November marked the passage of a host of tougher drunk driving laws in the state of New York, including one portion to require ignition interlock devices for first-time offenders.
Among the newly passed laws, which included "Leandra's Law" - requiring any person who drives drunk with a person under the age of 16 to be charged with an immediate felony, the ignition interlock requirement will affect the most people. The requirement and other stringent DWI laws have passed in a few remote areas, like Westchester County, but it will now be mandated state-wide.
Similar laws are being tested in California, where 5 counties will participate in a trial period. New York is not instating a trial period, and the law will take effect in about 9 months. Despite the fact this new law will be the most far-reaching of the DWI reforms sitting in not only New York but many other legislatures across the country, few actually understand the requirement.
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to discuss the new law in California with family over dinner. Most were shocked about the expense, and they all assumed California would foot the bill. As many know, California is in the midst of a large budget crisis, and my companions were appalled at the notion funds would be directed this way.
I quickly explained they would be the ones shouldering the expense if they received a DUI conviction. They were pleased with this, stating it made far better sense. Then I asked how they felt the requirement would affect the less-affluent, who also happen to be less likely to afford a good lawyer who can assist them in avoiding this penalty. It was apparent this angle had not previously been considered.
As someone who is frequently considering the affect of DWI/DUI laws nationwide, I have noted the large misunderstanding surrounding this type of agenda. This is concerning since we, the people, are ultimately making the decisions about the laws. While our representatives are doing the voting, we are the ones with the power to write them and petition for a passage or denial of a bill. If the representatives feel they will upset their constituents by passing such a bill, it is not likely to gain momentum.
The fact New York has easily passed these far-reaching DWI reform laws points to two very prominent facts about the issue. First, people are extremely upset with the unnecessary deaths caused by drunk driving. When these occur at home and are highly-publicized, the anger grows. This fact is undeniable, and these stories upset me daily, even though I read them constantly.
Second, this legislation points to the fact many are unable to see themselves in the defendant's seat until it is too late. They believe it is only the irresponsible, the criminal or the menacing who drive drunk. In reality, drunk driving offenses are common for even the most respected segments of our society. Just scan reports linking police officers, firemen and educators to drunk driving problems; actually, two of the most publicized DWI offenses in New York this year have been the fault of respected police officers.
As long as the anger over drunk driving accidents is stronger than the understanding our society has for the defendant, the laws will continue to get stricter. At some point, though, we will reach a level where the laws are no longer in accordance with the crime. Perhaps then we will consider defendant's rights a bit more heavily when passing legislation that is both costly and far too burdensome for the vast majority of DWI/DUI crimes.
