Don't Miss the Point

I appreciated the comments posted by The_Knave to my previous post. A great deal of thought went into them, and I am going to address those thoughts. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out that The_Knave seemed to miss the fundamental point. Namely, if Governor Richardson wants to do something about DWI's in our state, then he should really DO SOMETHING. Grabbing headlines by appointing "Czars" (registration required) and creating "Task Forces" while at the same time kowtowing to legislators, who don't want to make life too difficult for our drunken drivers, is a monumental waste of taxpayers dollars.

Now let's address your comments:

RESPONSE to Part 1:
The car of a DWI driver should be impounded. When the driver comes to get their car out of the impound lot, it would come complete with installed interlock. They would have to pay the impound fee and all related interlock fees at that time.

I would also advocate having a code put on their driver's license that indicates they are required to have an interlock in any vehicle they are driving. They would have ten days from the time of the DWI to get this, or their license would be suspended.

Finally, no problem with removal fees since they would have to drive with an interlock for life. They would pay the transfer fees when they buy a new car, or sell their current car.

RESPONSE to Part 2:
Yes, I am proposing an after the fact solution. It would be great if we could prevent all crimes (DWI, murder, child abuse, etc.) before they happened, but I do not believe that is possible without the restriction of some fundamental freedoms that, personally, I truly value.

One of those freedoms is the free enterprise system that is a cornerstone of our democracy. Will entrepreneurial types get rich from the mandatory installation of interlocks? I would imagine they will. Just as they have from other facets of human nature (i.e. fast food, mail order/online shopping, cable television, etc.)

As far as dealing with those repeat offenders who have not yet been convicted, the installation of an interlock before a car is released from the impound ought to help. If they are found innocent, the interlock will be removed at municipal expense, and they will be reimbursed for previous charges.

RESPONSE to Part 3:
If someone who is required to drive a car with an interlock chooses to drive someone else's car, they should be sent to jail.

RESPONSE to Part 4:
If you do "not like the idea of having something installed in [your] car, especially when it would require money out of [your] pocket." I suggest that you don't drink and drive. No matter how developed your rationalization skills.

Moreover, let's not look at technology as a solution to personal responsibility. It's time to take ownership for our actions.