In over 30 years of service as a state and nationally based judicial educator concerning impaired driving and sentencing issues, I have found that judges, given information, access to research, discretion, and opportunity, would strive to sentence impaired drivers as individuals. We judges realize that there is no single sentencing modality that is best suited to address rehabilitative and deterrence goals in every case. We realize that some sentencing modalities may actually be counterproductive.
Such is the case where Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs) are mandated for first-time offenders with alcohol test levels under.15%, who have been assessed not to require treatment. In their cases, mandating judges to impose IIDs simply adds an unnecessary economic burden; a burden over and above already costly education, assessment, probation, and relicensing fees. Many such offenders resort to claiming indigency or simply continue to drive without a license in order to maintain employment. In states that mandate IIDs for all first-time offenders, indigency funds to provide IIDs are being depleted with a resultant drain on states’ revenue. IIDs come with a price that judges recognize but that is often overlooked by those in the legislative and executive branches.
Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs) are an important tool that judges can employ to improve sentencing outcomes, particularly with respect to reducing impaired driver recidivism. They are well suited in the cases of hardcore drunk drivers, who statistically are more likely to reoffend and who present a clear and proven danger to public safety in terms of causing fatal crashes. As with all sentencing modalities t here is no single one that is best suited to all types of impaired drivers. IIDs for hardcore, high BAC, multiple offenders makes sense. Mandating IIDs for all first-time offenders does not.
The foregoing represents my personal views on the topic of IIDs and not the position or opinion of any institution, organization, or entity with which I may be affiliated. I will carry out any laws that require imposition of Ignition Interlock Devices, although I may not agree with their wisdom or appropriateness.
Opinions and all other information expressed in contributor’s comments represent the individual’s own views. Brown-Forman does not endorse advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized company spokespersons.