Interlock Facts

Your recent editorial "DUI law: stronger treatment and penalties" is off base on two key points: its push for ignition interlocks for all offenders and its recommendation for increasing the use of sobriety checkpoints in South Carolina.

The author pushes to punish first-time DUI offenders with the sentence normally reserved for chronic alcohol abusers: ignition interlocks.

Rather than enhance traffic safety measures, a first-offender mandate would only dilute available resources from focusing on the worst offenders. National statistics show that the DUI problem has been reduced to a few individuals who severely abuse alcohol and still choose to drive. In fact, the average drunk driver in a fatal crash has a BAC of .19 percent -- more than double the legal limit.

There's clearly a big difference between a person driving after two drinks and a drunk who drives after 10 -- a differentiation recognized by current laws. However, mandating interlocks for first-time offenders ignores that deadly distinction. If this type of legislation passed, the law would force South Carolina judges to ignore any difference in severity of crimes.

Checkpoints demand hundreds of police hours and thousands of tax dollars in order to stop cars indiscriminately in the hopes of finding drunk drivers. Unlike roadblocks, roving (aka "saturation") patrols allow officers to cover large areas, watching for drunks, speeders and other dangerous drivers.

To date, South Carolina legislators have wisely focused the state's resources on sound, proven anti-drunk driving measures: high-BAC, repeat-offenders laws and roving patrols. South Carolina should ignore ineffective, "feel-good" proposals, like first-offender mandates and sobriety checkpoints, and implement policies that will actually save lives.

Sarah Longwell
Washington, D.C.
The writer is managing director of the American Beverage Institute, an association of restaurants serving adult beverages.