"Drunk driving" is a nonviolent action. Striking someone is a violent action. Crashing into private property is a violent action. But high alcohol content of one's blood is not a crime. Does this mean that everyone should drive drunk? No. But, it has no basis for being illegal. See here and here for a full discussion. In short, to punish someone for drunk driving is to punish someone for something he might do. In this world, you are guilty of a crime before having committed it (let alone being proved of having done so).
Nevertheless, local and state police routinely execute a McCarthyist interrogation of innocent people. The next one will be in Epping. A recent sobriety checkpoint in Portsmouth led to discovery of 3 or 4 "offenders" after stopping over 260 people. This is a strike rate of less than 1.5%. It is foolish to consider that this successfully stops drunk driving. And, even if it were, what is the cost? 260 people had their rights violated in the name of safety. Logically equivalent, the police should be searching our homes to see if we are holding a beer and car keys simultaneously.
No, sobriety checkpoints are a dismal failure in all but one way: it accustoms people to continual police interrogation and to submission to police power. In this way, it is a great success. It is only a matter of time before EPD "DWI hunters" inflict such a terrible crime on us subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment