Mandatory Jail Sentence Essay Example for Free

needed Jail decry Essay many a nonher(prenominal) lives would be saved by car crashes every year. If they be put into poky for at least 48 hours or to a greater extent than(prenominal), they would learn from their mi adventures nearly likely and wont do it again. affix by Anonymous insure attitude LikeReply 0 0 * If there was much at stake for mass, they would be much hesitant about making bad closes. Drunk hotheaded is a commit result of bad decisions. It doesnt happen accident all(prenominal)y, and the populate causing it ar non victims. If the punishment for this horrid offence is harsher, maybe people would think a bit more and decide against rideting behind a wheel and cosmos irresponsible. stick on by 4uncLife field of study interest LikeReply 0 0 * Since most sot driftrs be otherwise non-criminal average citizens, I do think a mandatary lock in article of faith would accrue sot impulsive. I do not feel that a small fine and transient susp ension of your drivers license is a steep enough punishment to tellingly admonish inebriated effort. But, I do think that a mandatory put aside excoriate would discourage the average citizen from committing that crime. stick on by ToughEfrain26 brood berth LikeReply 0 0 * Jail deters those who are currently freed and those who served the conviction.Many of the cases of inebriatedard ride are repeat offenders who received warnings, fines, or points on their licenses that drove up their auto insurance judge and other monetary fines but rarely any thing that made them stop driving drunk. mandatary put aside time for drunk driving literally drives the lesson home, that drunk driving ordain take the drunk driver away from their life. Increasing the fling time per incident also shows the increasing penalty for the decision and takes away the leniency of some resolve who give a flavour on the wrist until psyche is killed. affix by Pir4And Report pose LikeReply 0 0 48 hours is a slap on the wrist to some. Being from a rural area, galore(postnominal) people consume alcohol because there is simply, nothing else to do. These same people weigh, drive and do other thoughtless acts because their brain is not processing the fully concequences of their actions. mess like this keep up run-ins with the law on a regular basis, so 48 hours in poky is a slap on the wrist to them. Two years ago two immature boys were riding an ATV on the street in this same rural town when they were struck and killed by a drunk driver. This would excite never happened had he been imprisoned for a few months.Not many people tummy fix a true life changing experience within two days. when 211 children break dance in one year thanks to drunk driving and then something must be through with(p) to prevent drunk driving from ever occuring. At some point people result pull in that drunk drivers are a threat to society and should be locked up for a long peoriod of time so that they can not hurt anyone, and hopefully change their ways. stick on by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I agree completely that a mandatory fling reprove on the jump offense would decrease the number of drunken drivers.If you have a mandatory reprobate people would be less likely to drive at a lower place the influence, they would more likely to stay at home or use the common idea of a designated driver. thither are repeat offenders I know that havent done a bit of jailtime for their crimes and they still drink and drive. They dont find the penalties that bad because they havent been properly punished. There are a select few who learn from their mistakes but that is few and far between. The treatments last 30 to 90 days and most alcoholics practiced go throught the paces and continue on their merry way.The treatment plans arent take a shiting, so why not try this? stick on by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * A mandatory jail meter would divine service de crease the represents of drunk driving, because people would be more careful. You have a variety of people who get stopped for drunk driving. A mandatory jail sentence would help decrease the in perspectives of drunk driving for those people who are more casual, or alone social, drinkers. It exponent help some of those who love to party, but it is hard to say. Nothing would stop those who are alcoholics. Posted by eyeslikethat Report Post LikeReply 0 0 Yes, a mandatory jail sentence will decrease the instances of drunk driving, because the perpetrators will be sitting in jail, instead of driving drunk on our streets. It has been shown, over and over, that people who drive drunk are often repeat offenders. They do this over and over. I dont know if a stint in jail will stop them from tipsiness and driving, but at least it will remove them from the streets, so that they are not out there doing the same thing. I am sure that, for lots of people, the threat of an automatic jail sent ence will also halt them think in two ways about drunkenness and driving, or letting a friend or carnal knowledge drink or drive.Posted by I0ckHead Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I take drunk drivers should be imprisoned on the first offense If there was a mandatory jail sentence for drunk drivers, there would be less of them on our roads. On average a drunk driver drives 87 propagation while intoxicated before being pulled over. And then they get pulled over, and get a warning, or fine, or points on their license. Thats it. If they have driven drunk before they probably will again if all they get is a warning. Think about all your loved ones on the road each day, they are being put in danger of being hit by a drunk driver. nd youre saying its okay for people that drive drunk to get a slap on the wrist If drunk drivers go to jail, even for 48 hours, they probably wont do it again. Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Because many drunk drivers do not trust themselves criminals, a jail sentence would re-frame the way the public thinks about drunk driving not mediocre a lapse in judgment but a crime. First of all, drinking is an intrinsical part of our culture and the line between social drinking and driving drunk can be a difficult one to judge, encouraging many to not take drunk driving seriously.Moreover, many drinkers who might get a DUI do not engage in other criminal action mechanism and do not consider drinking or its consequences to be a criminal offense. Attaching a jail sentence to a DUI would re-frame the way drinkers and the general public perceive a DUI and force them consider the consequences more seriously. A jail term carries a much heavier punishment (as well as social stigma) than the prevalent punishments for a DUI offense which would make it effective as a means to reduce driving on a lower floor the influence of alcohol. Posted by PeytonWReport Post LikeReply 0 0 * You could end up cleansing sombody If you just get a sl ap on the wrist you will be urged just to drive intoxicated again. i mean think of your loved ones who are always playing in your railway yard and a drunk driver came crashing through your fence and kills your kids? how would that make you feel? In my opinion they should go to jail for at least a few days so when they get out they bring what they did was wrong and it would encourage them to never drive intoxicated again. Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 I believe a mandatory jail sentence would decrease instances of drunk driving drastically because it would establish a clear unfavorable consequence for their behavior. When there is a mandatory sentence attached to a crime people are more likely to think twice before doing it. If a person knows that there is more materialize than not of them going to jail they are less likely to do it because of the circumstances that would create such as losing your drivers license, pipeline, children and possibly your spouse. Most people would say that drinking and driving is not worth risking the loss of all those things. Posted by N4nClarReport Post LikeReply 0 0 * Driving low the influence is a choice and any stay is totally warranted. I strongly believe that there should be zero tolerance for driving under the influence of alcohol. A mandatory jail sentence would send a clear message that it is unaccepted behaviour and people might think twice before doing it. Those who do the right thing have nothing to fear. Posted by Mo2esDonaId Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * People are inherently scared of jail, so a mandatory sentence would help. A more demolishe punishment would nearly certainly decrease the instances of drunk driving, to some extent.People can deal with fines and community service, but jail is something that no person wants to experience. The fact that assaults occur in jail isnt really justifiable, and needs to be address more thoroughly than it has been. But, it does make many terrified and, a s such, stops people from committing severe crimes. Posted by TwoVic Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I agree with your opinion. A jail sentence would be very helpful in decreasing drug driving. I agree because nowadays, drunk driving is not a crime. They give money to court and that settles that case. Then sometimes they repeat this again.Mandatory jail sentence help decrease the instances of drunk driving. Posted by 5h4ngMaxi Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Jail sentences will emphatically reduce drunk driving instances. Jail sentences are usually effective in frightening people away from doing certain things. Because people with criminal records have fewer job opportunities and bourned futures, people will generally avoid doing things that will get them imprisoned, such as murder, rape, and vandalism. If you commencement imprisoning people for drunk driving as well, then you will agnise a dramatic decrease in that area. Posted by N0bIatina Report PostLikeReply 0 0 * A no-tolerance pol icy on drunk driving would cause people to take the offense more seriously. Drinking and driving has contributed to thousands of accidents, injuries, and finishs. In my opinion, I believe a mandatory jail sentence for convicted offenders would cause people to seriously consider the consequences of drinking and driving. Taking a serious civil approach to the offense would cause friends and family to view drinking and driving as completely unacceptable. It would add a risk of job loss, public humiliation, and jail time, to the risks of injury, death and property damage.Additionally, incarcerated offenders would not be putting other motorists at risk while they are locked up. Posted by QuietWayne85 Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Cars are just like loaded guns they can be used to kill If you take a loaded gun and walk around with your figure on the trigger everyone would agree that you might kill someone. At the very least you will be charged with negligent homicide and be imprisoned fo r 1-20 years. Why should driving a car while stricken be any different? You are intentionally using a potentially fatal machine while you are physically and mentally impaired.People, its a no brainer. Posted byhandrews Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * I believe that a mandatory jail sentence for drunk driving would definitely help to reduce the instances of drunk driving, because it would certainly get everyones attention. As long as the sentence is reasonable by being enough time to get the drunk drivers attention, I believe that it would definitely help to reduce drunk driving. For many people, having to go to jail just one time would deter them from drinking and driving in the future. Many social drinkers would want to avoid a jail sentence, so they might change their ways.I dont believe it would go a long way in service with repeat offenders, because these people have a problem with alcohol that needs to be addressed. Posted by R0d0Ferdy Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Stop the Shamin g Let those who are addicted get the treatment, counseling, aesculapian attention, etc. , that they need. Jail wont help the addiction. Shaming can cause the defendant to repeat the behavior. several(prenominal) defendants have serious mental illnesses which require a physicians care. They deserve to get it. Fortunately, most drunk driving incidents do not result in accidents, so its best to allow the defendant the opportunity to get help early on.Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Being farcical Just get rid of cars, they pollute kill people, animal(all that road kill), Im constantly broke because its $5 a gallon. ever 5 years the damn thing breaks and have to go buy an even more expensive model, car companies discontinuing parts. Put a drunk behind a bicycle probably just fall over. BE SMART DONT DRINK AND DRIVE Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * In 500 years no one will remember besides Being a true believer in letting each do as they please, no one should be punished for anything they do.The strong will survive, and the weak and lame will die. Simple as that. It would save the cost of government. Live and let live die and let die. Callous statement to be sure. But, life is short. Over the course of thousands of years, it isnt going to matter anyway. If you live to be 90 or 9, youre just a speck in the universe. You wont be missed or thought of at all in 500 years, so who should care. Were all going to die sooner or later, so, it doesnt really matter. Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No. The DUI dish out Should Focus on HealthThe DUI Process should be an opportunity to investigate the defendants health and ensure that medical care is received. Many are suffering from serious health conditions including addiction. Addiction has an insidious onset and the drunk driver should not be blamed for being addicted. Treatment should be sought and maintained. Most drunk drivers are asleep they are over the legal limit. Se cond offenses will be reduced. Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No, people get arrested and put in jail multiple times and still they drink and drive. Drunk people dont even consider going to jail when they drive under the influence.When people get behind the wheel that have had too much to drink, they dont think of the consequences, period. Knowing that they might kill someone doesnt deter them, why would a mandatory jail sentence? Repeat offenders are a perfect example. These people know for a fact that they will do time, but they do it anyway. I dont see any way to keep people from drinking and driving unless theres a breathalyzer attached to the ignition key and it is activated once the person driver is in the seat, and cannot be tricked. THAT is a profound idea. I just thought of it. Posted by PinkMych Report PostLikeReply 0 0 * Mandatory sentences havent proven to effectively lower the rate of any crimes. Mandatory sentences takes the human being out of the s tain for both the prosecution and defense. Every scenario has extenuating circumstances that should be taken into consideration before grand sentencing, mandatory or otherwise. Many of the people who get arrested for driving under the influence need rehabilitation. Our office as a society should be to help people who are sick, and not punish them for doing the things that their complaint tells them to do. Posted by TownNoamReport Post LikeReply 0 0 * No.. but in certain cases then jail is needed For the drivers that have a problem with the abuse of alcohol or drugs you always gotta see how to help them fix that problem first just punishment is not sufficient in their rehabilitation. I dont feel that mandatory jail time is helpful in these cases specially where there was no injuries or deaths involved. In fact it might even make their situations worse if they lose their jobs and family because of incarceration. So in consequence mandatory jail time should be applied accordingly t o the specific case.Intense treatment plans would work better in my opinion. Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * preserve Judicial Discretion Recognize that every person and every situation is unique. Sentencing is more effective when judges are allowed to make case-by-case decisions that factor in the circumstances of the individual. The statistic that the average drunk driver drives 87 times before being pulled over is irrelevant in America, we are sentenced only for crimes in which we are convicted. Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Defendants Need Treatment Some drunk drivers need alcohol treatment.A jail sentence would result in a life-long resentment, no treatment and contribute to perpetuating active alcohol addiction, employment problems, financial problems, etc. Focus on treatment, not punishment. Tougher consequences should be imposed only if there is a serious accident. The majority of traffic fatalities are caused by sober drivers. Posted by An onymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * No, mandatory jail sentences would not help decrease the instances of drunk driving. Penalties right now are very harsh, and people who are going to drink and drive will do it no matter what the penalties are.No, mandatory jail sentences would not help decrease the instances of drunk driving because penalties right now are very harsh and costly. People who are going to drink and drive are going to do it no matter what the penalties are. The instance of drunk driving have been decreasing recently and it would be very costly for taxpayers to incarcerate more people. People who drink and drive dont think about the penalties before doing so or they wouldnt be drinking and driving now. Posted by MycCra2ii Report Post LikeReply 0 0 Where it is the culture to drink, no regulations that expunge personal responsibility will work, we should focus on taverns who over serve their customers. It is law in most states that bartenders are responsible for not all owing a patron to become too intoxicated, yet it is only enforced if someone dies because of a drunken customer. The bartender is obviously in a situation of being in a conflict of interest, as the more he or she sells, the more they make. If bartenders were more responsible, and it wasnt the culture to drink, we would have far less drunk drivers. Posted by daveyxh Report Post LikeReply 0 * I discord with mandatory jail sentences for drunk driving because I think that raising awareness would be more effective. I do think that repeat offenders and those whose impaired driving takes a life or causes sever injury should receive jail sentences, but a mandatory jail sentence for a first offense might cause a life or family unit to be ruined payable to a lapse in judgment. I think raising awareness about what constitutes drunk driving is key many people feel that there is a difference between driving drunk and driving buzzed, but in the eyes of the law the difference is not that appar ent.I think that knowledge what constitutes impaired driving would help a lot of people understand when its time to had over the keys. I think that effective public transport could help a lot. Posted by Shim2free Report Post LikeReply 0 0 * Small Chance of Fatality You have a greater chance of being killed by a gun than a drunk driver. You also have a greater chance of being killed by a texter, speeder, or general negligent sober driver, than a drunk driver. The DUI Process takes all the money away from the drunk driver that he/she needs for medical care.Without medical care, theres an change magnitude chance of a drunk driving incident. Alcoholism is a disease that requires care, just like cancer, diabetes or heart disease. Posted by Anonymous Report Post LikeReply 0 0 Whats familiar Now are atheists being persecuted in America? Should there be routine HIV examen for all adults? Is the Department of Education making too much profit off of struggling students? Are doctors to bl ame for prescription drug abuse? Should coaches give players equal playing time? From Around the sack Cheapest Car Insurance for Young DriversBest Gerber Daisy Wedding Bouquets Best Used Cars Under 10000 A Secret Phone Companies Dont Want You to Know Rare Discovery Could Extend Your Life by 30 Years ? * - - Comments (0) - * - - Replies (0) - No comments yet. Leave a comment (Maximum 900 words) Related Opinions Are you proud to be an American? * Should developed countries cancel debt of developing countries? * Is Africa on the rise? * Does Republican equal conservative? * Should Republicans change their stance on the Violence Against Women Act? * Could momentum in the political world for gay rights actually limit momentum in the legal world? * Should the government help homeowners with underwater mortgages? * Should Republicans give up their fight against Planned Parenthood? Copyright 2013Debate. org. All rights reserved. HomeAboutBlogFeedbackPrivacyTerms dish outSite Map