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).

▲

SauciestGNU 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.

▲

benatkin 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I might agree with you, but I struggle to think of it in isolation from the move towards self driving cars. Also we already have a quite harsh consequence of not being able to visit Canada for 10 years that a lot of rich people can get out of by paying a lawyer to keep them from getting a DUI. If only deterrents worked better. Is the problem with an interlock device that they can drive when they can pass the interlock test, or is the technology not needed, and what technology would you propose for preventing drunk driving convicts from driving illegaly?

▲

SauciestGNU 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure there's a technological solution to a social problem. The problem is decision making when intoxicated. The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.

Consider guns. A felon cannot be in possession of guns legally, and the doctrine of constructive possession means that a prohibited person can be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm if a lawful owner in a household leaves a gun accessible to the prohibited person.

Perhaps it should be a serious crime for a convicted drunk driver to be in or around a car where the ignition device could be in the prohibited person's possession.

▲

fragmede 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The technological solution is to make it so the addict doesn't need to drive to go about their lives. I know at least one alcoholic that moved to an apartment with a bar within walking distance, so they could walk home from the bar instead of driving home drunk.

	▲	SauciestGNU 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The other technological fix is naloxone, which helps with alcohol use disorder just like it does with other substance use disorders. We have many options if we as a society decide to take these problems seriously.

▲

benatkin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.

My technological ideas were along those lines. Basically allowing them to continue to own their automobile, but not to drive, and perhaps not to buy one, because forcing them to sell their cars is hard to implement (though maybe worth it). And also preventing them from operating cars owned by other people that are stored in their residence or workplace.

▲

astura 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.

	▲	benatkin 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in the article, where the interlock devices didn't function as intended.