The view of Bonnie Steinbock’s article is that drunk drivers are killing people and getting away with it. I completely agree with her point of view. Drunk drivers needs to be held responsible for there actions. Drinking is a choice and so is driving. How can drunk drivers not be held responsible when it was there choice to drink and drive?
There are too many loopholes for these criminals to take advantage of. Stienbock’s discusses, in her article, that drunk drivers run little change of being arrested because of these loopholes and plea-bargaining. She also uses an example of how a man with three previous convictions of drunk driving killed a 13 year old girl and only received a suspended five day jail sentence and a $284 fine and an example of criminal found guilty of stealing a car received a much harsher sentence then a drunk driver who killed a 15 year old boy. I feel this punishments need to be a lot harsher. With no rea
Steinbock makes a very good argument when she says that self induced drunkenness is not a valid defense. Drinking was a choice that nobody forced upon the criminal. They had the final say when it comes to them drinking or not. It is a voluntary act and they should be held responsible for the loss of life that they caused.
If the car in a drunk driving incident would be considered a weapon, more courts would be serving out harsher punishments for drunk driving crimes. Steinbock also brings up the point that a car should be indeed considered a lethal weapon just as a gun is. I also agree on this point. The intent to use the car as a weapon might not be there however intent does not determine whether or not something is a weapon. I believe a weapon is any object that is used to inflect pain, damage, or any sort of suffering. Whether or not an object is intended to be used in this manner doesn’t determine whether or not it is in fa
Example Essays Home
