Why spend so much time and money on DUI PSA, when the penalties can be toughen greatly for DUI?

In AK, we have supposedly “tough” dui laws. But still people appear in the local news with 6 or 7 dui’s and is in court for killing someone as a result. Our laws are quite silly if they are not enforced. The city of Anchorage has now adopted a “red strip” law, meaning if the person wanting to buy alcohol in a liquor store, club, or bar must show their drivers license to show that they are allowed to buy alcohol. It is an incredibly stupid law. It puts the responsibility on the seller, not the buyer (or buyers because there is ways around this idiotic law).
I think that something along the mix you are suggesting would do well here.

The idea is not only to punish the DUI but also to try and protect other people from being killed by a DUI in the first place.

If they are on a bus, in a cab, or walking they can’t maim or kill anyone with their vehicle. The public will be safe.

So what makes you think that someone who didn’t obey one law is going to obey another?

If they got an automatic 10 years in lock up or shot, which the US has no spine to do, you won’t have to worry about them breaking it more than twice. Some of the chuckleheads will get the point, and those too stupid to get it will have many years in a jumpsuit to contemplate if that last beer or drink was worth it.

As @Lightlyseared points out, PSAs are designed to prevent it from ever happening in the first place. Punishments are after the fact. Harsher punishments don’t seem to deter people from breaking all sorts of other laws, up to and including murders which qualify for the death penalty.

@Hypocrisy_Central 10 years if somebody blows a.08? Shoot them? That’s a bit disproportionate to the offense.

For the most part, the DUI laws in California are plenty hash. As others have pointed out, though, it is the habitual offender that is not dealt with properly. A more rational approach would be escalating penalties, such as 2 year license suspension and 6 months in jail for a 2nd offense; 1 yr in jail and lifetime suspension for a third.

@augustlan Harsher punishments don’t seem to deter people from breaking all sorts of other laws, up to and including murders which qualify for the death penalty. And a PSA would be even less effective trying to stop someone from breaking a law.

@zenvelo As others have pointed out, though, it is the habitual offender that is not dealt with properly. Why not handle them the same way people with sex offences? If a man was busted outside the club in the parking lot engaged in oral sex while dressed as a woman I can bet my donuts to anyone’s dollars if he was a pee wee league coach, and gymnastic instructor a the Y, or a teacher, his job is toast. Being a drag queen having dumb indiscriminate sex has nothing to do with kids, but to make sure nothing never does, he is axed. So, those who are too stupid to adhere to the PSA end up on the bus, on foot, or taking a cab. If they get caught driving drunk again it will be because they also are driving without a license. After several dozen chuckleheads end up pulling a dime in the “big house”, that will be the deterrent. It will cut down on the amount of future chuckleheads who would risk it. If one-time screw up is good enough for coaches, teachers, camp counselors, etc, why not for drunk drivers who endanger everyone, not just children?

Why not just lock every one up on the basis that sooner or later they’re bound to commit a crime? Hell if you look at the US prison population that seems to be what you do any way.

@Hypocrisy_Central Because that is not how we handle sex offenses. It is if you are involved with a child, but not consensual sex between adults. What you described is not even a crime.