I'm one of the few people who thinks driving while intoxicated shouldn't even be illegal unless it is tied to another crime or serious motor vehicle offense. This idea that the state can legally determine intoxication based on a blood-alcohol level that may have nothing to do with driving capability is preposterous.
That idea of criminal charges only involving individuals vs. criminals sounds nice, but it makes no sense. A crime is a crime not just against an individual, but against society as a whole. That approach you propose actually sounds very similar to the way criminal charges are adjudicated under sharia law.
I am just of average intelligence on this place. Libertarian is what our founders envisioned man striving towards. The opposite is collectivism. Like group rights versus individual rights. I know that the law should be simple, and we shouldn’t need full time judges, cops and lawyers. Elected sheriffs, with deputies and maybe a sheriffs posse of volunteers. Basically, empower people to police their own neighborhoods. Like open source police, open source intelligence gathering for the replacement of CIA. Make the people responsible for information. Instead of snitching, it is taking care of your own.
I remember when forums were wide open discussions of philosophy as well as news comment. It was much better then. It is all too much like a smarter FB in 2019.