front and back. How much of any of this is needed? I suggest only one – compulsory third party insurance. This is purely on the basis that most people do not have sufficient liquid assets able to recompense someone they cripple for life in a driving accident. Make it a condition of driving on the public road that you have to display your proof of insurance. Failure to have insurance while driving would be a criminal offence. Your insurance premium them becomes your incentive to drive well and sensibly. Drive too fast, you’re likely to be involved in an accident, and your premium skyrockets. The same applies to drunken driving, driving an unsafe car, etc. The problem of course is that the penalties for driving without insurance would need to be quite steep – perhaps even custodial. This is the common libertarian dilemma – we want far fewer laws and regulations, but this necessarily seems to require much more severe penalties for the few laws that remain. I’m not uncomfortable about that, but not too comfortable either.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }