7 ms·

I guarantee that basically nothing will come out of this. People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles. They're 100% court

by nekusar 7mo ago

I guarantee that basically nothing will come out of this. People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles. They're 100% court mandated, as a punishment for, usually, drunk driving. This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA. Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....

bombcar 7mo ago
"Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know - you can agree to punishments that the government couldn't impose as part of a plea deal. So if the punishment for driving drunk is 3 years in prison, you may be able to avoid it by accepting a plea deal that infringes on your third amendment rights. This can even occur in a civil case.
- chuckadams 7mo ago
  I'm pretty sure even a plea bargain can't result in soldiers being quartered in your home.
  - bombcar 7mo ago
    It's a humorous example, but violations of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are common.
    - dghlsakjg 7mo ago
      They aren’t violations if you are being punished. People who don’t take the deal and get sent to jail or put on probation typically lose those rights as well.
  - toast0 7mo ago
    The soldiers in my home only have bill acceptors, not coin slots, so it's legal.
Someone1234 7mo ago
And there is nearly no oversight on how much these private companies are allowed to charge those 150K people for something that is court mandated. These interlocks can exceed $100/month for some of the poorest people in society. Unfortunately the US public has no interest in this issue. They have a dual morality where lawbreaking is wrong, but profiting off of criminals and the poor isn't. So mandatory prison labor, expensive monitoring, for-profit probation services, and for-profit jails are fine. Literally if you don't pay or play, you go to jail. But it was a plea so you "volunteered" (to not go to jail).
- astura 7mo ago
  Your insurance is going up more than $100/month if you get a DUI.
  - Someone1234 7mo ago
    A lot of bad things will occur (and or should occur) if you get a DUI. I'm not sure what that has to do with private companies/individuals profiting off of the criminal justice system though.
    - nekusar 7mo ago
      How much bad is fair though? There are constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment". Its obviously cruel and unusual to execute those guilty of DUI. But what should the penalty be? Jail? How long? Monetary? How much? Confiscation of vehicle(s)? Some 3rd party company-owned device? What terms? What is reasonable and what is excessive? We also must keep in mind that our society constructed this to be a vehicle nation, with poor to non-existent public transit. Should the punishment depend on how poor or rich you are? Pro-tip: it already does.
- ghastmaster 7mo ago
  In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be approved.
zoklet-enjoyer 7mo ago
I like to not share roads with drunks
- calgoo 7mo ago
  Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car.
  - doubled112 7mo ago
    Drunk driving is already illegal. Doesn't seem like that rule stopped them. Why would this rule? I've had my license suspended. It was just speeding. It's my only traffic ticket, let's not focus on that too much. Do you know what was stopping me from getting in my car and driving it to work? Absolutely nothing.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - irishcoffee 7mo ago
    So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license? Really?
    - jasonlotito 7mo ago
      Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
      - irishcoffee 7mo ago
        > Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That isn't very nice. I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license. > You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license. I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a good-faith conversation. Take care.
chromacity 7mo ago
> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism is pretty off-base.
- benatkin 7mo ago
  The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line? If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).
  - astura 7mo ago
    Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
    - benatkin 7mo ago
      No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in the article, where the interlock devices didn't function as intended.
  - SauciestGNU 7mo ago
    I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.
dylan604 7mo ago
> People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles N=1, but I know of one case where the defendant was offered a lock on their car or an ankle alcohol monitor. Of course they were going to choose the car lock.
- applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
  If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.
  - sumeno 7mo ago
    Mugging victims didn't make a choice that endangered a bunch of other people that resulted in them getting mugged. Interlock devices are not given to random people for no reason.
    - nekusar 7mo ago
      It is not so dissimilar. Courts (read: prosecutors) routinely use legal blackmail to coerce defendants into agreeing to plea deals. The threat is "we will prosecute you, and add extra charges, and push for maximums, that is unless you agree to these terms". And those terms, as others have rightly pointed out, can include punishments the court normally isn't permitted to ask for on sentencing. Also, with our judicial punishment based system, and that those with more money can afford better lawyers. And those with less money get public defenders, who are well known for not doing their job, or the absolute minimum to keep from being investigated by the Bar. The only way out of here is to ever avoid interacting with police or courts. Once you're in that system, any sympathy is thrown out the window, and you become a money-pinata for the state and private 3rd party companies predating on your socio-economic class.
lesuorac 7mo ago
> So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA. Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. You don't see me flying airplanes for hire ... > Now, lets have a discussion about software liability.... You're welcome to demand that the software you use provide a warranty. For some reason government agencies which actually would have the ability to demand this seem to not care. It does seem extremely negligent to allow people who can't use cars responsibly to use cars with provided software without a warranty.
- jasonlotito 7mo ago
  > Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is the disruption in what they are allowed to do and software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for them, but others as well. And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with certain conditions. Just like you and me.
  - nekusar 7mo ago
    Given that most of these defendants are poor, they're using public defenders. The choices these defendants are being offered is "We can charge you for 3-10 years in prison, or you can pay a pile of money to the state and our private companies for 1 year of a breathalyzer in your car" The plea deal is at best blackmail, and enriches the state and 'business partners' (private companies) via more suffering. And given how this plea deal system works, I would wager that quite a few who pled out didn't do anything wrong, but are still subject to the blackmail and subsequent removal of rights with tenuous due process at best. The whole root of this issue is that the USA demolished most of public transit to go all in on the personal vehicle. This was done nationwide to increase profits for vehicle companies and gas/oil companies. If we did have good/great public transit, drunk driving would be a significantly less of a thing. But that would cut into US domestic car production and oil/gas production.
nemomarx 7mo ago
I'm generally against long term punishments for crimes like this, but operating a dangerous machine like a car is a serious matter. A breathalyzer is a reasonable compromise compared to just taking away your license, right?
- dghlsakjg 7mo ago
  More effective, too. An interlock prevents you from driving drunk. Suspending a license pretty frequently does nothing.
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    I don't think most people realize just how few people in the US obey license suspensions. Studies show the vast majority of people simply keep driving anyway.
    - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
      This but replace Germans and British with Americans above and below some fairly fuzzy income level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo
ghastmaster 7mo ago
I have a friend who would like to do it voluntarily, however, just having one on the vehicle increases your insurance cost.
dmitrygr 7mo ago
You think USA punishes criminals too much?!?! You mean like this? https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah-west-slammed-for-overturning-conviction-of-pair-involved-in-medicaid-fraud-new-york-healthcare-media https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah... Or like that?? https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed-pregnant-stranger-found-not-guilty-by-reason-insanity/FYUG52UAOZCCFEZK4LGOKCA6IY/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed... Or maybe this? https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197 https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197
- FireBeyond 7mo ago
  These are your examples? In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for the rest of his life. So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison? That first case? There's something missing there, there's zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article. "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one more of corruption...
  - dmitrygr 7mo ago
    It is the "potentially" that is the problem. Remove that and i am 100% onboard

by nekusar 7mo ago

bombcar 7mo ago

"Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know - you can agree to punishments that the government couldn't impose as part of a plea deal. So if the punishment for driving drunk is 3 years in prison, you may be able to avoid it by accepting a plea deal that infringes on your third amendment rights. This can even occur in a civil case.

chuckadams 7mo ago
I'm pretty sure even a plea bargain can't result in soldiers being quartered in your home.
- bombcar 7mo ago
  It's a humorous example, but violations of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are common.
  - dghlsakjg 7mo ago
    They aren’t violations if you are being punished. People who don’t take the deal and get sent to jail or put on probation typically lose those rights as well.
- toast0 7mo ago
  The soldiers in my home only have bill acceptors, not coin slots, so it's legal.

Someone1234 7mo ago

And there is nearly no oversight on how much these private companies are allowed to charge those 150K people for something that is court mandated. These interlocks can exceed $100/month for some of the poorest people in society. Unfortunately the US public has no interest in this issue. They have a dual morality where lawbreaking is wrong, but profiting off of criminals and the poor isn't. So mandatory prison labor, expensive monitoring, for-profit probation services, and for-profit jails are fine. Literally if you don't pay or play, you go to jail. But it was a plea so you "volunteered" (to not go to jail).

astura 7mo ago
Your insurance is going up more than $100/month if you get a DUI.
- Someone1234 7mo ago
  A lot of bad things will occur (and or should occur) if you get a DUI. I'm not sure what that has to do with private companies/individuals profiting off of the criminal justice system though.
  - nekusar 7mo ago
    How much bad is fair though? There are constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment". Its obviously cruel and unusual to execute those guilty of DUI. But what should the penalty be? Jail? How long? Monetary? How much? Confiscation of vehicle(s)? Some 3rd party company-owned device? What terms? What is reasonable and what is excessive? We also must keep in mind that our society constructed this to be a vehicle nation, with poor to non-existent public transit. Should the punishment depend on how poor or rich you are? Pro-tip: it already does.
ghastmaster 7mo ago
In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be approved.

