The fact so many die every year demand action. It is a good use of police resources. Freedom is not a part of this because that is like saying I am free to shoot a gun wherever I want to and if people get hurt or dead...TOUGH. That is how some people see it.
I am all for roadblocks, if you are following rules you slide right on thru. You see I am for prevention not for dealing with after the fact. Just as I am with terrorism. After the fact dealings never move anything forward.....the 90's showed us that with regards to terrorism right?
I can respect that you think the laws are overly harsh, but when viewed from my perspective, the kid that crashed into me walked away scott free from what he did to me and his record has been expunged.....to him and his life, it is like this never even happened. I would argue the laws are not harsh enough based on my personal experience.
Well, we disagree. I don't believe in roadblocks to catch drunk drivers, or believe they're a good use of resources. I think they'd catch more just driving around and looking for likely suspects, although they might not get as many of those who are just over the limit.
As to the punishment, in Canada at least a DUI conviction is a criminal conviction (we don't have the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in this country) and comes with an automatic 6 month (maybe a year, now) license suspension and minimum $1,000 fine (also maybe more, now). I believe it would be better, considering the impact a criminal conviction has on a person's life, if drivers just over the limit, say up to .10, received only an administrative penalty, like for speeding. No problem with the fine or license suspension, but I feel the criminal record is overly harsh. The seriously inebriated or repeat offenders I have no sympathy for.