The move is controversial due to the invasive nature of the devices, but there is something that critics of the devices nonetheless admit: they work. The devices also may have a predictive function, allowing courts to better foresee repeat offenders. According to a study in Alberta, Canada, there was a strong correlation between the proportion of failed breathalyzer tests and an offender’s chances of being convicted of a DUI again. A California study showed that within 120 days of having the interlock device installed, first time offenders were at lower risk of having an accident than those without the devices.
But what about the 1.5 million people arrested for their first drunk driving offense each year? Ignition interlock devices may prevent a second occurrence, but too often it is the first offense that ruins a life and ruins a family. Is there a way to reduce this number?
Although preventing repeat DUI offenses is important, spotting and treating the warning signs of alcohol abuse early could help lower the amount of intoxicated drivers on the road. According to National Statistics reported by the California DMV, over 75% of drunk drivers were either frequent drinkers or alcoholics. Short of a Minority Report-esque future however, how can courts prevent these people from committing their first DUI defense?
Some, if not most, of first time offenders with alcohol abuse problems must have a past criminal history related to alcohol or drug use. Across the country, drug courts already address drug use as a health problem by focusing their efforts on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Hybrid DUI/Drug courts for repeat offenders boast recidivism rates as low as 4%, a startlingly low number compared to national averages. These programs prove that addressing alcohol abuse is an effective means of preventing future DUIs.
Although these hybrid DUI/Drug courts are for repeat offenders and offer programs far more invasive than an ignition interlock device, their underlying principle is the key: treat the underlying behavioral health issue of alcoholism and irresponsible alcohol use. Perhaps a solution to curbing first time offenders, therefore, is the recognition that a lesser offenses, such as a minor in possession or public intoxication, can be warning signs of a future propensity for something such as a DUI. Many states already offer various rehabilitation programs for these offenses. Many also do not, and not much scholarship exists on the effectiveness of those that do. If statistics showed a significant correlation between certain past offenses and DUI convictions, steps can be taken in the sentencing and rehabilitation of these lesser crimes to try and address future alcohol abuse.
This is not a call for harsher penalties on minor offenses. Instead, courts should take a more sophisticated approach with sentencing that focuses on alcohol dependency and behavioral issues. In many ways, extending the drug court paradigm further to more alcohol related offenses (although perhaps not in as invasive as that for repeat DUI offenders) may nip the greater DUI problem in the bud.