Human Population Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Human Population - Essay Example The number keeps growing every second. Human Population itself is not a problem. The Earth is meant for humans to dwell in it. However, it becomes a problem when too many or too less humans live in it and this is known as Over Population and Under Population respectively. Total population is increasing at a rate of around 1.15 % per year and the average annual population change is approximated at over 77 million right now. The increase rate was highest in the 1960s and it has almost halved since then. The total population in Year 1 was 200 million while today in year 2008 it has hit 6 billion. It is estimated to reach 9.2 billion by 2050! (World Population Clock-Worldometer, 2008) Better health-care facilities in developed countries imply fewer deaths. Despite this, most population increases are taking place in developing countries. This is because the birth rate increases more than the decrease in death rate. Alternatively, in developed countries, there is a problem of under population. Life expectancy has increased a lot and the fertility rate has decreased. This is true for countries like Germany. Human population follows the pattern of an exponential growth; it grows slowly at first but then very rapidly (Hopkins, J., 2008). This clearly has implications for the future as the world will become over-populated at one time. Over-population is when the resources of an area can not meet the needs of the humans living in it or in other words the Earth's carrying capacity is utilized. Hence, it is problematic, very. The concept of Over Population can be showed with an analogy. Take the example of a restaurant. It employs five waiters in the beginning. The restaurant gains from them. Slowly the number keeps growing and the number increases to 20 waiters. They start crashing into each other, damaging utilities and worrying other people around them. This is a problem because it becomes difficult for these waiters to behave naturally as they would with only five waiters. This, hence, is the problem of overpopulation. The thing to notice here is that it is also closely related to the economics concept of the Diminishing Law of Marginal Utility. Factors that contribute to and are affected by the Human Population Living Factors The most obvious factor that contributes to human population is humans themselves. Population obviously increases because of increased birth rates or an increase in the fertility rate. People in developing countries are having more and more babies everyday because of which the number is increasing. Humans are also affected by the growing population themselves. Non-Living Factors Along with increased birth rates, decreased death rates or mortality also could also contribute to human population. The death/mortality rate decreases when medical and health care facilities are good. The number of deaths, therefore, decreases when countries are developed or are moving towards development. Because of globalization, today all boundaries between countries have been removed. This promotes specialization and the overall growth of economies of different countries. The growth in an economy is shown by increased and enhanced health-care facilities and hence, a lower number of deaths and a higher life expectancy age. Therefore, there is the

Analysis of Dennis Law of Evidence

Analysis of Dennis Law of Evidence The argument by Professor Ian Dennis that a decision may be factually correct and yet lack the moral justification usually served by a verdict is based on the existence of convictions reached despite apparent procedural irregularities in obtaining the evidence. Three major areas where this occurs are in the areas of confessions, illegally or improperly obtained evidence and silence of the accused as evidence. This represents a battle to maintain the crux of criminal law found in the presumption of innocence and the maxim, â€Å"It is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than hang one innocent man†. On the other hand, it may be thought that to exclude such improper evidence would, in some cases, result in injustice such as the acquittal of the guilty.[1] As a result, English law contains some compromises in some of these areas. This is in order to satisfy the two extreme views. Three cases are analyzed below in order to determine the truth or not of Professor Dennis’ argument. Generally, confessions are admissible in evidence provided they are made voluntarily. However, judges may exercise discretion to exclude confessions obtained by improper or unfair means or in breach of the Judges’ Rules or on grounds that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.