A study of more than 19,000 first-time drunk driving offenders found that interlocks that prevent the vehicle from starting if the driver has been drinking can dramatically reduce driving while intoxicated charges. The breath-testing devices reduced drunk driving charges by 60 percent compared to first-offenders who did not install the devices.
The study examined the records of 1,461 first time DWI offenders who had interlocks installed in their vehicles. The researchers compared them to 17,562 first offenders who did not use the devices. The two groups were matched up by age, gender, and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of arrest.
"We found that first-time offenders who had interlock devices were 60 percent less likely to have a repeat offense than those who did not use interlock devices," said Paul Marques, PhD, with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. "This study on first-time offenders reinforces prior studies on this issue that show a 65 percent reduction in drunk driving while interlocks are installed."
Marques estimated that for every dollar spent on interlocks for first offenders, the public saves $3.
Opportunity to Change Behavior
Four states -- New Mexico, Louisiana, Arizona and Illinois -- have laws that mandate ignition interlock devices for those convicted of first offense drunk driving. Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other advocacy groups are urging other states to pass mandatory interlocks.
"The idea that there should be any important difference between the risk posed by a first offender and a repeat offender is unsupported," Marques said in a news release. "The average first offender has driven drunk many times before he or she was arrested. The big risk difference is between non-offenders and first offenders. The risk difference between first offenders and repeat offenders is small by comparison."
"For so many years we've managed DWIs as criminals, but this is more then just a crime issue since many DWI offenders are alcohol dependent. Interlocks present an opportunity to help change behavior rather than simply punishing or incarcerating the offender," Marques says. "It's not enough to revoke a license - 75 percent of all people with revoked licenses drive anyway - but you don't want to sentence an entire family to poverty if they're dependent on that driver getting to and from his or her job. By installing an interlock, the risk that the DWI offender poses is controlled, and interlocks become a public benefit."
Related Information:
Photo: Clipart.com
i believe that the ignition locks should be installed in all vechiles to prevent anyone from driving while drinking, and maybe everyone will get the hint. but what also frustrates me most is that there is only 4 states that passed the law to have the ingnition lock, when the government of all states should pass the law. we would have less accidents and less cases for judges to deal with. everyday hundreds or thousands of people die from drunk drivers. the drunk drivers done the damage but the judges are doing more damage by not imprisoning drunk drivers the first time. sending them to rehab is not going to make a difference. i believe if the united states work better together with bigger pentilies, i believe we would have less crimes. none of the judges are not doing a good job at all. too many people have been killed, injured and emotionally tramatized for their loved ones because of the stupid decision a drunk made, then does get arrested for a few months.
madd needs to get a life and stop harrassing first time offenders over a petty offense. they need to pass laws to stop nazi who think they rule . you can punish people based on your loss and make life hard for others. if an area has no cabs it should be illegal to give a person a dui and persecute for 17 years when no ones was hurt. get a life
RE: Marty
I am a 62 year old first time offense DUI with a felony. Two people were injured and fortunately for them not seriously.
This ankle bracelet I wear, for a year, to monitor alcohol use is worthless. It constantly is not working for one reason or another. In those days of it not working had I been a serious drinker I could have drank alcohol.
After a year I can drive but will have to outfit my vehicle with a device to monitor alcohol for another 5 months.
Was all this needed for a first time offender? I don’t think so but every case is different. In my case injuries to people left no choice.