Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

THE gruesome death of a motorcyclist, who was hit and killed by a driver believed to be under the influence of alcohol and drugs, in Klang last Sunday (March 29) has got politicians calling for the death penalty.

This is a knee-jerk reaction. Cases involving driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) that lead to death often spark public outrage, and it’s not unusual to hear calls for the harshest possible punishment to be imposed on the guilty person.

When politicians begin suggesting the death penalty for DUI, it reflects just how strongly people feel about the injustice of it all. 

At a human level, that reaction is easy to understand. Someone made a reckless choice to drive while under the influence – and another paid the ultimate price.

To many, this is no different from taking a life outright. 

The idea of imposing the death penalty comes from a sense that the punishment should match the severity of the crime.

There is also a belief that if the consequences are extreme enough, others might think twice before making the same mistake.

In that sense, the call for harsher laws is not just about punishment but also to prevent future tragedies. 

But when you step back from the emotions, the issue becomes more complicated. 

DUI, even in the worst cases, is usually not treated as intentional killing. 

It is seen as a reckless or negligent act rather than a deliberate decision to end someone’s life. 

This distinction matters in most legal systems, where the most severe punishments are reserved for crimes with clear intent.

Applying the death penalty to DUI would blur that line and raise difficult questions about how the law defines responsibility and intent.

We can see this contrast more clearly when looking beyond Malaysia. 

Last Friday, golf phenom Tiger Woods was arrested following a crash and charged with DUI in Florida.

Although no one was killed or seriously injured in the incident, he was still detained, charged and now faces legal consequences.

What’s notable is not just the incident itself but how the system responded: the focus is on investigation, due process and proportionate punishment even in a high-profile case.

This comparison highlights an important point. In many countries, including the United States, DUI is treated very seriously, especially when it causes harm. But the punishment is still tied to intent and circumstances.

That doesn’t mean the system is perfect, but it shows a different balance between accountability and proportionality.

There is also the question of whether harsher punishment really works as a deterrent.

While it might seem logical that fear of severe consequences would stop people from DUI, research in many places suggests that what really changes behaviour is the likelihood of being caught.

People are more influenced by the certainty of enforcement –roadblocks, breath testing and visible policing – than by the severity of a punishment that feels distant or unlikely.

Because of this, countries that tend to focus on prevention as much as punishment have reduced DUI deaths.

Strong enforcement, strict penalties like licence suspension, and public awareness campaigns all work together to reduce risks before tragedy strikes.

These measures may not feel as emotionally satisfying as harsh punishment, but they are often more effective in saving lives.

While harsher penalties may feel justified in the moment, many would argue that a system focused on consistent enforcement and prevention offers a better chance at protecting lives in the long run, both in Malaysia and elsewhere.

KRP

The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: Forum@dailyexpress.com.my