[2] These principles are also found in Section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE Act). Professor Dennis’ argument lacks support in the case of properly admitted confessions. In most cases, in order to maintain fairness and morality towards the accused, judges exclude confessions once it is shown that the rules were breached.[3] His argument is upheld only where a confession is admitted and applied to ground a conviction despite being obtained in unfair circumstances. It would then appear that the usual practice does not support the argument above but the exceptional case illustrates the point of Professor Dennis’ statement.[4] In R v. Fulling,[5] the appellant was convicted of obtaining property by deception. Her conviction was grounded on a confession which she claimed to have made under oppressive circumstances. While in custody the appellant was interviewed twice on the first day and once on the following day when she made a confession which she later claimed was the result of being told by an officer that her lover had been having an affair with the woman in the next cell for the last three years. She said that these revelations so distressed her that she could not stand being in the cells any longer and made a statement in the hope that she would be released. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the confession was admissible since it was not oppressive (characterized by impropriety) under S. 76(2)(a) of the PACE Act or rendered unreliable under S. 76(2)(b). The degree of oppression and impropriety sufficient to exclude the confession was determined by the court to be absent. The decision in this case was factually correct because earlier evidence given by a witness was corroborated by Fuller’s confession. However, if the moral justification for founding conviction were that the degree of impropriety was lower than required, then the verdict would be regarded as morally weak.[6] ILLEGALLY OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – R V. SANG (1980) AC 402 The general position of the law is that evidence, which is relevant and otherwise admissible, should not be excluded only because of the manner in which it was obtained.[7] The judge may exclude such evidence only as a matter of discretion. Therefore, the use of such evidence to found a conviction, although factually correct, can be seen as lacking in moral authority where improper means are alleged. This common law position has been influenced by Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which grants the court discretion to refuse to allow evidence which would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings because of the circumstances in which it was obtained. In R v. Sang[8] the appellant sought the exclusion of the evidence upon which the accused was later convicted because the accused had been induced to commit the offence by an agent provocateur. It was held on appeal that the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained provided it was relevant and admissible. The reasoning was based on Kuruma Son of Kaniu v. R [9] that remedies may be sought in civil law for illegality but the judge at trial is only concerned with how such unfairly obtained evidence is used by the prosecution and not how it was obtained. This case strongly illustrates how moral legitimacy of a guilty verdict can be compromised where the court overlooks its power of discretion and the unfair circumstances in which the accused is found, choosing instead to apply the facts heedlessly. The accused’ right to silence formerly entitled the accused not to have inferences drawn from his silence as evidence of his guilt.[10] This right has been curtailed by Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which provides in subsections (2) and (3) that inferences may be drawn from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question. This position was upheld in the case of R v. Cowan ors.[11] although Cowan’s appeal was allowed only on the ground that such inference should not be the sole ground for conviction.[12] Thus in this case the court rejected the argument that adverse inference under S. 35 should be restricted to exceptional cases where there is no innocent explanation for the silence. Consequently, the right to silence when exercised by the accused leaves him in danger of being convicted based on the inference drawn by the jury about his silence and other available circumstantial eviden ce. Innocent reasons or good reasons for silence outside those stipulated by the law are insufficient to protect an accused person.