Something which we are seeing more and more often, at least here in Michigan but it seems safe to assume that it's happening in many areas of the country, are drunk driving check lanes. The idea is to capture drunk drivers before they can do any harm. On paper, it isn't a bad idea. Yet other ideas on paper, such as our Constitution, my well be at odds with it.
Why should anyone be pulled over merely to see if they are driving legally? Aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Aren't the authorities supposed to have reason to detain us, let alone inspect ourselves in our private vehicles (vehicles as private as our own homes, in moral if not legal fact) before they can take action against us? Why do we tolerate such violations of our basic rights?
Because we are fighting drunk driving? While drunk driving is of course reprehensible and irresponsible, to say the least, is it ultimately justifiable to allow anyone's rights to be ignored simply in a preemptive attempt to prevent crime? Isn't a crime supposed to happen, either in fact or in full view of law enforcement, before it can be addressed? As bad as drunk driving is, why should it get a free pass when questions of our civil liberties are involved?
We may be told that it is in part because driving is a privilege. Well, there's a bit of a moral issue with that. Why isn't driving seen a right as much as working freely within the job or housing markets? It is, you know. Any competent human being, one willing and able to follow the legitimate rules of the road, has the moral right to operate a car. As such, the state, no matter how many of its own rulings or assertions to the contrary, cannot prevent an otherwise free person from driving. It must allow anyone to drive for which there is no compelling reason to keep them from doing it.
From there it must presume, until there is compelling evidence otherwise, that that person is driving well and competently. Anything less is an infringement upon that guy's rights.
This is not to defend drunk driving, though we shall be accused of such. It is to defend law abiding citizens. Isn't that why we have laws to begin with? If so, then we must apply the true spirit and the rule of law properly and equally across the board, no matter how justified we may feel with allowing certain exemptions. If we are not doing that, then we have something worse than drunken drivers staring in our faces. We have nothing short of tyranny rambling towards us on the very roads we hold sacred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Ever since I started driving, many, many, many years ago, I understood that driving should be considered a privilege, so if the power's that be want to stop me and check if I'm drunk, then so be it. It will be argued but the fact still stands.
There's the political/philosophical issue with which we obviously disagree. Driving is a right as much as job hunting and house buying; I know the law doesn't reflect that, but the law is wrong on the point. Sometimes things need to be changed even if they are factual today. Thanks for posting.
Charles,
Interesting points. My only question would be what would you suggest in its place that would be at least as effective in catching drunk drivers before someone looses their life? No doubt these check lanes are irritating for people who know better than to drink and drive. However, if that check stop that was inconvenient to you catches a drunk driver that would have otherwise gone on to kill an innocent person, wouldn't you say it was worth it? I'm sure the person and the family of the person who could have lost their life would say it was worth it. Oh will - here is a really good infographic with stats about the most dangerous times to drive (presumably due to drunk drivers): Most dangerous driving days
Unfortunately, Tony, the only thing I see as right is for police to keep an eye out for drunk drivers as they do for any other lawbreakers. You cannot arrest a thief before he steals something; likewise, I don't see how you can morally catch a drunk driver until you catch him driving drunk. I think check lanes are akin to stopping people who are walking down the street just to see if they have a gun and an intention to rob someone.
I do not think anyone should be pulled over until they show signs of driving drunk. Anything less is a presumption of guilt, and violates their rights. We simply have no right as a society to detain anyone for anything until they actually commit a crime. Can such an attitude lead to death and injury? Yes. But until a crime is committed and the assailant caught, I see no right to detain anyone.
Post a Comment