The Instigator
Texas2019
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
nisabobisa_23
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Drivers convicted of a DUI should have their license suspend.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2018 Category: Cars
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 110 times Debate No: 107596
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Texas2019

Pro

I believe that a driver who is convicted of a DUI should have their license suspend because Drives with DUIS have taken lives. Not all of them have but a lot of crashes are caused by drivers driving under the influence. Imaging that you are a parent of a 16 year old who has their license and they end up in a car crash because another driver was under the influence. What would you want to happen? Mostly you would want justice to be served, the driver to spend some time in jail and maybe even permanently loose their license all to protect your child among their friends and all of the other drivers. Suspending license after a DUI could save lives.
nisabobisa_23

Con

Definitions (Merriam-Webster) : to debar temporarily especially from a privilege, office, or function

Keep in mind for this topic the definition of suspend, it is not a permanent takeaway, meaning that these drivers will eventually gain their licenses back. Though the suspensions have proven somewhat effective, clearly the rate of death caused by DUI drivers is still a rather significant amount. Hence we are debating this topic. The current system in which licenses are just suspended is not enough to prevent a majority of the lives taken due to these drunk drivers. You simply cannot just take their license away, wait for the period of time required by law, then return it and expect them to not repeat their actions. Change takes time and clearly, the time given does not have a large impact on the goal which is; public safety. Now, I am not stating that there shall be no penalty for DUI drivers, but that the current system does not work. If public safety is the goal, a new penalty system shall be created in which the new penalty requires a heavier punishment that will have a greater impact on the charged criminal. Also, just because one's license is taken away, that does not mean they are completely suspended from taking the wheel. As long as someone has access to a car they can drive it whenever they want, yes they will not be in possession of a license, but as long as they appear to be following the rules on the road cops will not catch them.
Debate Round No. 1
Texas2019

Pro

You have a child point however I'm not saying that all what would happen is licence suspension there would be other penalties such as more jail time and possible other penalties.
nisabobisa_23

Con

This round shall be weighted using a cost-benefit analysis. My opponent has not stated significant effects of driver license suspensions. They also state that, quote: "there would be other penalties such as more jail time and possible other penalties". In my first round speech, I have stated that, quote: "a new penalty system shall be created in which the new penalty requires a heavier punishment that will have a greater impact on the charged criminal". It is displayed that my opponent has agreed to my argument and therefore their second speech argument flows in con's favor. Looking back at the weighting that should be used in this round, I have shown that the costs outweigh the benefits. Essentially in a Pro world, suspensions would still be in place without any significant effects on the goal of public safety. Whereas in a Con world, a new system that would work better will be implemented that will end in greater safety for the public.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 weeks ago
FanboyMctroll
I agree with you, the sad fact is that chronic alcoholics still drive without a license. That is why I like the mandatory breathalyzer on ignition starters of convicted drunk drivers. The car won't start until you breath into the device. Great invention, but not full proof, but it helps.
No votes have been placed for this debate.