[13] The accused must fit the exceptions in order to be excluded where the court has satisfied itself that other requirements[14] have been met. The use of this kind of evidence strongly supports Professor Dennis’ argument because the decision may be factually correct when other circumstantial evidence is added but the moral justification for finding a person guilty because of his silence is weak. In conclusion, as Professor Dennis notes, apparently reliable evidence may need to be excluded altogether if it risks impairing the moral and expressive authority of the verdict.[15] Trials may be fact-finding missions to ascertain the truth but public interest demands total legitimacy both in accuracy of facts and moral authority (based on respect in the procedure and treatment of the defendant). These rights are also recognized in the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 based on the maxim of fairness, â€Å"Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done†. Heydon J. D. and Ockelton M., 1996. Evidence: Cases and Materials, 4th ed., Butterworths London Huxley P. and O’Connell M., 2004. Blackstone’s Statutes on Evidence, 8th ed., Oxford University Press London Keane A., 2006. The Modern Law of Evidence, 6th ed., Oxford University Press London The Common Law Library, 2005. Phipson on Evidence, Sweet Maxwell London LexisNexis Butterworth, All England Reports http://lexisnexis.com/uk/ Dennis I. H., 2002. The Law of Evidence, 2nd ed., Sweet Maxwell London 1 Footnotes [1] Keane A., 2006. The Modern Law of Evidence, Oxford. p.55 [2] ibid. p.380; R v. Sang (1980) AC 402; R v. May (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 91, 93 per Lord Goddard CJ [3] This could be upholding the moral element, in other words. [4] A strong illustration is the case of R v. Mushtaq (2005) 3 All ER 885 where the trial judge was held to have breached the defendant’s privilege when he misdirected the jury by stating that a confession had probative weight so long as they thought it was true even if it was obtained by oppression. The appeal was dismissed though because the defence never proved the oppression. [5] supra [6] This can also be seen in R v. Goldenberg (1988) 88 Cr App Rep 285, CA where the admission of a confession made in the hope of getting bail was found correct despite the accused person’s state of mind at the time. See also Heydon and Ockelton, 1996. Evidence: Cases and Materials. p.159 [7] Common Law rule in Leatham (1861) 8 Cox C. C. 498, 501 [8] supra [9] (1955) AC 197, PC [10] S. 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898; R v. Bathurst (1968) 2 QB 99, CA and R v. Taylor (1993) Crim. LR 223, CA [11] supra [12] This rule is in accordance with S. 38 (3) of the 1994 Act [13] R v. Cowan (supra); R v. Napper (1996) Crim. L. R. 591; R v. Becouarn (2003) EWCA Crim. 1154 [14] Such as a prima facie case by the prosecution (or that the accused has a case to answer) , directions to the jury about drawing adverse inference etc. [15] 2002, The Law of Evidence. p.45

Waiting :: Papers

Waiting I'm ill again. It doesn't surprise me. Deja vu. I had to catch the bus from outside school, after persuading my teachers that I was going to a doctors appointment and not just skipping lessons. I have been waiting on these hard back plastic seats for nearly an hour just for one other doctor in this world to give me some antibiotics and send on my way home. This time I have come to the hospital because Mum thinks the infections getting serious, I cant notice the difference though. The hospital is a lot different from the doctors in town. I suppose its bound to be though. On the wall in front of me there is a big clock, and every minute I sit here it seems to go slower and slower. There are Doctors rushing everywhere. I don't really think I want to be a doctor. You have to be good at science. I'm not. A man has just walked in through the automatic sliding doors, which allow an artic wind to run right through my body. He is wearing big black boots with a headscarf tied loosely around the big matt of curly hair left messily on his head. Pulled tightly over his big fat stomach is a t-shirt saying Greenpeace on it. His trousers are black and come to just above his ankle. He reminds me a lot like the man that used to own the music shop in town. A young boy follows him. I think it must be his son as he too has curly hair and is wearing a similar t-shirt saying Greenpeace. He doesn't look at all happy. His arms are tightly folded and you can see he has been crying. I bet his Mums expecting a baby and he doesn't want it to be a girl. Yes I am right, they have just made their way towards the labour ward. They'll be waiting a long time in there. Every so often a policeman will walk past. They all look so bored, like me. I used to want to be a police lady, but not anymore.

