Interestingly, “Medieval folklore distinguished four successive stages of drunkenness, based on the animals they made men resemble: sheep, lion, ape, and sow”. Those were days before blood alcohol concentration became an objective benchmark to support the subjective assessment of inebriated behavior. Behavior, responsible or not, is the true issue with drinking and driving, and in the four way primary race for Wisconsin Attorney General, the topic of Sobriety Checkpoints is an important and defining issue.
Wisconsin is one of only 11 states which by statute, protects citizens from police stops without reasonable cause to believe the driver has committed a violation of the law. Democratic challenger Falk and Republican candidate Bucher have both come out in favor of removing this protection, specifically to allow police searches of individuals in the general traffic flow. Bucher has a legitimate history of supporting aggressive policing and is being true to his values. Falk has political consultants and has never met an expansion of government power she does not like. Falk, after all, thinks Kelo is a wonderful decision and a similar Supreme Court decision legitimizes this police power nationally.
Republican candidate J.B. Van Hollen rejects attempts to change existing law.
“Yet, unlike Paul Bucher and Kathy Falk, I do not favor new laws that treat repeat drunk drivers the same as first time offenders. I also oppose the Falk-Bucher push for mandatory random roadside traffic stops. Their effectiveness is questionable, at best. I also believe they take away the presumption of innocence, clearly reflect a liberal, big-government philosophy, and are not a wise use of scarce law enforcement resources.”
There is a trade off between safety and freedom and our comfort level with police checkpoints indicates where we believe that balance point should exist. Freedom to travel without government inspection and permission is our historical tradition, and this tradition has been destroyed in commercial air travel and is under threat in personal car travel. I reject all arguments that attempt to equate the two because commercial and personal activities are fundamentally different.
The rational for police checkpoints are all variations on the greater good theory. The logic always goes that at some point, at some dollar value, society should be better if individual freedoms are restricted. The question is what value of safety is gained in exchange for the loss of our freedom. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an excellent source of information and it appears realistic to claim at the very most a 20% reduction in alcohol related fatalities with checkpoints.
In other words, trading away our freedom leaves at least 80% of the problem intact, and as Van Hollen emphasizes, there are ways to achieve these same results without surrendering our right to drive without random and arbitrary government interference.
The rational for police checkpoints are all variations on the greater good theory. The logic always goes that at some point, at some dollar value, society should be better if individual freedoms are restricted. The question is what value of safety is gained in exchange for the loss of our freedom. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an excellent source of information and it appears realistic to claim at the very most a 20% reduction in alcohol related fatalities with checkpoints.
In other words, trading away our freedom leaves at least 80% of the problem intact, and as Van Hollen emphasizes, there are ways to achieve these same results without surrendering our right to drive without random and arbitrary government interference.
