Drink driving as a criminal offence?

Drink driving is perhaps one of the few crimes where intent to break the law is not always the case unlike other crimes like theft.

I mean if a person goes shoplifting and steals a shirt then they clearly intended to break the law, its theft and they knew that, same with most other crimes, they know the risk of getting caught and the consenquences.
However if a person has several pints of beer the night before and next morning feels ok and drives a car or motorbike and is caught over the limit then it's a crime but there was no deliberate intent at all to break the law. They did not know they were over the limit so there was no intent.
Of course if some idiot has 5 pints of strong lager in the pub, feels totally drunk and decides to drive straight away knowing full well they are over the limit, then that in my opinion is far more serious as they had intent to break the law. Yet the punishment is the same for the unaware morning after DD'ver and the person driving back from a night out who IS aware they are over the limit.

Drink driving is also one of the few crimes where the criminal act is defined by a very thin line (35 mg of alcohol in breath). No other crime is defined quantitatively like this for instance a thief can't be under the shoplifting limit and get away with it but only be prosecuted if they steal goods over a certain value and thus be over the shoplifting limit, same with assault, drug dealing etc.

Many people say the DD limit should be zero, but then people would be getting prosecuted for using breath freshner containing alcohol or even drinking fruit juice that's passed its best before by date and has slightly fermented.

Please discuss.

DD has a defined limit, because without it, how would you draw the line? What would be considered dink driving and what wouldn't? Whereas theft... Theft is theft. You can drink a bit of alcohol and be perfectly fine (in fact some studies have even suggested a slight boost in reaction times, whether that's down to alcohol or not is another matter). You can't really steal and not steal if you get what I'm saying... Maybe taking more free samples than you're supposed to I guess (though I wouldn't exactly call that stealing)?

Also, I'm sure the case of "feeling fine" has been made before... You might feel fine, but you actions may not reflect that. Feeling fine and being fine are two different things. Although, I don't think police should bother with people who are slightly over the limit, write them up a caution (2 cautions = Dink driving offence) and let them go on their way, it's a waste of time and money taking them back to the station if they're basically guaranteed to blow under the limit by the time they get there (roadside breathalysers can't be used as court evidence as far as I'm aware).

As you said, I wouldn't support a 0 mg alcohol limit, because it isn't practical... To even suggest that someone is unfit to drive after drinking as little as a can of shandy is downright idiotic...

Been caught drink driving have you mate? Tut tut.

We have one of the highest drink driving limits in the world, it's ridiculous.

You're right about the roadside breathalyser btw.

I wouldn't mind if it wasn't a criminal offence. There should be liability in case of damages though. Fines and bans are OK, but jail, criminal record and community orders aren't.

I've done it recently. Even scratched the car. https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4875904

I wouldn't mind if it wasn't a criminal offence. Fines and bans are OK, but jail, criminal record and community orders aren't. There should be liability in case of damages though.

I've done it recently. Even scratched the car. https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4875904

Considering drink driving increases your risk of killing people quite significantly, I'd say it should be treat with absolute severity. Jail time is enough of a deterrent for most people other than the dip****s that get behind the wheel knowing fine well they've had a drink.

Breathalysers are cheap - it's a drivers responsibility to ensure they and their vehicle are in good enougj condition to drive.

Drink driving is perhaps one of the few crimes where intent to break the law is not always the case unlike other crimes like theft.

I mean if a person goes shoplifting and steals a shirt then they clearly intended to break the law, its theft and they knew that, same with most other crimes, they know the risk of getting caught and the consenquences.
However if a person has several pints of beer the night before and next morning feels ok and drives a car or motorbike and is caught over the limit then it's a crime but there was no deliberate intent at all to break the law. They did not know they were over the limit so there was no intent.
Of course if some idiot has 5 pints of strong lager in the pub, feels totally drunk and decides to drive straight away knowing full well they are over the limit, then that in my opinion is far more serious as they had intent to break the law. Yet the punishment is the same for the unaware morning after DD'ver and the person driving back from a night out who IS aware they are over the limit.

Drink driving is also one of the few crimes where the criminal act is defined by a very thin line (35 mg of alcohol in breath). No other crime is defined quantitatively like this for instance a thief can't be under the shoplifting limit and get away with it but only be prosecuted if they steal goods over a certain value and thus be over the shoplifting limit, same with assault, drug dealing etc.

Many people say the DD limit should be zero, but then people would be getting prosecuted for using breath freshner containing alcohol or even drinking fruit juice that's passed its best before by date and has slightly fermented.

Please discuss.

I don't like it when criminal law deals with possibilities. On that occasion, I drove because I knew I was in the conditions to do it safely, there was no one on the streets at that hour and the trip was very short. Taking the risk of going to jail if someone dies is a sufficient deterrent for those who actually aren't in the condition to drive.

Drink driving should be punished as a criminal offence. If I am even arrested for DD I loose my State Registration and am unable to work any more. I have seen too many people seriously injured from DD - even just over the limit people!

It is a criminal offence - I have a pal who has been done for DD - twice. I don't think she will ever get her licence back, insurance will be too high. As she has a criminal record, she now cannot go to the USA - where she was hoping to live. She has to declare it to any jobs she applies to. She is always scrounging lifts off people. She has a probation officer and has had to do 200 hours of community service. And she is still drinking.

If you are arrested for DD, you may not lose your state registration. You have to declare it. Not declaring it will get you in trouble. If you are drunk at work you can be struck off.

I most certainly will as it brings my profession into disrepute!