For a very long time, the American constitution has condemned and punished individuals who are charged with Driving Under Influence (DUI). Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of road accidents witnessed in the country, and for what it is worth, tougher laws should be implemented to ensure cases of DUI are minimized as much as possible. When one is under the influence, not only do they put their lives at risks, but they endanger the life of the general public, that is, other motorists using the same highways or roads. Some would argue, however, that such individuals should not be punished because they fail in one of the three elements of a crime, "mens rea", which is the intention or knowledge of a crime, due to their loss of rational thinking when intoxicated (Drawve & Walker, 2018) . The loss of rational thinking should not be considered when prosecuting offenders who were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the criminal event since the perpetrators were aware of the laws and regulations of drunk driving prior to getting intoxicated.
Many people would argue that the lack of criminal intent or knowledge implies that the criminal case fails in meeting the threshold for a legal suit. That in their intoxicated state, these perpetrators hardly have control of their actions or thoughts and therefore do not intentionally put the lives of other motorists at risk, which to some extent may be true. However, for the fact that such individuals always know what the rules and regulations of drunk driving are, and are thus always prepped before their drinking spree, the loss of rational thinking is not an argument that holds water when arguing for their defense. These are individuals who are well aware of the American laws regarding drunk driving, and at their very best are people with a sane mind capable of making sound decisions prior to getting intoxicated.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to the NHTSA national statistics, approximately 29 people die daily due to drunk driving in America. And if that does not raise any alarms, then maybe the fact that the numbers amount to one person dying after every 50 minutes will (Coleman & Mizenko, 2018) . It is sad to watch the number of lives America continues to lose due to drunk driving, setting itself well within the national epidemic scope. There is no denying that drunk driving equally costs the American revenue millions of dollars each year, standing at $44 billion annually, in as much as the cases of drunk driving deaths have reduced within the last 30 years by 1/3. It is sad to observe that at 10,000 American lives perish on the roads every year due to the negligence of drunk drivers who hide behind the notion of loss of rational thinking as their defense when brought to justice (Coleman & Mizenko, 2018) . Such arguments cite facts such as alcohol reducing the ability of the brain to function effectively, impacting the thinking, reasoning and muscle coordination of the drivers who are intoxicated. However, it is critical to point out the fact that most of these drivers are typically above 18 years of age, which implies they are of sound mind and good judgment. Therefore, they understand the implications such activities of the brain have in impacting their ability to drive safely, and hence, would be expected to make driving arrangements prior to drinking. The loss of rational thinking does not hold ground when it comes to legal reasoning because, as the law clearly states, ignorance is no defense in a court of law. This means that even if the said lawbreakers were unaware of the implications their actions had at the time of the crime, they are still accountable for their actions, and should be treated as such.
It is important however to understand the basic problems of drunk driving in order to understand its magnitude and hence the need to develop tough measures against drunk driving. The level of alcohol in the blood system is normally measured by the weight of toxicity in a certain amount of blood. This is the blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The law states that with a BAC of .08 grams it is illegal to drive in all the states in the country because at this level the risk of a car crash rises rather dramatically (Aby, et al., 2017). However, it is important to understand that accidents can still take place even if the BAC is below 0.09 grams. For instance, more than 2000 lives were lost in 2016 in drunk driving accidents in which the drivers had a BAC below 0.08%, which would explain why the law still prosecutes drivers who cause an accident while intoxicated below the legal limit. It is equally important to understand that drivers who cause accidents at below 0.08% BAC cannot use the argument of the loss of rational thinking in their defense. This is because according to the regulations stipulating the legal toxic limit, anyone whose BAC is below the legal limit is well aware of their surroundings, and have active brain functioning compared to other drivers who are beyond the limit (Aby, et al., 2017). It should be noted that most drivers who cause accidents while on a BAC of below the legal limit mostly cite loss of rational thinking as a means to escape the consequences of their actions while in reality, they had better control of their rationality and were capable of making sound decisions at their state. At no cost, therefore, should such cases be excused from prosecution.
Recklessness should not be excused in a court of law, under any circumstances whatsoever. According to the CDC, most drunk drivers are between the age of 21 and 24. This is because younger drivers generally like to take risks thinking that nothing bad can happen to them. This means in other words that among other reasons, the reason most young people engage in drunk driving is out of the spirit of adventure, or what could be referred to as the adrenaline rush. They want to experience the thrill of driving under influence, losing control and watching it all spin before their eyes. The sense of the feeling and obsession with control less such drivers to believe they have everything under control while in the real sense they not only endanger their lives but also of other pedestrians. These drivers typically have a tendency of avoiding responsibility and accountability. Once they cause a road carnage, drivers between the age of 21 and 24 find it easier to pass on the blame on their drunken state to avoid facing the consequences of their actions. This can be interpreted to mean, in another dimension, that even if such drivers were well aware of their situation and were capable of controlling the scenario, once they lose control of it all it becomes easier to feign toxicity to avoid facing the consequences of their actions. It should be noted, however, that the sole responsibility of the justice system is ensuring that all lawbreakers are made aware of the consequences of their actions, and are made to compensate accordingly. In this perspective, the young reckless drivers should equally be prosecuted for their actions, with no making excuses or giving room for blame games. It is important, in determining the verdict of a DUI case, to consider the reasons behind the state, rather than the level of toxicity reported during an accident.
