Insanity In Drunk Driving

Imagine the idea of a college student driving back to her dorm from the grocery store. She waits patiently for the light to turn green as she sings to her favorite song on the radio. Finally, its time for her to go and she accelerates through the intersection. Little did she know a man that had too many drinks would come flying through the red light. The last thing she saw was the headlights of his car. Drunk driving is a heartbreaking occurrence. Every day drunk drivers are imprisoned, either for traffic violations, dangerous driving, or accidents. People that make the mistake of drinking and driving not only put themselves in danger; they put all of the other people on the roads in danger. Innocent lives may be lost because of another’s

Many individuals in today’s society wonder what pushes people past a breaking point in which they become involved in actions not accepted by society, such as stripping, prostitution, drug use, alcoholism and more. The reasoning behind this is deviance. Deviance can be either positive (over conforming) or negative (under conforming). When applying the subject of crime to a type of deviance, it falls under the negative category because those who under conform in society have a tendency to reach their goals with non-accepted means. Considering the crime of drunk driving, many factors add up to develop a reason why so many people do it. Merton’s strain theory perspective explains the deviance behind drunk driving very well, using its’ assumptions, key focuses, and root of deviant acts to support it. Before focusing on Merton’s theory relating to the crime of drunk driving, we first have to recognize how sociologists understand the concept of deviance.

In the instance of drunk driving, the actions of the drunk driver are related to the safety of the drivers within their proximity and therefore affects not only the driver but others as well. Our previous moral experiences allow us to determine what the intentions of the drunk driver might be. Some drivers may choose to drive under the influence of alcohol because they have had an emergency that requires them to be at a certain place and they do not have the means to reach to their destination except for driving themselves. In this case, the context becomes complicated and intricate. However, if the driver is risking his own and other drivers’ safety, it becomes clear that their intentions are based on nonchalance and disregard for others.

Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities were 1,028 in 2008 for the state of California (Century Council). Of those deaths, 68% of the drivers were considered “Hardcore Drunk Drivers”; drivers who had a BAC level of 0.15+ (Century Council). Unfortunately, the drivers who got behind the wheel of those vehicles now have to deal with the fact that they slaughtered a person(s), because they made the choice to drive their car when they knew they had consumed alcohol.

The facts are plain and simple, that alcohol and driving do not mix. About three in every ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol related crash at some time in their lives. Every single injury and death caused by drunk driving is totally preventable. To curb this national travesty, concerned Americans need to examine the problems, the effects, and the solutions to drunk driving. First of all, America has had a problem with drunk driving since Ford perfected the assembly line. Alcoholism is a problem in and of itself, but combined with driving can have a wide range of effects. The consequences of this reckless behavior can include a first time DUI or licenses suspension; a small fender bender, or worst of all a deadly crash. Most

Although there are many commercials, ads, documentaries, seminars, etc. on the reasons why people should never drink and drive, you would be surprised how many people still get behind the wheel after having had more than just a drink or two. We might not realize it but every day, about 28 people in the United States die in car crashes that involve a drunk driver. This equals to one death every 51 minutes! It’s so sad because these statistics could be way better if people had a well thought out plan prior to going out drinking. There has been research found relating to Drinking and Driving Behaviors since this topic is now becoming more of an issue in this generation than it was in the past. For instance, Schell, Chan, and Morral (2006), found that some people who have a DUI record tend to have pretty high expectations of themselves even after having some drinks in their system (e.g., “I feel more relaxed when drinking"), so with that being said those people with higher confidence were the ones more likely to be engaged in drinking and driving activity. While intoxicated, we often don’t consider any negative consequences that can happen to us but as you’ll see on the news, on social media, in the newspapers, etc. driving while under the influence can be very dangerous and even fatal.

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

Driving under the influence of alcohol has been a major issue in America, spanning all the way back to more than 50 years ago (Raymond). Many accidents are caused from drinking and driving yearly, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries involving innocent people. When alcohol is mixed with driving a motor vehicle, there are no limits to who may be at risk. This means that drunk driving has been harming, hurting and killing many innocent people in America. Over the years I have witnessed many aftermaths of drunk driving accidents and have heard of multiple accidents resulting from alcohol use involving people I know, and people I do not know. Sometimes, in accidents like these, all parties involved may walk away from the accident with

You would think that if a person gets pulled over, arrested, gets his/her license suspended and gets court ordered to pay 250+ dollars in fines, that they would never get behind the wheel under the influence again and endanger someone else’s life. Wrong. According to a 2007 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study over half of drivers arrested for drunk driving in the nation are repeat offenders. All states have adopted 21 as the legal drinking age. Two-thirds of the states have now passed Administrative License Revocation (ALR) laws, which allow the arresting officer to take the license of drivers who fail or refuse to take a breath test. All states have now lowered the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit from .10 to .08 percent for adults, and all states have passed Zero Tolerance laws which prohibit drivers under twenty-one from having any amount of alcohol in their blood system. The penalties have increased for drinking and driving, yet the repeated offenders percentages haven’t decreased. Thus proving, what the laws are doing now is not working and they need to be raised. Going back to the purpose of punishment, if people keep doing the same thing, than the consequences before did not faze them and need to be stricter.

