Federal Ignition Interlock Requirement on all DWIs?
It seems as if the Federal Government is now getting into the mix of deciding what the individual states should and should not be allowed to do to punish first time DWI / DUI offenders.
Today, an article in the USA today explained that the Federal Government has a pending bill that would tie in government funding for roads to the conditions of probation on a DWI first. According to the article, if States do not make Ignition Interlock devices a requirement as a condition of probation for DWI 1st.
I've always heard that this is how the Government got Louisiana to up their drinking age to 21 . . by tying road funding to it. But I don't know if that is true.
So if this passed, what would this mean for DWI first offenders? In my opinion, this just gives everyone even MORE of a reason to fight and go to trial. If the only way to keep people from losing their jobs by keeping this device off, then a trial by jury is the only way to go. We have had so many people tell us that they would lose their jobs if they have one of these installed. Realtors, those in sales, or any business people that have clients in their car. What about a mom who does carpool, and the other children see mom blowing into a device to start the car?
Yet another not well thought out plan spearheaded by our friends at MADD.
That would be wonderful. I should have bought stock in the company that makes those things. Seriously though, you raise good points. These are all issues that drivers face up here in sunny Seattle. Add to that bureaucratic delays in actually processing through the ignition interlock licensing, and you have an increased incentive to go to trial.
I know this would raise hackles with MADD, but let's stop treating first time DUI offenders like felons. I hate explaining to people that even though DUI is a gross misdemeanor, the consequences of conviction make it feel like a felony. DUI's happen. They're unfortunate, but the punishment needs to fit the crime.
Finally, the federal government needs to let states make their own drinking laws. Drinking age, and now apparently DUI, are becoming federal matters through funding. It is as though the states only get to make the decisions that the feds want, or the states get "grounded" until they play ball.