Police complaints

Police complaints on an increase in the number of repeated offenders have played a part in increase in call for jail terms for repeated drunken driving offenders. Police report that approximately 73% of the drunken cases are 'usual suspects' (Sieh 116). This has been translated by those lobbying for sentencing of repeated offenders as failure of fining as a deterrent measure thus the need for harsher and more efficient approaches.

It is worth noting that statistics on drunken driving are not any different from general statistics on the nature of criminal activities. Justice systems all over the globe and the police have especially reported that their tasks is 'made boring' by having to deal with the same criminals over time. Up to 65% of crimes in the US are a result of activities of convicted felons (Spohn 57). US laws on crime are known to be some of the toughest and still most inner-city neighborhood record crime.

The baseline is stringent measure have proved to be ineffective in management of crime; drunken driving as a crime is not an exception thus there will be little being gained with the employment of tougher sentencing for repeated offenders measures. A question is therefore raised on why groups or individuals that claim to be championing the rights and welfare of the society would seek an approach that has failed in numerous occasions to address an issue that is of social significance. The answer lies in lack of objectivity and the basis that has been used in the development of the measures.

The measures are developed as deterrent and are not in any way aimed at addressing the causes of  drinking and wanting to drive rather they seek to ' strike sense into drunk individuals ' by making them think of the consequences of their drinking. The logic in the strategy is lacking in that though the deterrent effect can be felt by sober individuals the same cannot be said of individuals under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is amazing how such a simple principle would miss a group of individuals despite claims that their strategies are for the good of the society.