Many DUI offenders think they can drive after excessive drinking. Not wanting to pay for a cab or inconvenience a sober friend, they choose to take the chance hoping they will not get caught. Many believe because drinking alcohol is a legal right after the age of 21, they can do so. Unfortunately, many misjudge their alcohol tolerance and driving capabilities.
The drinking limits are set in accordance to ones abilities to operate a car based on years of research. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, the following blood alcohol levels affect drivers accordingly.
- .02: A decline in visual function and ability to multitask
- .05: Coordination declines, steering gets more difficult and response to emergency driving situations is reduces
- .08: Short-term memory loss, lower capacity to process information and impaired perception
- .10: Ability to stay in one’s lane and brake at the right time is reduced
- .15: Substantially impaired to the point of not able to control the vehicle, pay attention to driving tasks, and process visual and auditory information properly
This week, the international peer-reviewed publication Journal of Medical Ethics published “Reducing the harmful effects of alcohol misuse: the ethics of sobriety testing in criminal justice.” The article discusses whether using a Continuous Alcohol Monitoring system on an offender violates that person’s human rights or privacy. The article gives good clarity on the subject, citing that “prisoners frequently have conditions” as part of their release and that the CAM technology, in this case, the SCRAM CAM System, is no different. As an accused or convicted offender, it is the job of the court to ensure your safety, as well as those around you.
At SCRAM Systems, we often see people voicing their opinion on various social outlets, telling us that they have a legal right to drink. They do not, however, have the right to drink and drive or commit any other number of crimes. The Journal of Medical Ethics article goes so far as to state not only is there nothing unethical in the requirement for sobriety and the use of SCRAM to enforce it, “given the prospective benefits to both offenders and the public, it would be extremely unethical not to implement the scheme.”
Do you believe required sobriety—and monitoring for it—violates a person’s human rights or privacy, even if they are convicted of a crime? How would you respond to those who voice their right to drink alcohol—a legally obtainable substance for those over the age of 21—regardless of criminal activity?
