First, I don’t believe everyone is drunk till proven sober. Just as I don’t believe everyone is unqualified to drive till licensed, yet still we require licensing. My hypothetical presumes nothing.
Second, the “presumption of innocence” is most certainly a fiction – it is a legal proposition, not a factual one, and thus, “fictitious.” Is O.J. Simpson factually “innocent” because the jury found him “not proven guilty?” Clearly, the legal fiction is – yes. The factual reality, equally clearly, is no. Did Phil Spector change from being “innocent” to being “guilty” in the instant that the jury delivered its verdict? Legally, in a sense, yes; factually, of course not and you’d be an idiot to so maintain.
Words have meaning. “Innocent till proven guilty” is a probably-beneficial legal fiction – but as facts go, fiction is all it is.
Again, it would treat people as if this were the case. That’s the issue. I don’t care if you do or don’t believe that everybody is a drunk driver, the question is how people are treated under this scenario. And the answer is that they would be treated as if they have done something wrong until they prove they have not, which is onerous and intrusive, not to mention costly.
Very well. If you’d made this clear in the first place I wouldn’t have objected to it.
Do you deny the existence of a third set of people – those who think they’re okay to drive, but aren’t, and would not devise intricate workarounds but instead would say – damn, I’m apparently more messed up than I thought, better call a cab?
They might not, though. A teetotaler presumably wouldn’t install one of these in their car voluntarily (assuming no one else regularly drives the car). The people who would install these voluntarily are people who think that it’s not that unlikely that someone would decide to use their car for driving after drinking. They’re not necessarily the lowest risk drivers, and if they’re not an insurance company would be foolish to give them a discount.
The same reasoning is probably one reason why these haven’t caught on as an option. If you ask for one, you’re admitting to the car salesman and to anyone who rides in your car or sees the interlock in your car that someone in your household is likely to drive drunk. That’s something that carries a considerable social stigma (and rightly so, IMO- drunk drivers should be ashamed).
But having something like a hand pump in your car if you were pulled over for drunk driving would say to the police (and probably later to the court) that you had planned ahead of time to drive drunk. It would be a lot harder for you to argue that you didn’t mean to drink as much as you did, or you thought you were OK to drive, if you’d brought along ways to circumvent an ignition interlock.
1.) I’m pretty sure this is some form of unconstitutional (“unreasonable search”?).
2.) Since we have surveillance camera technology, why not just put cameras on every street, in every yard, in every room, and have police monitor them 24/7? Then we’ll know the second any crime is committed anywhere! :rolleyes:
My whole take on the thing is to make it an option. If someone wants to have it in their car, it should be offered as an option like heated seats or a DVD player. I bet plenty of people would be happy to have it in their car.
Like who? Anybody who’s *that *concerned about it can just get one of those little pocket breathalyzers, or just won’t drink enough to get anywhere near the legal limit in the first place.
If I were going to go for the option I’d probably prefer it not to be in between me and the ignition. Having a breathalyzer in the glove box so I know if I need to drink a bottle of water and take a nap in the parking lot might be nice.
Dead wrong. “Unconstitutional” is not a synonym for “I don’t like it” or “That’s a bad idea” (both of which may be true here, I concede). Nothing in my OP stipulated (1) governmental mandate (as opposed to industry adoption of a standard); or (2) criminal jeopardy (which in every Fourth Amendment case I’ve ever seen has been part and parcel of the “search”). Absent criminal jeopardy and a state actor, the question of whether it’s a “search” or “unreasonable” doesn’t even arrive.
I’m quite aware that “‘Unconstitutional’ is not a synonym for ‘I don’t like it’ or ‘That’s a bad idea’”–you obviously noticed that I didn’t just say “unconstitutional” but specified that I thought it might qualify as a form of unreasonable search.
Regardless of whether your OP explicitly mentioned it, do you think there’s actually some reason *other *than governmental mandate that all manufacturers would start installing ignition interlocks? :rolleyes:
I don’t know – the government never mandated side airbags or other supplemental restraint systems, but industry adopted them as a safety measure. Besides, absent any criminal jeopardy, my point remains – there’s no constitutionally-suspect “search.”
A license is certification of a skill set. A sobriety test is an intrusion into our personal lives just as it would be if police pulled everybody over going to and from work each day. It’s an unnecessary expenditure of social capital that if enacted would have no logical end. There are an infinite number of ways a government can intrude in our lives and each one has a cost. In this case, it would $1,500 of money we don’t have to spend on something we don’t need. Not only would it be a waste of money but the system would be walked around with a bag full of air or some other technique.
Presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our legal system. You’re way off track with this line of thought.
If you’re going to exclude government mandate, then the answer to the question “Any reason not to have alcohol sensor/ignition interlock in all cars” is that there would be a huge market for cars that didn’t have this “feature.”
Sure. You have to pay to get a crack in your windshield fixed or replace broken headlights. Why would this be any different?
I’m still against the proposal overall, but frankly I’m surprised that it hasn’t been enacted yet. As far as intrusions go, this one is pretty mild compared to the cornholing that we take in every other facet of life.
How about this: If we passed this proposal, could we get rid of open container laws and allow a non-driving passenger to have a few drinks in the car?
No it isn’t and no I’m not. The rule of law is the cornerstone of our legal system. Under one fairly useful embodiment of said rule of law, we afford a fictitious (that is, not founded in fact), limited presumption of “innocence” (not factual innocence, but immunity from conclusive penal liability) until the State bears its burden of showing factual (and hence legal) guilt.
Ask yourself this: if everyone is (factually AND legally) fully “innocent until proven guilty” – how dare we jail anyone before the jury verdict? Yet we do, routinely. An outrage – they’re innocent! Except, no – they’re only “innocent.”
Maybe you forgot the underlying principles of our justice system - innocent until proven guilty, entitled to a fair trial with proper representation, etc.
When you are convicted of a crime, then you are a criminal, not a second before.
Interesting personal predeliction, but sadly – no.
OED:
criminal (n):
A person accused of a crime. Obs.
A person guilty or convicted of a crime.
Okay, no. 1’s a throwaway. But hey, no. 2 uses the disjunctive “or.” The moment you commit a crime, you “are” a criminal – whether convicted or not. Some basic ontology needs to come into play here.