It is plausible to observe that cases of teenage DUIs have dropped significantly in the last 3 decades by 51% since 1991 (Coleman & Mizenko, 2018) . And while this may be a step in the right direction when it comes to resolving the puzzle that is drunk driving, it is important to note that teen drivers remain to be more likely to be in fatal DUI accidents than adult drivers. This is because of the teenage cases of DUI, 85% of them report incidents of binge drinking before hitting the road. Binge drinking is defined as having more than five alcoholic drinks in two hours, which is usually taken in the company of friends, hence can be said to be influenced by peer pressure. It is equally important to observe that more than 80% of these teenage drivers had a BAC that was higher than the legal limit (Coleman & Mizenko, 2018) . The argument raised by these observations, therefore, is that teenage DUI is influenced mainly by peer influence, not taking into account the consequences of their actions before they hit the road. In this scenario, drunk driving is culpably engaged in. this is because these young adults binge drink with the intention of going out for a "ride" afterward to mark the hallmark of their drinking sprees, which is not the same issue with older drivers who engage in DUI. It cannot be argued therefore, that teenage drunk drivers should be excused since they were not in the best of their minds when they got engaged in the drunk driving that resulted in accidents. This is because such ‘adventures' in most cases follow a clearly stipulated plan of going out for a drink and then having some fun.
By not excusing the actions of drunk drivers in the name of the loss of rational thinking, the country has been able to put in place tougher laws which have had a direct impact in reducing the cases of road accidents out of DUI. Statistics has it that a person who has had even one drink is seven times more likely to cause a fatal crash. This risk is multiplied by 13 for those individuals whose BAC is above the legal limit (Sylvester & Haider‐Markel, 2016) . This loosely translates to a cost to the society of more than 40% per drunk mile driven. What this means is that if drunk drivers are to adequately pay for their actions, then they would have to pay a fine of $10,500 to bear the full cost of their actions. Realizing the impact of drunk driving and the compensation needed, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has come up with measures over the years, in collaboration with local, state and federal governments to reduce the impact of drunk driving by strictly punishing the lawbreakers. Such tough laws have seen a surging drop of road fatalities due to drunk driving from 21,1113 to 9,878 from 1982 to 2011 (Sylvester & Haider‐Markel, 2016) . While the decrease may appear somewhat dismal, it is a milestone achievement considering the fact that the total miles driven under DUI have doubled during that period. This means in other words, that the drunk driving fatality rate has reduced from 13.4 to 3.4 per billion miles traveled in the last 30 years. None of this would be possible if there had not been strict laws to ensure perpetrators are brought to justice, turning a deaf ear to their loss of rational thinking pleas. In this regard, if the judicial systems are to reverse their stand and give room for such frail arguments, then they will be protecting more reckless drunk drivers and shall have played a leading role in encouraging rad fatalities.
This paper, however, does not give all the credit to tough legal arguments and grounds for the reduced number of road fatalities out of drunk driving. Factors such as the general improvements in driving safety, increased seatbelt use, and the use of airbags have all had a role to play in ensuring road carnages are minimized (Sylvester & Haider‐Markel, 2016) . Other successful interventions include toughening laws and their enforcement, which include the reduction of permissible BAC levels, especially for underage drinkers. Sobriety checkpoints and higher local taxes have also played a critical role as enforcement mechanisms. But it remains true that tough legal systems have also played their part in discouraging drunk driving. It is essential to point out that no excuses should be made for breaking the law, and no drunk driver should be let freely under the pretense of the loss of rational thinking.
In conclusion, this article is effective in backing up its arguments against the use of the loss of rational thinking as a defense in a court of law. It effectively does so by running a background check on the factors that motivate motorists to engage in drunk driving, and by doing so has established that in most cases than not, drunk driving is always a clearly thought through plan and event. In this manner, the alcohol is typically a stimulant to get the motorist psyched up for the ride. This is mostly the case with young drivers who are driven by their spirit of adventure and have no concern for their safety, or the safety of other motorists. Such actions should not go unpunished if the society wishes to control the menace that drunk driving is, and to reduce its impact on causing deaths of innocent Americans.
References
Coleman, H., & Mizenko, K. (2018). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Data Analysis: Traffic Safety Facts: Research Note (No. DOT HS 812 205). United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Drawve, G. R., & Walker, J. T. (2018). Examining multiple elements of crime and place. In Foundations of Crime Analysis (pp. 117-134). Routledge.
Eby, D. W., Molnar, L. J., Kostyniuk, L. P., Louis, R. M. S., Zanier, N., Lepkowski, J. M., & Bergen, G. (2017). Perceptions of alcohol-impaired driving and the blood alcohol concentration standard in the United States. Journal of Safety Research , 63 , 73-81.
Sylvester, S. M., & Haider‐Markel, D. P. (2016). Buzz kill: State adoption of DUI interlock laws, 2005–11. Policy Studies Journal , 44 (4), 491-509.
