The state of Nevada’s Assembly Bill #6
Introduction
The Bill proposes that anybody who has been convicted by a court of law should be required to install an ignition interlocker device, at their own expense, in his or her vehicle or any vehicle they intend to drive. Only after complying with this order should these people be allowed to drive. The ignition interlocker device is a mechanism that once installed in the vehicle requires that the driver blow into it to determine the level of alcohol in their body. The legislation then outlines the period that the convicted person must use the device depending on the number of times that that individual has been convicted of the crime of driving under influence. The amount of time required to use the device may also be affected by some other factors that the judge has the desecration to determine.
Ignition interlocker legislation
Currently, the state of Nevada relied on §484.3943(1) and (2) when it came to the use of ignition interlocker devices. This particular law only outlined the length of time a convicted would use the device as well as gives the judge the power of discretion when determining when one can use the device. The law also points out the fact that the court may demand the installment of the device as a condition for the reinstatement of driving privileges (NCSL website).
The difference between the bill and the law that the state of Nevada had previously adopted and is still using is the fact that the bill addresses the expense of the installation of the device. The bill recognizes that the installation of the device may be an expensive venture thus for the state as well as the individual. Thus, the bill places the expense of buying and installing the device on the defendant. It also puts into consideration the fact that the defendant may not be able to afford the expense of the device and provides an alternative for the defendant.
Many other states have legislation that is either similar to this bill or has provisions that generally point towards the use of ignition interlocker devices. In fact, fifteen states have legislations that have ignition interlocker provisions as mandatory. For other states, while the installation of the lock is not mandatory in after the first conviction, there are stronger inclinations in subsequent conviction (Jasper, 1999, p.21). However, whist in some states like Arkansas, there is the mention of installation only if the defendant can afford it, most states do not mention about the expenses afforded and who is responsible for those expenses.
The bill is in the best interest of protecting not only the defendant but also society in general. However, the defendant is likely to incur the cost of the purchase as well as installation of the ignition interlocker. The legislation is clear in stating that the defendant will have to incur his or her own expense. This means that the state wants nothing to do with the purchase or installing of the product.
Costs involved in the implementation of the bill
This bill directly affects the people of Nevada because of the costs likely to be incurred by the people. In this case, the state is removing any cost expenses that may be involved in the in the purchase or installation of the device. The bill is in many ways good as it helps give as second chance to the defendant to be able to drive again. However, this freedom comes at a cost to the defendant. This is because, since the state will not be responsible for the purchase or installation of the device, the defendant will shoulder this cost. There is also the fact that the since the device is required to be installed for a limited period, no one person can buy a new one unless they can afford to. The installation of one device costs a couple hundred dollars. This is costly without adding the fact that the device has to be maintained and checked on a monthly basis. It will cost the person with the device installed approximately a hundred dollars a month to be able to keep the device (Snyder, 2009, p.56). In most cases, the device can be rented out for the specific amount of sentence that the court has decided. The cost of renting as well as the scheduled check-up of the device depends on the vender of the device. There is also the fact that the device has to be installed in all the vehicles that the defendant intents to drive. At the end of the day, the person who ends up paying the larger cost in this case is the defendant. On the other hand, most businesses that deal with the selling of as well as maintenance get to rake in a lot of profit from the business. The state on the other hand benefits economically from the taxes received from the businesses. However, with this bill, the state removes all costs that may be related to the purchase, installation or maintenance of the device. In this case, the duty of the state is to only ensure that the device has been installed and is being properly used and maintained.
Benefits of the proposed bill
The benefits of the proposed bill however greatly outweigh the cost in more ways than one. In the first instance the defendants are allowed the freedom, though restricted in a way, to drive. It is more so beneficial for people with multiple DUIs because rather than revoking or suspending their licenses, they are given a second chance to drive (England, 1988, p.34). Secondly, society is kept safe because the people are not allowed to drive while under influence. This is because it keeps hardcore drinkers from going behind the while while drunk. The legislation seems to be concerned about the safety of children who always end up being victims in most cases where DUIs are involved. Thus, in this case, the interest of the society comes first. Finally, the costs of paying a penalty for DUIs and in most cases those that get multiple charges is always on the higher end with people having to part with up to five thousand dollars as fines. Compared to the fine, purchasing and installing an ignition interlocker is cheaper.
The responsibly of any given government is to equally protect and look after the interests of its citizens. This particular legislation illustrates the role that the government plays in ensuring it exercise its role of limited government. The state has the right in intervening when an individual is likely to cause havoc in society due to negligence. In this case, driving while under influence is posing a threat to the society. The state has to come in and try to eradicate the problem before it happens. Thus, while it is the duty of the government to intervene in the rights and freedoms of their citizens, it has the duty to protect its citizens and the general population. The citizens have to understand that each right afforded to them by the constitution comes with a responsibly. In this case, while the government has no right to interfere with their right to drinking alcohol, it is the duty of government to protect society and its’ citizens from the reckless consequences that may result from excessive drinking, DUI (drinking under influence) included.
Conclusion
While state of Nevada has the duty to practice limited government, it is also their constitutional duty to protect the American citizens. This particular proposed bill is a clear advantage to the people of Nevada. Not only does it give DUI offenders a chance to live a controlled normal life, but ensures that such persons are kept off the road. However, there are many advantages of adopting the legislation on ignition interlock devices.
A recent study conducted in 2005 by students in New Mexico (which had adopted ignition interlock legislation in the same year) found that in that year alone, 700 fewer alcohol related accidents had occurred (Marques et.al, 2010, p.1). In fact, a research carried out by the American CDC (center of disease control and prevention) found that when installed, the device re-arrested rates for alcohol-impaired driving decreased by a median of 67 percent relative to drivers with suspended licenses. The department had prompted this study for it had found that in a day, drunk drivers were killing thirty people (CDC press release, 2011, p.1). Since the adoption of these legislations in different states, this statistic was changing. Thus, adopting this bill would be in the interest of the people of Nevada.
Works Cited
Jasper, Margaret C. Drunk Driving Law. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y: Oceana Publications, 1999. Print.
England, Robert. Ignition Interlock: Curbing Drunk Drivers with Modern Technology. Boston, MA (30 Winter St., Boston 02108: Massachusetts Legislative Research Bureau, 1988. Print.
Snyder, Eileen. Ignition Interlock Devices. Madison, WI: Legislative Reference Bureau, 2009. Print.
CDC press release, 2011. Center Of Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed in 2013 at http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2011/p0222_ignitioninterlocks.html
State ignition interlock laws, 2013. National Conference of State Legislature. Accessed in 2013 at http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-ignition-interlock-laws.aspx
Marques, P. R., Voas, R. B., Roth, R., & Tippetts, A. S. (2010). Evaluation of the New Mexico Ignition Interlock Program (No. HS-811 410).
