Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Posted by timothy on from the as-punishments-go dept.

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."

3 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. How about mandatory felony sentences instead? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.