Governor Push Harder - Much Harder
Just finished reading this anti-DWI article in the Albuquerque Journal (subscription required), it had a somewhat promising beginning:
Oh no, so much for promise. Read the next paragraph:
#1 If they're getting a second DWI after having an interlock for a year, it probably shouldn't be called an Anti-DWI Device.
#2 If they're working on a third DWI, they shouldn't be driving. Heck, I'm not convinced they should be on the street. I feel pretty comfortable in saying that we are talking about a menace to society who should be behind bars.
#3 Why in the world would you need a judicial review to decide whether or not to keep an interlock on the car of a four-time drunk driving offender. What Judge in their right mind would say this person should be driving? Let alone driving without an interlock. (Oh wait, I forgot about the Appellate Court).
Governor, if you want to move up on The List, you're going to have to do better than this. Show them you've still got what it takes to go all the way to Pennsylvania Ave. Become the Governor who is tough on crime:
First DWI, Get a Lock.
Next DWI, Behind the Lock!
Now that would be something .
The governor is pushing for a law that would mandate the use of interlocks for a year after a first drunken-driving conviction. Under current state law, interlocks are required after a first aggravated conviction.I'm with you, Governor. This makes a heck of lot more sense than the goofball legislation proposed last year to require everyone who doesn't drink and drive to install an interlock. My only complaint up to this point in my reading is that you're only going to make NM's driving drunks keep the interlock for a year. Let's put some meat in this legislation.
Oh no, so much for promise. Read the next paragraph:
Under the governor's plan, after a second conviction, a DWI offender would be sentenced to use the device for two years, and a third conviction would mean three years of using the device. A fourth-time offender would be sentenced to use the device for life, with judicial review after five years.Four times. HELLO, what are you thinking? The logic of this proposal is flawed in so many different ways, I don't know where to begin... Alright, let's go over this point by point.
#1 If they're getting a second DWI after having an interlock for a year, it probably shouldn't be called an Anti-DWI Device.
#2 If they're working on a third DWI, they shouldn't be driving. Heck, I'm not convinced they should be on the street. I feel pretty comfortable in saying that we are talking about a menace to society who should be behind bars.
#3 Why in the world would you need a judicial review to decide whether or not to keep an interlock on the car of a four-time drunk driving offender. What Judge in their right mind would say this person should be driving? Let alone driving without an interlock. (Oh wait, I forgot about the Appellate Court).
Governor, if you want to move up on The List, you're going to have to do better than this. Show them you've still got what it takes to go all the way to Pennsylvania Ave. Become the Governor who is tough on crime:
First DWI, Get a Lock.
Next DWI, Behind the Lock!
Now that would be something .

<< Home