Arizona: Ignition Interlock Devices for First Time DUI Offenders

[Iplayboard]

Arizona enhanced its reputation for strict DUI laws on May 18 when Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law a bill requiring first time DUI offenders to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles for one year.

State law-makers killed a bill aimed at changing this law.

The original bill also mandated a 45 day minimum prison sentence for those convicted of driving with a BAC over 0.20.

The article made no mention of this, but I believe a second DUI conviction results in hanging.

Story

[andyfox]

Good. The second DUI should result in hanging. By the balls.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
Good. The second DUI should result in hanging. By the balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be too generous. But then I suppose they would be dead anyways. Hopefully.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Good. The second DUI should result in hanging. By the balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard of an alternate suggestion, a punishment for particularly heinous crimes, which is supposedly preferred by certain backwoods types: instead of the dirty-no-good-rat being hanged by them, they are wired to a tree stump. The stump is then set on fire, and the malefactor is handed a razor blade and left in peace to quietly contemplate his decision.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good. The second DUI should result in hanging. By the balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard of an alternate suggestion, a punishment for particularly heinous crimes, which is supposedly preferred by certain backwoods types : instead of the dirty-no-good-rat being hanged by them, they are wired to a tree stump. The stump is then set on fire, and the malefactor is handed a razor blade and left in peace to quietly contemplate his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't say.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good. The second DUI should result in hanging. By the balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard of an alternate suggestion, a punishment for particularly heinous crimes, which is supposedly preferred by certain backwoods types : instead of the dirty-no-good-rat being hanged by them, they are wired to a tree stump. The stump is then set on fire, and the malefactor is handed a razor blade and left in peace to quietly contemplate his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, so I have heard. Supposedly, the technique originated in some large Southern state.

I have also heard that a certain very prominent politician (who shall remain nameless) once entertained the idea of a similar treatment for known terrorists, the idea being to force them to talk. In this version, the evil-doers were not to be left alone with the razor blade, but were instead flanked by two Fire Marshals, both armed with large water-hoses, who were under strict instruction to put the fire out instantaneously if the evil-doer broke down and decided to talk. Although this method was pushed as being far more effective than waterboarding, I have not been informed that it was actually put into practice.

Thus have I heard.


P.S. I won't tell you other things I have heard, or you might not believe me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[almostbusto]

this is just pork for the company that makes these devices. i am sure they are pretty pricey specialized pieces of equipment that aren't producers by many companies.


Few competitors + fat government contract = $$$$$$

EDIT: this is speculation, but i don't think its unlikely.

[SNOWBALL]

Why can't we just have these installed on all cars? It seems expensive, but it's cheaper than the alternative.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't we just have these installed on all cars? It seems expensive, but it's cheaper than the alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have an evidence for this statement? or even a little logic to support the that claim, because i honestly don't understand that position at all.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why can't we just have these installed on all cars? It seems expensive, but it's cheaper than the alternative.



[/ QUOTE ]

do you have an evidence for this statement? or even a little logic to support the that claim, because i honestly don't understand that position at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just one example.
It would reduce the amount of accidents on the road, which would lower insurance premiums, and save a lot of people money. Safer roads = cheaper car insurance.
And then there's that thing you can't put a price on, but some people think it's worth something anyway. It's called human life.