It has always seemed to me that some of the drunk driving enforcement in this country is misguided. I take a lot of issue with the continual lowering of the BAC for an offense. It seems to me that the better course of action is harsher punishment for the convicted and, especially, for repeat offenders. Doesn't it seem that every time there is an accident, the account says something like "so and so had a BAC nearly twice the legal limit" or "so and so was convicted of driving while impaired twice in the last fourteen months" or something along those lines. It just doesn't appear to me that the problem is BAC being too low... I believe the problem is slap on the wrist punishment, especially for repeat offenses. My other concern is that lowering the BAC takes some of the very useful social stigma out of drinking and driving by fostering a hey, it could happen to anyone, he only had two beers, kind of attitude. I'd rather see more resources aimed at punishing drunk drivers, rather than widening the net by constantly lowering the BAC. I'd be curious to know if anyone else has this reaction....
I think a two-tiered approach is good, to deal with what you were talking about here, and we should really come down HARD on third-time (and higher) offenders.
You and I see this the same way. We've had some spectacular DUI crashes here, most notably the school bus full of kids in Northern Kentucky killed by a repeat offender about ten years ago, while coming home from Kings Island.
Repeat drunk drivers are no different than child molesters in my view. They represent a Clear and Present Danger to us all, and should be treated accordingly.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with executing a repeat offender that killed somebody in a crash.