Texas law allows for a probation requirement whereby DWI offenders must have an Ignition Interlock Device installed on their cars. Travis County judges will also require it as a condition of pretrial release in certain cases (i.e. repeat offenders, egregious offenses, or especially youthful suspects). Several companies sell products which affix to the person's ignition and prevent them from driving. Amazingly, one such provider, Smart Start, has marketed their products to defense attorneys in what I can only guess is an attempt to get us to suggest their product over others.
Two things happened today which give me pause (above and beyond recommending a company that has the potential to put my clients back in the pokey):
1) We have a client who is alleged to have violated the terms of his probation by submitting breath samples with alcohol in them while trying to operate his vehicle. He noted that he received a different message from the machine than what is normally received for a failure. Trying to clear this up, I gave Smart Start a call and expected them to at least generally discuss the machine and it's operation, since I am, at least potentially, in a position to send them business. The local employee I spoke with said that their position was that they would not share any information about the product with the client or the client's lawyer. In short, he concluded, "Sir, I'm not telling you anything." Fair enough, but tell your Marketing folks to stop blowing smoke up my ass, OK? Besides, your stonewalling notwithstanding, a subpoena should produce the information we're looking for.
2) While I searched for technical and operational information about their products online, I stumbled across something that I found a little disturbing and a lot misleading on their homepage. At the bottom of the page, the have some text which claims "DWI is the nations [sic] most frequently committed violent crime" (you may have to Reload a few times to see the same banner). It's certainly a noble goal to prevent drunk drivers from re-offending, and I can honestly say that the alternative to an ignition interlock device is ridiculously cost-prohibitive for most people convicted of a DWI, so I do give IID companies credit for helping to allow my clients to drive so that they can keep their jobs.
But calling DWI a violent crime is ridiculous (those are all law enforcement sources, BTW). DWI is completely outside the common understanding of what a violent crime is. A "violent crime" is one where one person threatens or does violence to another (think murder, rape, aggravated assault, child abuse, robbery, assault, etc.) Yes, some people who are DWI kill or injure innocent victims. But not everyone who commits a DWI (or who is arrested for DWI) fits that description. This is the same as saying "Speeding is a violent crime", "Weaving in a lane of traffic is a violent crime", or, as happened to a client who came in today, "Stopping to aid another motorist who got into an unrelated accident is a violent crime." It's dishonest, even if it's well-intentioned.
More proof that words do (should?) matter.
UPDATE: The US Supreme Court agrees with me. In the context of defining "crimes of violence" under the Immigration Code, a DWI does not belong. So says Leocal v. Ashcroft. Take that Smart Start webmaster!!!!
Monday, March 24, 2008
Self-Affirming Sensastionalism and DWI Prevention
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This "violent crime" crap is straight from MADD. The IID industry is totally in bed with them. They contribute heavily, and return MADD pushes for legislation to require more and more of the devices. Their goal is to have one installed on every car from the factory! Hellooo Musollini
Don, reading your comment sent me to the webpage MADD.org. Since they are a non-profit they are required to make public who they receive money from correct? Well on their sponsor's page they don't list any of the "heavy" IID contributions that you speak of. Would you mind clarifying where you get this info, or admit that you made an assumption based on your own opinion? MADD is a great organization that wants’ to help save lives, yet they get attacked for every move they make.
From my standpoint for you to allege that MADD is in bed with the IID companies, you have to believe that IID don't work to save lives. Because if they do indeed save lives then you would have to admit that MADD is making a legitimate push to "stop drinking and driving" and "save lives of innocent victims". Which is kind of the whole purpose of an organization named mothers AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING?
Anonymous: I have no evidence that an IID company has given money to MADD in order to push their products. But they don't have to, since MADD pursues an agenda which would make IIDs more and more common. If it were up to MADD, anyone accused of a DWI would have to have an IID in their vehicle. In my mind this is akin to saying that because it would reduce crime, it's a good idea to get rid of the 4th Amendment and allow police to search and detain any person at any time without any particularized reason at all.
Keep in mind, however, that the original comment pertained to a company who makes money of DWIs referring to DWIs as "violent crimes". That classification is demonstrably untrue and don is correct that MADD is guilty of the same deliberate misstatement. Again, this is NOT to stay that people who commit DWI do not pose any threat to the public; I think it's quite clear that intoxicated drivers do pose a clear public safety risk. But not all people convicted of or charged with DWI have committed a violent crime under any reasonable interpretation of that term.
Anonymous: you don't have to be a national corporate sponsor to contribute to MADD. If you want to come to where I am I'll haul your happy ass over to the Smart Start dealer and let him personally tell you, as he did me, that he gives money to MADD, locally. MADD originally was a "great organization who wanted to save lives." Now they are a neo-fascist organization who wants to return to prohibition. I am not thoroughly convinced that IID's by themselves save lives. In conjunction with counseling and supervision, they help. As to your logic, a full fledged Police State would also cut down on DWI deaths. I guess that would be a "legitimate push to stop drinking and driving" also.
I think that it is amusing how many people feel that MADD is trying to bring back prohibition. They are asking to make people accountable for their actions. Is it so unreasonable to mandate that an offender prove for a period of time that they can drive sober? Especially when they have already shown a tendency to ignore the law and drive over the limit? Do you think that someone should only be punished if they do end up committing a violent crime? This is a sanction that allows people to get back behind the wheel and not be a risk to society. Regardless of who contributes $50-100 to a local MADD chapter, the direction that they are going makes sense, think about it. Would you rather they stay with the old policy of long license suspensions? In those cases offenders continue to drive unmonitored and usually without insurance. This at least allows people to reintegrate and have someone monitoring their progress. I agree that the term violent crime may be misused but the idea behind MADD backing this technology is not because of the money they are receiving. This technology is saving lives and I commend them for supporting a solution rather than long suspension periods. Take a look at what the first offender law has done for the folks in New Mexico, people are alive today that wouldn't be without these devices.
I think it needs to be said that MADD's purpose (to reduce drunk driving and alcohol-related traffic fatalities) is noble. It also deserves saying that the courts have an obligation to protect the public from convicted drunk drivers.
But MADD (and the industries that profit from MADD's agenda) makes a much more compelling argument, I think, if it relies on facts and the truth, than if it decides to fudge on things like calling DWI a violent crime. They should also be interested in making sure that the technology being used to monitor folks, because the goal is to prevent drunk driving, not to have people thrown in jail because of mouthwash or cigarettes. It's not just people who have been convicted that have IIDs; oftentimes it's people who have merely been charged with DWI. That makes accuracy that much more important to me, and hopefully, the general public.
Have you checked all the Smart Start websites for the information you're looking for? Check www.SmartStartinc.com, www.SmartStartofCalifornia.com and www.SmartStartofOregon.com. if the sites don't help, call the phone numbers listed or email them. Be sure you contact the correct person. If you called an installation location and spoke to a tech, you may not receive the answers your seeking.
Elvez1975 - why don't you call me?
Debra Coffey 800-880-3394, ext. 225
Post a Comment