Can state track thousands of interlocks?
The American Beverage Institute opposes mandatory ignition interlocks for first-time drunk driving convictions. So Sarah Kapenstein of the institute couldn't wait to share an item from the group's blog with me and my readers.
Essentially, what the institute is doing is trying to use the tragic case of Thomas Meighan, the man accused of killing Johns Hopkins student Miriam Frankl (right) in a hit-and-run, to advance its position. Meighan, a serial drunk driver, is charged with operating a motor vehicle in defiance of an order to use an interlock device.
At first, I thought this was a classic case of lobbyist logic -- using one high-profile failure as an excuse to scrap an otherwise good idea. But on reflection, the institute raises a good question -- even if it does so in a crass way. Proponents of using the interlocks for first-time offenders need to make the case that requiring the the Motor Vehicle Administration to monitor large numbers of drivers ordered to use ignition interlocks devices wouldn't degrade current efforts to keep tabs on the hard-core offenders.
My impression, however, is that there's not much the MVA can do to assure compliance by folks who are determined to game the system. So there might not be any harm to existing compliance efforts from adding the new interlock customers. A high percentage of people will always comply because it's the law and there are punishments for being caught breaking it.
If Meighan is found to have bypassed the ignition interlock requirement, the real lesson is that there are some cases in which the only effective measure is vehicle confiscation. In cases where a driver disables an interlock device, there should be automatic impoundment upon arrest and auction upon conviction. Does the poor offender need to drive to work to feed the babies? Tough. Take a bus. Walk. Put the babies up for adoption. He or she shoulda thought of that before defying a court order.
Comments
I have no real position on the interlocks, but, how about some real enforcement. More check points. Automatic revocation of license for first offense. Jail time for driving on revoked license. Taking away cars from offenders if they own title. Making it illegal to knowingly give your car to someone with revoked license. I don't tend to be the "tough on crime" type that thinks increasing sentences are the answer to everything. But for drunk driving enforcement which is far more lax than comparably devastating crimes, it is definitely a big part of the answer here.
Posted by: Fritz | December 15, 2009 10:37 AM
Mr. Dresser,
May I suggest someone proofread your story prior to posting on the internet? There are a few errors that should have been caught :-)
I'm a bit of a stickler for grammar and such. Sorry if I've offended you.
Have a nice day and Merry Christmas!!!
Posted by: Christina | December 15, 2009 12:59 PM
MADD and other radical neo-prohibitionist groups like to say that Interlocks reduce DUI recidivism by 65 percent. What they don’t tell you is that as soon as the interlocks come off, it’s back to business as usual – and then some. Nor do they tell you that the risk of crashing is increased while interlocks are installed, according to a California DMV study.
At one point in his drunk-driving career, Thomas Meighan had an interlock installed; he fulfilled all the court-ordered requirements and got his driver’s license back in 2000. Two weeks later he was again arrested for DUI.
You wrote, “Essentially, what the institute is doing is trying to use the tragic case of Thomas Meighan ... to advance its position.”
No ... the ABI is pointing out the lunacy of those using the Meighan case to advance their pro-interlock position. MADD and the interlock lobbyists seize every opportunity and high-profile case they can to promote their agenda. I’m surprised you haven’t you noticed that those cases involve drivers with BACs in the neighborhood of 0.20. That’s where the problem is – high BAC drivers. Only in a MADD mind do such drivers exemplify Joe Average, who has a few beers on Saturday night. But it’s the average drinkers – even though they pose no danger – who will be getting the prone-to-error interlocks.
You say interlocks for first-time offenders are a “good idea” but you offer nothing to back your contention. I suppose that’s because you have nothing ... unless you’re an interlock manufacturer or provider drooling at the prospect of all that money rolling in.
Stephen Beck
Posted by: Stephen Beck | December 15, 2009 10:52 PM