“I don’t think this bill is going anywhere,” Bill Lewis, public policy liaison for the Texas office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said in an interview.
“It’s one of those make-you-feel-good types of bills, but it doesn’t stop drunk driving,” Lewis said. “People who lose their driver’s license are still going to drive ... they will be more careful after losing their licenses but they are still going to drive.”
If anything, such proposals “are a distraction from those good bills that have been filed,” Lewis argued.
Lewis said instead of supporting harsh bills that won’t pass or wouldn’t solve the problem, MADD is proposing sobriety checkpoints across the state and requiring convicted DWI offenders to have ignition interlocks in their vehicles. Interlocks are devices installed on the dashboard that work like breathalyzers.I'm pleased to see MADD espousing a message critical of "harsh bills that ... wouldn't solve the problem." To their credit, readers will recall, MADD also announced earlier this year they wouldn't oppose abolition of the Driver Responsibility surcharge if the Legislature repealed it. In years past, I don't recall MADD ever criticizing, even mildly, legislation that punished DWI offenders more harshly, so perhaps these comments presage a more nuanced position from the group going forward. OTOH, surcharges and license suspensions have been miserable public policy failures, and at some point one must abandon a sinking ship. Even the District and County Attorneys Association has suggested reducing, not expanding, drivers license suspensions for DWI.
Though I'm not a fan of the checkpoint idea MADD is proposing - because of that pesky Fourth Amendment and all - I've long thought ignition interlocks make sense for every offense after the first one as part of a probation regimen. (MADD argues for ignition interlocks on the first offense, but I think they underestimate the cost and local manpower required to manage such a program that broadly.) Even if the state were to pay for them, the interlock devices are cheaper than incarceration by a longshot and promote positive behavior (sober driving) instead of merely punishing the negative. At the end of the day, carrots trump sticks.
I really like the interlocks...both Draeger and SmartStart. But they are pretty pricey for low wage people-->$75 per month plus the need to get recalibrated monthly.
ReplyDeleteTalk about life sentences--I think felony DUI folks should have to have them for life! All license suspensions and revokations get you is lots of unlicensed drivers....
The interlocks are worthless. Anyone can drive a car without the interlock. Maybe we should put dwi habitual offenders on a registry and stamp dwi on their drivers licenses. We could then beware of who is in our neighborhoods and keep an eye on them. Bartenders could ask for a d.l. and they know when to cut them off the liquor
ReplyDeletePrison Doc, I agree about the price. There are also labor costs for the POs monitoring them that are significant (see the next to last link in the post) and not taken into account by the cost to the probationer. That's why I think the state should just pay for them if they're going to be widely used, especially since, while costly for a low-income individual, they're relatively cheap for the state compared to incarceration. It's less realistic to require them for long stretches, much less "life," if the defendant must pay.
ReplyDelete9:41, it's true it's possible to get around them, but it's a deterrent and most evidence I've seen on them say they work, even if some folks can find occasionally someone else to blow for them. Not a panacea, but IMO not worthless.
I enjoy how some other states have DWI Offender license plates. The only problem is the easy argument in court on subsequent offenses is that the officer was predisposed to believe the person was intoxicated based on the plate.
ReplyDeleteAs a patrol officer I am glad to see MADD propossing interlock devices and not supporting stupid drivers licene suspensions that do not prevent people from driving in the first place.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience interlocks do work. In eight years of police work I have only seen one suspect tamper with the device by disableing it. He was also intoxicated and was promptly arrested. However a stiff penalty is needed such as a State Jail Felony in the Bill for those who tamper with, disable or drive another persons vehicle not equiped with the device. Currently by law if an interlock device is required as part of an occupational license and one is not present in the vehicle it is a class B misd, if it is kept just a misdeamenor many people will take the chance.
As for DWI checkpoints, I don't support them. I don't see how they can effectively work in this day and age of cell phones and mass communication. All the drunks are going to do is call their buddies and tell them where the cops are set up and those same drunks will just take the backroads and side streets home.
Leave me alone and quit taking our rights away every chance you get.
ReplyDeleteAnytime you let the government dictate something as far as taking your ability to drive you are eating away at our rights as Americans. If it were up to MADD they would not allow anyone to enjoy a nice cold beer period. Now there is something wrong with that in this day and age. I in no means advocate drunk driving but if you take away rights then thats wrong too. The reason its anonymous is because of the Nazis MADD has become and I fear retaliation.
Interlock devices are a scam. They do not work. All it takes is a 8 dollar plug in cigarette lighter air compressor to beat on or bypass it. DWI client had one in car and showed it to me. I advised him that it would sure be sorry to see a nice family man like him go to prison for an alcohol related offense. The devices are a joke, waste of money and merely provide a false sense of security or action by those who swear by them.
ReplyDeleteDecember 9, 2010 Wilson County JP #1 Judge Devora uses color of Office to set PR Bond for Jason Talamantez who happens to be his Nieces Fiance. The Offense was DWI involving a accident Just more typical politics in Wilson County
ReplyDeleteInterlock devices can be useful. Unfortunately, they give a false sense of security. It can take up to 5 weeks before anything is even reported to a supervision officer if a defendant blows positiive and then "misses" their visit to the interlock provider. I will contradict the 8 dollar air compressor comment, as most interlock devices have cameras now. But until the results of failure to blow and positive results are transmitted real time, then the usefulness of interlock is VERY limited.
ReplyDelete