Amendments is the Government protections for the imperiled/endangered species Essay

The significance of these three Amendments is the Government protections for the imperiled/endangered species. These aerial, terrestrial, and aquatic creations were (and up to now) being inadequately taking cared of and are slowly forgotten their existence. And, if people knew that they’re now endangered, these species are put to these people’s cages and brought home for them to keep. However, getting them from their habitats where they used to live and multiply more is not that good idea. People can’t make them as pets, ornaments/displays, or even as food for consumption. They play major rule in this world, they need to survive for humans to survive also. So, these nature-friendly laws were passed to Congress and implemented to the concern citizens. †¢The Endangered Species Act of 1973 or ESA was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a â€Å"consequence of economic growth and development untendered by adequate concern and conservation. â€Å" The stated purpose on this Act is to protect species and also â€Å"the ecosystems upon which they depend. † It encompasses plants and invertebrates as well as vertebrates. This is administered by two federal agencies, the FWS and the NOAA (which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service NMFS). NOAA handles marine species, and the FWS has responsibility over freshwater fish and all other species. Species that occur in both habitats (e. g. sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon) are jointly managed. Though ESA only protects species which are officially listed as â€Å"threatened† or â€Å"endangered†. A species can be listed in two ways. The first is for the FWS or NOAA Fisheries to take the initiative and directly list the species. The second is via individual or organizational petition which prompts FWS or NMFS to conduct a scientific review. There are two categories on the list, endangered and threatened. Endangered species are closer to extinction than threatened species. A third status is that of â€Å"candidate species†. And by March 2008, after more than seven years of the Bush Administration, 59 additional domestic species had been placed on the endangered list, an annual rate of less than nine per year. Section 11 of the Endangered Species Act describes the violations and penalties that may be enforced under law. The United States Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating are the bodies of the federal government responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Act. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service play the predominant role in law enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. In connection to this, there are different degrees of violation with the law being imposed. The most punishable offense is enforced upon those who knowingly break the law through acts of importing or exporting, taking, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping—essentially trafficking endangered species without permission from the Secretary. Any act of knowingly â€Å"taking† (which includes harming, wounding, or killing) an endangered species is also subject to the same penalty. Recovery plans benefit species as indicated by the fact that the longer species have recovery plans, the more likely they are to be classified as improving. The benefit, however, appears to be limited to single-species oriented plans; large multi-species, ecosystem-based plans are not correlated with improving status; perhaps due to their lack of specificity. And, as habitat loss is the primary threat to most imperiled species, the original ESA of 1973 allowed the FWS and NOAA Fisheries to designate specific areas as protected â€Å"critical habitat† zones. In 1978, Congress amended the ESA to require designation for all threatened and endangered species except those which might be harmed by the publication of such maps. Congress indicated that the exception should rarely be invoked. Also, most provisions of the ESA revolve around preventing extinction. Critical habitat is one of the few that focuses on recovery. Species with critical habitat are twice as likely to be recovering as species without critical habitat. In 1982, Congress amended the ESA to enhance the permitting provisions of the act, (Section 10) and intended, in part, to provide landowners with incentives to participate in endangered species conservation. Pursuant to these provisions, by preparing a â€Å"Habitat Conservation Plan† (HCP) that meets statutory criteria, private landowners can obtain â€Å"incidental take permits† that allows otherwise prohibited impacts to endangered, threatened and other species covered in the permitting documents. On April 3, 2007, 41 species have been delisted; sixteen due to recovery, nine due to extinction (seven of which were extinct prior to being listed), nine due to changes in taxonomic classification, five due to discovery of new populations, one due to an error in the listing rule, and one due to an amendment to the Endangered Species Act specifically requiring the species delisting. [7] Twenty-three others have been down listed from â€Å"endangered† to â€Å"threatened† status. Some have argued that the recovery of DDT-threatened species such as the bald eagle, brown pelican and peregrine falcon should be attributed to the 1973 congressional ban on DDT rather than the Endangered Species Act, however, the listing of these species as endangered was a substantial cause of congress instituting the ban and many non-DDT oriented actions were taken on their behalf under the Endangered Species Act (i. e. captive breeding, habitat protection, and protection from disturbance). (Nixon.  