1 / 36

New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006

New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006.

dsowers
Download Presentation

New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006 .. “The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by associations of State highway officials and car manufacturers, is to have all states do what New Mexico has already done: require that all convicted drunken drivers, even first-time offenders, have devices installed in their cars that measure alcohol in the breath and immobilized the car if levels exceed set limits.” Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  2. Reducing DWI With InterlocksThe New Mexico Experience Richard Roth, PhD Research Consultant and Citizen Lobbyist Supported by PIRE, RWJ, and NM TSB Minnesota Interlock Symposium February 22, 2007 Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  3. An Ignition Interlock is anElectronic Probation Officer • Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat • On duty 24 hours per day • Tests and Records daily BAC’s • Allows only Alcohol-Free Persons to Drive. • Reports All Violations to the Court • Costs Offender only $2.30 per day. (1 less drink per day) Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  4. New Mexico Interlock Laws • 1999 Optional for 2nd and 3rd DWI. • 2002 Mandatory for all Aggravated and Subsequent DWI. Indigent Fund • 2003 Ignition Interlock License Act: ….an alternative to revocation. • 2005 Mandatory Interlocks for all DWIs: 1yr for 1st ; 2 for 2nd ; 3 for 3rd ; Lifetime for 4+ Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  5. Interlocks are Effective, Cost-Effective and Fair • Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40-90% • They reduce the economic impact of drunk driving by $3 to $7 for every $1 of cost. • Interlocks are perceived as a fair sanction by 85% of over 5000 offenders surveyed. • ..But they only work if… • you get them installed. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  6. My Estimate In 2005 Estimate 5688 So Far Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  7. How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization? Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  8. How many interlock licenses have been granted and is the rate changing? Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  9. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  10. Do Interlocked Offenders have a Lower Re-Arrest Rate? • Court Mandated Installations of Interlocks. --Selected as installations within 90 days after conviction. N = 3089 • Voluntary Installations. --Selected as all others. N = 4961 Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  11. Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  12. Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders Comparison Groups(RED)Interlocked Groups(GREEN) Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  13. Effectiveness with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated RED=Comparison GroupsGREEN=Interlocked Groups Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  14. No Priors Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  15. Did the Mandatory Ignition Interlock Law Change the Statewide DWI Re-arrest Rate? • Overall NM DWI Re-arrests before and after mandatory interlocks and Licensing Act • DWI Re-arrests in the County that used the most interlocks/DWI Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  16. Statewide recidivism decreased. 8.0% Before 6.7% After A 16% Reduction Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  17. Before After 8.7% Before 6.2% After A 29% Reduction Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  18. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  19. Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  20. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  21. Survey of Interlocked Offenders N = 796 77% 81% 63% 69% Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  22. January to September 2006 Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  23. Interlocks Installed Per Conviction in First 9 months of 2006 Caution: this figure includes installations by persons not convicted, and changes of provider. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  24. Interlocks Installed per DWI Arrest by County in NM Jan-Sept 2006 Caution: Includes some changes of Provider. Room for Improvement Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  25. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  26. Proposals to Close NM Loopholes • Add “or electronic monitoring” for No car. • Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked without an interlock. • Vehicle Immobilization or Interlock between arrest and adjudication. • Crime to contribute to circumvention. • Apply interlock sanction to juvenile offenders. • Mandate a period of alcohol-free DRIVING before getting unrestricted license. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  27. MN NM 2005 Comparison • 4.9M 1.9M Population • 86% 43% White, non Hispanic • 4% 43% Hispanic and Latino • 1.2% 10% Native American • 3.6M 1.2M Licensed Drivers • 37,002 18,478 DWI Arrests • 0.16% 0.16% Average BAC • 30,534 12,765 DWI Convictions • 82% 69% Conviction Rate • ~20,700 10,834 “First Offenders” • ~56% 59% Percent First Offenders • 201 189 Alcohol Involved Fatalities Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  28. What does this trend imply? 1. Bad News: More Drunk Driving?.... or 2. Good News: More Enforcement? Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  29. What do these trends imply? Good News: LESS DRUNK DRIVING DWI Or Safer Hiways…or Safer Cars….or More Seat Belt Use Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  30. Recommendations for MN • Get Interlocks into the vehicles of all those arrested for DWI as soon as possible after arrest. • Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of Alcohol-Free Driving for a significant period of time. Eg 1 year. • Motivate those who do not drive Alcohol-Free to take advantage of Treatment. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  31. Administrative vs. Judicial Interlock ProgramsA Roundtable & Debate on Pros and Cons With some revisions in YELLOW by Roth Presenters: Robert Voas, Ph.D. Richard Roth, Ph.D. Participants:Jim Mosher, J.D. Ian Marples, LL.B. Jim Frank, Ph.D. Robyn Robertson, M.A. Bill Rauch, D.A. International Ignition Interlock Symposium, October 22-24, 2006 Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  32. Ideal Judicial Program • Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders • With electronic monitoring or periodic urine tests as the only alternatives • Minimum of one year duration • Compliance-Based-Removal: No recorded BAC>0.05 for 6 months prior to Removal • Mandatory extra monitoring for the non-compliant. eg.UAs, Sobrieters, or SCRAM • Mandatory Treatment if indicated by #5. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  33. JUDICIALADVANTAGES • It is mandatory (if electronic monitoring, periodic urine tests, or jail are the only alternatives) • It eliminates self-selection • It gets more interlocks installed per DWI. Eg over 35% of those arrested in NM. ._____________________________________ DISADVANTAGES • Applies only to those convicted (65%-85%) • Judicial Implementation Varies by judge • Installation is not immediate after arrest. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  34. Ideal Administrative Program Upon arrest DMV suspends under ALR but offers free interlock program Upon conviction court orders electronic house arrest, or other electronic monitoring unless offender has installed interlock and begins to pay for it. DWI fines raised to cover interlock costs Compliance based removal and referral to treatment. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  35. ADMINISTRATIVE ADVANTAGES • Centralized authority and criteria • Prompt Installation after arrest • Allows changed offenders to drive legally • Applicable to all arrested DWI offenders. DISADVANTAGES • Large self-selection component • Avoided by those who need it most • Doesn’t get many interlocks installed per DWI • Doesn’t reduce over-all recidivism by much. • Many more Administrative Appeal Hearings Minnesota Interlock Symposium

  36. Legislative Recommendations • Immobilization or Interlock between DWI arrest and adjudication. • Mandatory Interlock for at least one year for all convicted offenders with electronic monitoring or urine testing as the only alternatives. • Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC > .05 by any driver for a year. • Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation. • An Indigent Fund with objective standards. • Mandatory Period of Interlock before Unrestricted License Reinstatement. Minnesota Interlock Symposium

More Related