Thanks for Commenting
My concern is that the devices can be circumvented too easily. Plus the drunks can go drive other cars.
I'd rather they take away the drivers license and car on the first offense. Maybe only for a month or so, and they have to pay the fees to get it back from the state/city after that.
There are no third chances. If you do it again you go to jail for at least a year.
20 years ago I went with a friend to the First Offender program. A woman there was upset that this was her first offense and the state was going after her and not the cronic drunk drivers. A couple sessions later she admitted that her license was suspended and she was having to drive every day to Santa Fe for work. If they will not obey one law fines and other punishment will be ineffective in getting them to obey other laws.
As to the suggestion that I not drink and drive to avoid having a device on my car: I do not drink. At all. By the logic inherent in your response if I do not intend to do anything that might cause me to become involved in a traffic accident then I should not feel obliged to wear a seatbelt which was a federally mandated device to reduce the number of deaths and injuries.
Yeah, that's the real problem. Of course you could further make the law say that if you know someone has a suspended license and they are driving they too could be help as an accomplice. (maybe it already says that).
Additionally you have not considered the issue of the constitutionality of installing the device on the assumption that someone will be convicted. There must be due process.
Ok, try this on for size:
First DWI, you lose your license for a year, and your car remains in the impound for that period at your expense. You also get mandatory counseling. You must attend the First Offender Program. Plus, if you drive on a suspended DWI license, you go to jail.
Second DWI, you go to jail for a year, and lose your license for life. If you drive anyway (drunk or otherwise), you go to jail every time you are caught. Just like any other crime.
No one gets rich from interlocks (oops, better sell that stock), and we get DWI legislation that actually means something.
The fundamental issue remains: You have not addressed drinking and driving, much less impairment due to other causes. And the people driving drunk will have killed people and what their loved ones receive is hearing the "bad person" is going to jail. More dead and injured, more people in jail, nothing changed. Maybe you should try investing in CCA and the other privatized prison companies. It is a growing industry, and we need something to replace manufacturing.
Commenting by HaloScan
