Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Convicted drunk drivers all over California may soon be required to install and pay for the use of ignition interlock devices, at a cost of $50-100 per month, plus installation. Says the article: "State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, wants to expand a program already in place in four California counties, including Alameda, and 24 other states. Under the proposed state law Hill will introduce Monday, anyone convicted of driving under the influence would be required to install an ignition interlock device in their car for six months on a first offense and a year on a second conviction." Though interlock devices could be fitted to check for other conditions as well, the usual case (as described on this Wikipedia page) is that they base the ability to operate a car on blood alcohol content. Already in California, interlock devices are mandatory for those re-arrested for DUI while "driving on a suspended license due to a DUI conviction."

Comments

How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[damn_registrars]

These various silly "extras" that we add on to DUI sentences don't seem to do much to reduce the DUI rates in this country. I think it is time we join the rest of the industrialized world and start treating DUI as a felony-level offense. Put some fear of real punishment into the hearts of the people who can't control their drinking and they might be less inclined to try their luck.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

So what you're suggesting is get a DUI, and we'll ruin your life. I mean, I hate people drink driving, but ruining their life is not a good way of turning them into a functioning member of society, it's a good way of turning them into an alcoholic criminal.

Seriously, a felony conviction means you have a high chance of being fired from your job. Even if you're lucky enough to keep your income, a prison sentence longer than a week means you have a good chance of missing mortgage payments, and potentially losing a house. These punishments should not be taken (or used) lightly.

More so, "fear of real punishment" doesn't work - it's documented not to work. That's why America (despite it's huge prison population) still has a huge offending rate. Because stuffing people in prison isn't a good route to rehabilitation - it's a good route to indoctrination of criminal behaviour.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

I have a problem with that because by ruining their lives, what we create is a bunch of criminals. That's much worse than a bunch of idiots.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

Why do you think that me not wanting to change idiots into criminals mean that I don't care about the victims of idiots?

Does turning idiots into criminals somehow benefit the victims?

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Mr. Freeman]

You eliminated the requirement to prove someone guilty and your conviction rates went up? Well no fucking shit, of course they did. Removing things like "due process" and "rights" *always* results in more people being punished.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[CanHasDIY]

Statistically speaking, a douchebag on a cellphone is just as dangerous, if not more so, than a drunk. Methinks you're just excusing the bad behaviours you yourself choose to engage in.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Unfortunately the only thing that I can think of that might make a dent would be to penalize establishments that serve patrons until they're legally drunk

Penalizing those of us that walk/cab/transit home from a night out (after leaving the car at home like a responsible human being) is really the best you can think of?

News for Nerds?

[TWX]

I'm curious as to how this is a nerd-news subject. Ignition Interlock devices are nothing new or novel, and if anything, the only nerd stuff would be talking about how to bypass or otherwise fake results, which isn't a direction that I want to head in either.

Re:Poor tax?

[Bite The Pillow]

Do you really think that a drunk driver actually thinks about killing people? Does someone at a bar say "It may put some schmuck in the grave but pour me another, barkeep"?

And when the news gets a hold of the exclusive interview, does the convicted driver say "Fuck it, I'd do it again"?

Solving a problem is about understanding it, and you don't seem to understand it.

Absolutely not, but driving drunk IS a choice. If you are impaired before you get behind the wheel, don't get behind the wheel.

It's definitely not a choice. Being intoxicated means poor decision making, and frequently decisions are made without registering that there is a choice. It is poor planning. Your argument would read a lot better as "if you fail to plan transportation in advance, then you should hand your keys to someone sober" or something like that. Choosing to proceed despite a plan is the choice, but no one would consciously ask "do I drive drunk?" and answer yes.

Simple, make what cellphone users do when driving as illegal as driving drunk.

Drink driving laws and texting laws do not seem to be solving the problem. Yet you say "simple", as if something proven only slightly effective will help. Hopefully you see the problem here.

I won't quote everything, but the whole thread around post #48682969 is arguing that if you drive while intoxicated, you should be punished more severely than "Wanton Endangerment" in most US states. Even following your own logic, a typical definition may use "indifference to human life" or "extreme indifference". That may be 5 years in jail, not a lifetime. If your username suggests your location, check KRS Â 508.060 and ÂÂ 532.020, 532.060.

That just means the penalties are too low. Perhaps forfeiting 100% of your assests would be the best punishment?

This is vengeance. It does not prevent people from making bad decisions or failing to plan. You are not going to fix the problem or prevent anything this way. You obviously have a personal stake in this in some fashion.

...then you deserve whatever punishment those who lives you put at risk decide. So tired of seeing people die or otherwise have their lives ruined due to inebriated thought processes. I don't hate drunks, I hate drunks who maim and kill.

There's the personal stake. But notice that your last sentence specifies the ones who maim and kill. Right now, there are lots of people who are legally too drunk to drive, but will make it home without incident. A very small percentage will be caught, and a smaller percentage will cause an accident, and it is more likely that they will injure themselves.

If we take the opportunity to try turning a drink driver into a productive member of society who has learned the difficulty of making good decisions while intoxicated, those personal experiences will live on in the stories they tell. "I was in jail for a week so don't take a chance" is a more sobering argument than "You don't seem okay." Having real people with real stories, the "scared straight" school, is the most effective way to get the point across that it could happen to you. Having these real, walking stories willing to personally, and physically, intervene before someone gets behind the wheel sounds like something you would support, and that's just one of a great deal of options you have when you have the chance to catch someone in the act, before they cause problems, and correct the behavior.

You can't totally prevent someone from doing it again, but you can get most of them. And, more importantly, you can't stop someone who has never had any problems with the law from thinking it couldn't happen to them. Would you rather focus on first time offenders or repeat offenders? The answer is of course both. But jacking up the punishment only fixes repeat offenders, which are statistically a smaller part of the