Current interlock technology

New Mexico Recidivism Study: The Facts

The New Mexico recidivism study looked at first-time offenders between January 2003 and December 2005. It compared an interlocked group of 1,461 first offenders with 17,562 first offenders who did not install interlocks in their vehicles.

Offenders with no interlock had a recidivism rate of 7.1%, while those with an interlock had a 2.6% recidivism rate. Comparatively, first offenders with interlocks in their cars had 62% less recidivism than the non-interlocked group.[1]

Recidivism Study Flaws:

  • The study was funded by an anti-alcohol activist group and conducted by Dick Roth, whom the Associated Press has deemed an “interlock crusader.”[2][3]

  • According to a presentation Roth gave at the 2006 Ignition Interlock Symposium, recidivism rates had been decreasing for 12 years prior to when the interlock mandate for all offenders went into effect.[4]

  • It’s clear from the low overall recidivism numbers that first offenders rarely offend again; nationwide, approximately two-thirds of drunk driving offenders never commit their crime again. The overwhelming majority of offenders in the New Mexico study—interlocked or not—did not reoffend.

  • The study’s authors admit that there isn’t much lasting effect of the interlock requirement. Once the interlock is removed, recidivism rates jump back up. The study states: “The interlock group had a lower, but not significantly lower, recidivism rate than the comparison offenders.”[5] Interlocks don’t change attitudes and driving behaviors. In fact, the Executive Director of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) has said “there is no credible evidence that ignition interlocks by themselves can have a positive impact on long-term recidivism.”[6]

  • In this study, the DWI rearrest rate of first offenders while the interlock was on their vehicles was still 2.6%. If interlocks were the silver bullet, the recidivism rate for drivers with the device installed would be zero.

  • The authors also admit that they don’t have proof that interlocks prevent fatalities: “It is not clear whether the reduction in DWI recidivism is associated with a reduction in alcohol-related crashes”[7]

What’s happening in New Mexico now? Only 32% of offenders actually install an interlock. Learn more.

  1. Roth, Richard, Voas, Robert and Marques, Paul(2007)'Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective?', Traffic Injury Prevention,8:4,346-352 PDF
  2. Roth, Richard, Voas, Robert and Marques, Paul(2007)'Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective?', Traffic Injury Prevention,8:4, 352 PDF
  3. “Lawmakers seek to close DWI loopholes”, 6 Feb. 2009
  4. “First Offenders in NM” presentation by Dick Roth, 23 Oct. 2006, page 11 (PowerPoint file)
  5. Roth, Richard, Voas, Robert and Marques, Paul(2007)'Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective?', Traffic Injury Prevention,8:4, 349 PDF
  6. American Probation and Parole Association letter to Congress, 20 June 2009 PDF
  7. Roth, Richard, Voas, Robert and Marques, Paul(2007)'Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective?', Traffic Injury Prevention,8:4,page 352 PDF