In this article I will consider whether the current claw defence of insanity is ineffective, out-dated and in need of reform. I will do so by contemplating several criticism of the insanity defence arising from the M’Naghten rules .

I remember being eight years old and looking out the window; my heart was heavy as I examined the giant crushed piece of metal sitting in my driveway. It looked as if a herd of thousand horses trampled viciously on top of my mom’s maroon colored Jeep Cherokee. It was clear to see my dad was drinking and driving again. All too often drivers decide to put their keys in the ignition, start the car, and head off onto public roads, despite the fact that their motor abilities and mental judgement has been impaired from drinking alcohol. Drinking and driving is a devastating crime that affects the lives of many. When people decide to drink and drive, they are at risk of getting their license suspended, getting

In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in drunk driving incidents. Out of those people, 65% (6,515) were drivers, 27% (2,724) were passengers, and 8% (837) were non-passengers (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). Over half of those fatalities (67.1%) involved blood alcohol levels over .15% (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). The legal blood-alcohol content is .08%. Drunk driving caused 31% of deaths in car crashes in 2013 (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). In 2012, 402 people were killed by alcohol impairment in North Carolina (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). These numbers, though they seem astonishing, have been cut in half since 1991 (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). Even though the number of fatalities has been lowered, that number is not low enough. Most drunk drivers are repeat offenders. Lives are being taken because of the careless attitude of the drunk drivers. Drunk driving is selfish; those who commit this crime do not think about the extreme consequences of their actions. In North America it is estimated that 1-5 drivers has been drinking and 1 in 10 is legally impaired on any Friday or Saturday night (Root). Many groups, including MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), are fighting to stop drunk driving. Unfortunately, drunk driving cannot be stopped. People will always commit this heinous crime. The numbers may go down, but unfortunately there will always be a number. The only way to continually decrease the amount of lives lost is to increase punishments for drunk driving.

The first point in of topic is the issues with repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are an issue because in the past, repeat DUI offenders might have been given minimal jail time or prohibition, along with their driver’s license being suspended. Sometimes, the punishment could include a certain amount of community service. The NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, has called for states to eliminate community service as a punishment, in part because it keeps prosecutions of offenders' records and makes repeat offenses more likely. Treatment for alcohol abuse works in some but not all cases. It is certainly worth trying, but in many cases repeat offenders are not interested in being helped. They will go through a treatment program if it is required by law, but positive effects may be short-lived. These facts about the repeat offenders not wanting to go through treatment programs and not being interested in being helped at all are a major key aspect of why we should have DUI laws that are more strict than they are today because if they do not want any help like treatment for alcohol abuse or go through a treatment program because then they are more likely to not help the community around them in any way. If they were interested in getting helped, there may be a lower risk of car crashes in that area. In the DUI laws were tougher there, they would probably not want to get in any more car crashes because if they did, they would have to pay a higher fee and even do more community work if those laws were implemented. If someone were to be caught driving under an influence, your license could be banned like mentioned before and also could have your car taken away temporarily. These things should teach a person a couple of lessons but if caught again, there could be more of a punishment than before. If someone were to receive a second DUI offense in ten years,

In criminal cases where an insanity defense is used, the defense must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not responsible for his or her actions during a mental health breakdown. There are two forms of an insanity defense, cognitive and volitional. In order for an individual to meet the requirements for cognitive insanity it must be proven that the defendant had to be so impaired by a mental disease at the time of the act that they did not know the nature of what they were doing. If they are fully aware of their actions, one must prove that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. Volitional insanity, also known as irresistible impulse, states that the defendant is able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time, but suffered from a mental disease that made them unable to control themselves. Volitional insanity is common in crimes of vengeance, where very few states allow the use of this defense. The insanity defense should not be confused with incompetency. In incompetency cases, the individual is not able to understand the nature and consequences of the case, nor adequately able to help an attorney with his or her defense. The insanity defense reflects the approach that an individual who can’t acknowledge the consequences of their actions should not be punished for the crime. In most jurisdictions a professional is bought in to determine if the defendant was not able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time of the

The medical definition of insanity differs completely from the legal aspect. The medical definition of insanity is, as The Free Dictionary defines “a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder.” There is no mention of criminal activity or lack of responsibility