Not a Criminal wrote:
I'm part of the no sympathy crowd. For drunk driving I think you should have been in there longer. It's dangerous, inexcusable and extremely easy to avoid.
I think jails should do everything they can to make it miserable, uncomfortable and less of a burden on the law abiding tax payers. It's not a damn country club. You messed up, now own up and serve your time like a man.
I was initially going to post about how treating people horribly for drunk driving, having the state pay for it, and losing tax revenue from these people being restricted to lower paying jobs is idiotic when we could solve the problem for free by permanently revoking licenses.
But then I looked it up and the first article on google talks about how studies estimate "80% of those with revoked licenses drive anyway" and "around 1/3 of drunk drivers pulled over are repeat offenders with suspended or marked licenses".
On the other hand, I couldn't find mention of how effective short term imprisonment is compared to just license suspension for stopping habitual offenders. I honestly doubt it makes much of a difference though.
http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2007/07/22/Suspended-licenses-don-t-stop-drivers/stories/200707220186