The view of Bonnie Steinbock's article is that drunk drivers are killing people and getting away with it. I completely agree with her point of view. Drunk drivers needs to be held responsible for there actions. Drinking is a choice and so is driving. How can drunk drivers not be held responsible when it was there choice to drink and drive?.
There are too many loopholes for these criminals to take advantage of. Stienbock's discusses, in her article, that drunk drivers run little change of being arrested because of these loopholes and plea-bargaining. She also uses an example of how a man with three previous convictions of drunk driving killed a 13 year old girl and only received a suspended five day jail sentence and a $284 fine and an example of criminal found guilty of stealing a car received a much harsher sentence then a drunk driver who killed a 15 year old boy. I feel this punishments need to be a lot harsher. With no real penalties for these killings there is no deterrence to stop people from drinking and making the poor choice of then driving. A person being killed by a drunk driver is murder. In the video it showed a man who had multiple convictions of drunk driving incidents on multiple licenses. There is no reason why that man should ever have been allowed to drive on a legal license. Driving is a privilege and obviously he has abused it and should not be allowed to drive. Driving is not a necessity because of public transportation and taxis. Taking a taxi everyday would be expensive however that is the price he should pay for taking someone's life. Making this man spend money on a taxi everyday is well worth saving the life of an innocent person. .
If the car in a drunk driving incident would be considered a weapon, more courts would be serving out harsher punishments for drunk driving crimes. Steinbock also brings up the point that a car should be indeed considered a lethal weapon just as a gun is.