In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be approved.

Your insurance is going up more than $100/month if you get a DUI.

> Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle.

Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is the disruption in what they are allowed to do and software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for them, but others as well.

And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with certain conditions. Just like you and me.

Because the DUI laws aren't designed to protect people, they are designed to extract money out of citizens for the courts and their buddies providing 3rd party services. Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer? Still get charged just as hard for a DUI because that is literally thousands of dollars the court will receive. Oh sure if you got $10K to drop on a lawyer it will go away easily, but for anyone that has a public defender they are shit out of luck. Defending yourself in court with a public defender is just increasing the risk and liability because if they lose the case they now have to pay thousands of dollars more for court costs, which pushes people to taking shitty plea deals.

Oh sure there are plenty of people who are guilty and have a problem, they get caught too, but the courts want money so they aren't just going after the problem, they are charging any and every person possible. Some people get charged DUIs for annoying a cop or being tired, and even if their blood work comes up clean, do they drop the case? No. They just argue they were high on some other drug that they didn't test for.

>> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.

> your criticism is pretty off-base

In my experience, and the experience of my friends, that criticism was spot-fucking-on. Once you get into the system, you'll be lucky to ever truly get out. Every step is designed to keep you paying into the system in perpetuity unless you walk a very, very thin tightrope. Anyone that thinks we rehab our criminals is pretty off-base.

The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line?

If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).

I'm pretty sure even a plea bargain can't result in soldiers being quartered in your home.

More effective, too.

An interlock prevents you from driving drunk. Suspending a license pretty frequently does nothing.

If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.

These are your examples?

In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for the rest of his life.

So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison?

That first case? There's something missing there, there's zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article. "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one more of corruption...

Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car.

I have no problem sharing the roads with drunks. It's the cars that scare me.