Though nobody personally wants to be identified as a convicted drink driver, the fact and truth is that at one time or another millions of people have fallen foul of this law, including many celebrities, and otherwise good citizens like doctors, teachers and many others.
There are NO legal defences to this law, no extenuating circumstances (e.g. even taking the wife to the hospital when she's about to give birth) which makes it one of the most suspicious laws on the entire statute books.
So although everybody accepts that seriously drunk drivers, or even possible those narrowly over the limit are a potential danger to the public, it remains mostly "a victimless crime."
It is of course very popular with the police, who are very keen to use it to swell their arrest and conviction statistics, whereas what the public really cares about is muggers, vandals, car thiefs, burglars, rapists, muderers and so on, where in each case there IS a genuine and often very traumatised or harmed victim.
At present, the situation is that a convicted drink driver will have this noted on their license for around 10 years, and could even end up in prison on repeat offences, even though they have not ever injured or killed anybody.
But worst of all it means that though they have harmed or stolen from nobody, they have a permnanent criminal record.
So I don't object to drink driving over a certain limit being a criminal offence, because it is a danger to the public, but it may interest readers to know that at least 90% and as many in places as 96% or more of road accidents, and in particular DEATHS, are NOT caused by drink drivers, but simply by incompetent or careless motorists, and drink drivers are scape goated en masse for serious problems they are rarely causing, and even in cases where drink drivers have caused injury or death, it has rarely been shown that alcohol was THE CAUSE, but only that drink was INVOLVED in the offence.
So at the very least please, can we have people who are otherwise good citizens, who made maybe one mistake and ended up criminalised after being accidentally over the limit on perhaps a single occasion years or decades ago, taken off the DNA database and have their criminal record struck off (let's say after 3 years perhaps if they don't reoffend), when they are not common criminals, who have never actually committed any serious crime against any other citizen, and pose no threat to the public?
Because on the whole, these people are not genuine criminals, simply people who made an error of judgement on a single occasion and harmed nobody.
Why is this idea important?
This idea is important, because this blanket condemnation law of all people who have been convicted of drink driving, regardless of how much over the limit they were, or whether they harmed anyone or caused any accident or not, has given millions of people a life long criminal record, made criminals of those who 99.9% of the time are good citizens and pose no threat to the public, and who would never otherwise appear on the criminal records.
This appears to be tarring everybody who ever was caught drink driving even slightly over the limit with the same brush, when there is a vast difference between the offences carried out under this same law, with some people having been several times over the limit and caused accident or deaths, and others being only slightly over the limit on a single occasion and having harmed nobody.
This is a deep injustice against millions of people, classing them together with genuine criminals, when they have already paid for what may have been a very minor offence with a mandatory minimum 1 year ban, a fine and possibly lost their jobs, had the quality of their lives reduced and so on, due to not being able to drive for a substantial period.
In particular, the DNA dabatase should be there only for those who have commited serious criminal offences like burglarly, violent crime, rape or, murder, instead of containing millions of innocent or non-threatening people as is the case now.