zoklet-enjoyer 7mo ago

I like to not share roads with drunks

calgoo 7mo ago
Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car.
- doubled112 7mo ago
  Drunk driving is already illegal. Doesn't seem like that rule stopped them. Why would this rule? I've had my license suspended. It was just speeding. It's my only traffic ticket, let's not focus on that too much. Do you know what was stopping me from getting in my car and driving it to work? Absolutely nothing.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- irishcoffee 7mo ago
  So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license? Really?
  - jasonlotito 7mo ago
    Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
    - irishcoffee 7mo ago
      > Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved. That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That isn't very nice. I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license. > You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license. I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a good-faith conversation. Take care.

chromacity 7mo ago

> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism is pretty off-base.

benatkin 7mo ago
The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line? If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).
- astura 7mo ago
  Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
  - benatkin 7mo ago
    No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in the article, where the interlock devices didn't function as intended.
- SauciestGNU 7mo ago
  I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.

dylan604 7mo ago

> People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles N=1, but I know of one case where the defendant was offered a lock on their car or an ankle alcohol monitor. Of course they were going to choose the car lock.

applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.
- sumeno 7mo ago
  Mugging victims didn't make a choice that endangered a bunch of other people that resulted in them getting mugged. Interlock devices are not given to random people for no reason.
  - nekusar 7mo ago
    It is not so dissimilar. Courts (read: prosecutors) routinely use legal blackmail to coerce defendants into agreeing to plea deals. The threat is "we will prosecute you, and add extra charges, and push for maximums, that is unless you agree to these terms". And those terms, as others have rightly pointed out, can include punishments the court normally isn't permitted to ask for on sentencing. Also, with our judicial punishment based system, and that those with more money can afford better lawyers. And those with less money get public defenders, who are well known for not doing their job, or the absolute minimum to keep from being investigated by the Bar. The only way out of here is to ever avoid interacting with police or courts. Once you're in that system, any sympathy is thrown out the window, and you become a money-pinata for the state and private 3rd party companies predating on your socio-economic class.

lesuorac 7mo ago

> So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA. Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. You don't see me flying airplanes for hire ... > Now, lets have a discussion about software liability.... You're welcome to demand that the software you use provide a warranty. For some reason government agencies which actually would have the ability to demand this seem to not care. It does seem extremely negligent to allow people who can't use cars responsibly to use cars with provided software without a warranty.

jasonlotito 7mo ago
> Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is the disruption in what they are allowed to do and software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for them, but others as well. And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with certain conditions. Just like you and me.
- nekusar 7mo ago
  Given that most of these defendants are poor, they're using public defenders. The choices these defendants are being offered is "We can charge you for 3-10 years in prison, or you can pay a pile of money to the state and our private companies for 1 year of a breathalyzer in your car" The plea deal is at best blackmail, and enriches the state and 'business partners' (private companies) via more suffering. And given how this plea deal system works, I would wager that quite a few who pled out didn't do anything wrong, but are still subject to the blackmail and subsequent removal of rights with tenuous due process at best. The whole root of this issue is that the USA demolished most of public transit to go all in on the personal vehicle. This was done nationwide to increase profits for vehicle companies and gas/oil companies. If we did have good/great public transit, drunk driving would be a significantly less of a thing. But that would cut into US domestic car production and oil/gas production.

nemomarx 7mo ago

I'm generally against long term punishments for crimes like this, but operating a dangerous machine like a car is a serious matter. A breathalyzer is a reasonable compromise compared to just taking away your license, right?

dghlsakjg 7mo ago
More effective, too. An interlock prevents you from driving drunk. Suspending a license pretty frequently does nothing.
- kube-system 7mo ago
  I don't think most people realize just how few people in the US obey license suspensions. Studies show the vast majority of people simply keep driving anyway.
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    This but replace Germans and British with Americans above and below some fairly fuzzy income level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo

ghastmaster 7mo ago

I have a friend who would like to do it voluntarily, however, just having one on the vehicle increases your insurance cost.

dmitrygr 7mo ago

You think USA punishes criminals too much?!?! You mean like this? https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah-west-slammed-for-overturning-conviction-of-pair-involved-in-medicaid-fraud-new-york-healthcare-media https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah... Or like that?? https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed-pregnant-stranger-found-not-guilty-by-reason-insanity/FYUG52UAOZCCFEZK4LGOKCA6IY/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed... Or maybe this? https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197 https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197

FireBeyond 7mo ago
These are your examples? In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for the rest of his life. So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison? That first case? There's something missing there, there's zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article. "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one more of corruption...
- dmitrygr 7mo ago
  It is the "potentially" that is the problem. Remove that and i am 100% onboard