South Carolina passed a law increasing sentences for driving under the influence earlier this year, including mandatory minimums beginning at the second offense.
While regular readers know that I’m usually no fan of mandatory minimums and using punishment to deter crime, I think South Carolina is on the right track with a five-day mandatory minimum for a second DUI — and I wonder if the sentence might even work as a deterrent if applied to a first offense.
I’ve written before about the success of short, immediate sentences in deterring probation violations in Hawaii. Mark A. R. Kleiman providean analysis of the Hawaii’s HOPE program and adds more data in his book “When Brute Force Fails,” showing that definite sentences deter crime. One study of drunk driving recidivism in Alberta suggested that five days might be too short, but found that the maximum deterrent effect may be reached around six months. Longer sentences had little impact on recidivism.
Mandatory sentences of 10 years of longer for crimes like drug possession are outlandish and unnecessary for a variety of reasons. The perpetrators know there will be serious repercussions if they’re caught – they think they won’t be caught. And the sentence is so long and irrational that there’s a chance they’ll be able to beat it. But five days, no questions asked, for a Breathalyzer over the legal limit? That might work.
I’ve also written before about my support for interlock ignition devices (IIDs), which are essentially in-car Breathalyzers. These prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel in the first place, and they’re proven to work. Eleven states now mandate IIDs after a first DUI offense — and South Carolina isn’t one of them (SC requires an IID after the second DUI conviction). The five-day law may work, but South Carolina should focus on prevention as well and make interlocks required after the first conviction.
Photo by David Sledge