DUI interlock bill casts too wide a net
ADVERTISEMENT
- Most Commented Stories Today
- Most E-mailed Stories Today
Last month, the Arizona House of Representatives committed the offense of "legislating under the Influence" - not under the influence of alcohol or drugs but of incomplete and erroneous information.
We hastily adopted a new policy requiring first time non-extreme DUI offenders to drive with an ignition interlock (alcohol tester) on their car for a year.
The research evidence did not support this change. It is a mistake we are trying to correct.
We did not enact this major policy change using our usual process of committee hearings, staff reports, public input and media scrutiny. Instead, it was tacked onto another bill at the last minute.
Its well-meaning sponsor said that research from New Mexico supported its effectiveness. Many of us, myself included, reluctantly accepted his research and voted for the change.
Afterward, to relieve my uneasiness, I began to look into the interlock on my own.
I first read a newspaper article in which the interlock's sponsor admitted, "other factors could have attributed to the decrease in DUI arrests (in New Mexico)." The evidence that it worked in New Mexico suddenly became, in the sponsor's own words, "an educated guess."
I became more concerned.
I began to look for legitimate studies on the issue, not the "spin" and conjecture that lobbyists, special interest groups and advocates often offer, but instead statistically grounded studies by neutral and trained researchers.
The results were disturbing.
I was able to locate three legitimate studies that took the trouble to separate first-time nonextreme DUI offenders from the rest of the DUIs.
The conclusions of those researchers were that while ignition interlocks are good deterrents for future drunk driving by all extreme DUI offenders and repeat non-extreme DUI offenders, they appear to have no preventative effect on first time nonextreme DUIs. They just do not work on the first timers.
The most powerful of the studies was the September 2004 study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. It concluded that the use of the interlock for first-time offenders "is not associated with reductions in subsequent DUI convictions or crashes."
A second study published in the February 2003 issue of The American Journal of Drugs and Alcohol Abuse found that "there was almost no difference for first offenders."
Finally, data in an Alberta, Canada, study drew opposite conclusions from two teams of researchers, suggesting that the data was ambiguous or the methodologies flawed. These results do not support interlocks for first time nonextreme DUI offenders.
Proponents of the interlock for first time nonextreme DUIs approached me with studies they claimed supported their position. However, each time their "proof" turned out to be either misinterpretations of studies or statements taken out of context from them.
Still others offered good studies favoring interlocks but that grouped the first-timers in with repeat offenders and extreme DUIs.
Consequently, no studies were presented to support extending the interlock to first time nonextreme DUIs and several good ones suggested it is a bad idea.
Faced with this new data, I placed an amendment onto another DUI bill that will only require first-time nonextreme DUI offenders involved in accidents where they committed traffic violations to have interlocks on their cars.
When additional updated research data comes in from New Mexico or elsewhere, we can extend or eliminate the interlock's use on first-time nonextreme offenders based upon fact and not wishful thinking or "educated guesses" that fly in the face of available facts.
Regardless, we should continue mandating the interlock for first-time extreme offenders and repeat nonextreme offenders because the research confirms that for these groups the interlock prevents future drunk driving.
Proponents of the interlock argue that we should still require first time nonextreme DUIs to have an interlock in spite of evidence that it does not work because it does no harm.
They are wrong.
Enacting ineffective legislation discredits the Legislature and lulls us into a false sense of security that we have done something to combat the serious problem of drunken driving, when we really have done nothing.
The police and courts need effective tools to combat drunken driving and anything short of providing that is unacceptable and legislative malfeasance.
In addition, the $700 -$1,000 annual cost of the interlock is a burden not only on the first-time nonextreme DUI offender but also upon his or her family. Innocent family members must also share the shame and stigma of drunk driving because they too must blow into the interlock in front of acquaintances when it is installed in a family car.
While these secondary burdens would be justified were the interlock effective, they are intolerable in view of the interlock's ineffectiveness with first-time, nonextreme offenders.
To err is human and to correct divine, especially for politicians. I commend my House colleagues for the courage it took to admit making a mistake and then correcting it.
The interlock provision for first-time, nonextreme DUI offenders will proceed to a conference committee of House and Senate representatives, where I am hopeful that we can craft a reasonable compromise agreeable to all, including the governor.
State Rep. John Kavanagh is a Republican from Fountain Hills. He a retired police officer who has a Ph.D. in criminal justice and heads the criminal justice program at Scottsdale Community College. He previously taught courses in statistics and research methodology at Arizona State University.
- Read All Comments » 0 TOTAL COMMENTS
- Post a Comment »