R (1972). â€Å"Special Message to the Congress Outlining the 1972 Environmental Program† 51. Juliet Eilperin, â€Å"Since ’01, Guarding Species Is Harder: Endangered Listings Drop Under Bush†, Washington Post, March 23, 2008). †¢1973 also saw the creation of the Convention International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This is an International agreement restricting international commerce in plant and animal species believed to be actually or potentially harmed by trade. The U. S.  CITES list includes all species protected by the ESA in addition to species which are vulnerable but not yet threatened or endangered. While it is widely understood that habitat decline is the primary cause of endangerment for most species, trade in species, or parts of species, is a major cause of decline for some groups of animals and plants. This has included spotted cats for their furs, rhinoceros for horn, elephants and walrus for ivory and, more so in rec ent times, parrots and exotic reptiles for the pet trade, corals and fish for the aquarium trade, and sharks for their fins. Medicinal and ornamental plants are also exploited worldwide, as is tropical timber. Annual trade in wild species worldwide is now estimated to include several hundred million individual animals and plants, and it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Thus the need for CITES is ever more apparent. It also has the distinction, among international conservation agreements, of having the most legal strength behind it, and there is an abundant literature in the fields of law, conservation, international relations and economics about its global impact. To date, well over 30,000 species receive some protection under this landmark agreement, and more are being added on a regular basis. As both a conservation and trade convention, it has more obligations and more detailed enforcement mechanisms than is typical of conservation agreements. When it came into force, the original Parties were most concerned with a rather small subset of species that are or were used in the fashion industry (e. g. , wild cats for fur, crocodilians for leather) or as ornaments (e. g. elephant ivory, wild cattle as trophy heads). Since that time, thousands of species, and in some cases entire taxonomic groups of species, have been added to the Convention simply because many people in both developed and developing countries have attained higher standards of living and are able to afford things that most could not 30 years ago. (CITES: Lead Author: Joel Heinen (other articles): Article Topics: Ecology, International environmental issues, Environmental law and Conservation biology. Heinen, Joel (Lead Author); Richard Reibstein (Topic Editor). 2007. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). † ) †¢ The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 was reauthorized by the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-238) as signed by President Clinton on April 30, 1994. The agency is responsible for implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act — through fiscal year 1999. This encompasses the most significant amendments that involved establishing a new regime to govern the taking of marine mammals’ incidental to commercial fishing, replacing the Interim Exemption in place since 1988. Three new sections were added to the Act to address commercial fishing: the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U. S. jurisdiction; development and implementation of take reduction plans for stocks that may be reduced or are being maintained below their optimum sustainable population levels due to interactions with commercial fisheries; and studies of pinniped-fishery interactions. Maintaining the original aspirations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Amendments continue to protect marine mammals, seeking to maintain stocks at, or recover stocks to, and their optimum sustainable population levels. To achieve that goal, protection of essential habitats including rookeries, mating grounds and areas of similar significance is emphasized by including specific â€Å"habitat† language in the bill. Other major changes include a mechanism for authorizing importation of polar bear parts (other than internal organs) from Canada (provided the required findings are made); revised permit provisions for public display and scientific research; establishment of permits for purposes of photography; procedures for authorizing the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds which are having a significant negative effect on salmonid fishery stocks; eliminated jurisdiction over the care and maintenance of captive marine mammals held for purposes of public display at registered or licensed facilities; and authority for providing grants to Alaska Native organizations for the purpose of developing co-management structures for marine mammal stocks taken for subsistence purposes. Enclosed to this, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (National Ocean Policy Study) held hearings on general MMPA issues on July 14 and 28, 1993, prior to the introduction of S. 1636 on November 8, 1993. The Senate Commerce Committee reported S. 1636 with amendments on January 25, 1994. On March 9, 1994, the House Merchant Marine Subcommittee marked up H. R. 2760, including amendments providing for polar bear trophies to be imported from Canada and establishing a process whereby Federal permission might be granted to intentionally kill individually identifiable pinnipeds having a significant negative effect on certain salmonid fishery stocks, without first having to determine that the marine mammal stock was within its optimum sustainable population range. Reduction Teams will be established to develop plans to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that interact with category I or II fisheries. The short-term goal of the plans is to reduce mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations to levels below the affected stock’s PBR. The long-term goal of the plans is to reduce the rates of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero rate. In addition, to be authorized to take marine mammals, each commercial fishing vessel participating in a fishery with frequent or occasional interaction with marine mammals (category I and II fisheries) must be registered with NMFS. The 1994 Amendments encourage these agencies to take further measures to protect marine mammal rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar ecological significance. To expand knowledge and comprehension of the impacts of habitat destruction on marine mammal species and stocks, Regional Scientific Review Groups, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), are to be established to advise the NMFS and FWS on actual, expected, or potential impacts of habitat destruction on marine mammal stocks. If habitat destruction is harming a stock defined as strategic, the Regional Scientific Review Group must recommend appropriate conservation or management measures to alleviate the impact. On the Pacific coast, NMFS is to undertake scientific investigations to assess the effects of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on endangered and threatened salmonid stocks. In the Gulf of Maine, a pinniped task force is to be established to advise NMFS concerning marine mammal interactions with aquaculture operations. The 1994 Amendments also allow the Secretary of Commerce to authorize the intentional killing of individually identifiable, non-depleted pinnipeds which can be shown to be having a significant negative effect on the decline or recovery of certain salmonid fish stocks listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, approaching such status, or that migrate through Ballard Locks at Seattle, WA. Intentional killing can only be authorized after: a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force has been established by the Secretary to review the situation, consider previous control efforts, and take public comment; and the Task Force has recommended to the Secretary whether to approve or deny the proposed kill along with suggestions for nonlethal alternatives and a recommended course of action. For the first time, it is directed to develop and implement research plans to assess the health and stability of ecosystems of which marine mammals are a part. Specific activities include: a regional workshop for the Gulf of Maine to assess human-caused factors affecting ecosystem health and stability; development of a research plan to monitor the health and stability of the Bering Sea ecosystem; and assessment of the impact California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals have on salmonids and ecosystem stability in the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. Both NMFS and the FWS now have the explicit authority to enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations to conserve marine mammals and to provide co-management of subsistence use of Alaska marine mammal stocks by Alaska Natives. Agreements may include grants to Alaska Native organizations for: collecting and analyzing data on marine mammal populations, monitoring the harvest of marine mammals for subsistence use, participating in marine mammal research, and developing marine mammal co-management structures with Federal and State agencies. They are to promulgate regulations authorizing bona fide scientific research involving only Level B harassments without a formal permit. Persons must submit specified information to NMFS or FWS at least 60 days prior to beginning research. Also, expedited scientific research permits will be allowed when delay could cause injury to a marine mammal or loss of unique research opportunities. To add more, new permit procedures are to explicitly provide for educational and commercial photography of marine mammals. And on the 1994 Amendments establish a new mechanisms for authorizing polar bear trophies (other than internal organs) to be imported from Canada, provided the required findings are made. Subsequently, such imports will not be allowed if there is any indication, found in a study begun two years after the enactment, that the issuance of import permits by the United States is having a significant adverse effect on Canadian polar bear stocks. (http://www. Eoearth. org/The marine Mammal Protection Act).

Why Should Drunk Drivers Be Severely Punished

There are many rule violation occur everyday in town, especially when it comes to vehicle. Some may break the rule of driving before 17-year-old. Others may drive when they are drunk. It is not quite sure which one is more dangerous, however, this essay shall explore some reasons why drunk drivers should be severely punished. Firstly, drunk drivers are absolutely forbidden since it can cause a wreak havoc in the street. Furthermore, the condition can also claim many innocent lives. People who do not realize how dangerous it is to drive while they are drunk should be given a proper education about driving.For instance, if one has a formal education about driving before they jumped to the street, they would have a better understanding about the dangerous of driving when they are drunk than those who do not receive the education. Secondly, drunk driving can not only claim innocent lives, but also can inflict financial loss to one state. Imagine how much that must be paid to fix the brok en street or other public facilities just because of one’s carelessness. In fact, it can also spend months or maybe years to rebuild the facilities.For example, if one drunk driver accidentally hit a prestigious hotel, the quantity of loss may be unthinkable to rebuild the hotel. Finally, they should be convicted to prevent if they would do the same thing again in the near future. There are many reasons to support the statement, one is to enhance the drivers’ vigilance when they are driving in the street. As a matter of fact, one would stop to repeat their mistakes if they have been penalized. In a nutshell, it is clear that drunk drivers should be severely punished from the reasons mentioned above. In my opinion, people should not drive when they are drunk to save themselves and others.