The time has come for our justice system to serve both the crime and the convict.

“Court-mandated” is most certainly not among my favorite phrases. So I pay attention when I hear the words “mandated” and “intrusive” from opponents of current legislation.

Sacramento is one of four counties in California piloting a program that would mandate ignition interlock devices for all first-time DUI offenders.

Effective July 1, 2010, a five-month period of use will be required of all those convicted.

As a member and advocate of the American Civil Liberties Union, I rise at the opportunity to stand against infringements of personal freedoms.

But this did not ignite my usual protest and outrage.

The American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association representing more than 700 California restaurants, works to ensure that alcohol sales are not compromised.

According to its official website, the ABI has urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto legislation mandating ignition interlock devices, which it calls “intrusive technology,” for first-time DUI offenders.

Among the litany of fees that come with a DUI, little sounds appealing in the additional cost of ignition interlock device installation and monthly monitoring.

But losing the privilege of driving is even less appealing.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a huge proponent of the ignition interlock device. Silas Miers is the programs specialist for MADD California.

“The ignition interlock device prevents someone convicted of a DUI from doing so again, without restricting their day to day lives,” Miers said. “They can still go to work, take their kids to school, follow their normal routines, except it also makes sure that they’re being safe.”

Senior government major Katelyn Lille attested to the need for the device. Her license was revoked for a year after she was arrested on a DUI charge.

“(An ignition interlock device) would have made a huge difference for me. I felt I was burdening people. I was taking the bus everywhere, trying to find work … I wasn’t able to even function normally,” Lillie said. “But I’m sure if I had my own agenda, was worried I’d lose business, I’d opposed (ignition interlock devices), too.”

The ABI protects the interests of the restaurants it represents and does not believe these devices are a reasonable punishment for first-time offenders.

According to its affiliate website, interlockfacts.com, “People driving at one sip over the limit shouldn’t be punished with the same severity as the high-BAC (blood-alcohol content) and repeat offenders who cause the majority of alcohol-related fatalities.”

For Miers, it is not the ignition interlock device, but the law that is indiscriminate.

“The law has determined that when someone’s blood alcohol level is .08 percent and above, it is illegal and dangerous (for them to drive),” he said.

The ABI seems to consider the patrons of the restaurants it represents to be victims of this program. But this is not so.

Drunken driving brings injustice, cruelty and suffering.

The real victims are the people who die and the people left feeling those absences.

According to the DMV, ignition interlock devices can lead to a 40-95 percent reduction in repeat offenses when combined with comprehensive monitoring.

The range is wide, but I take its word on this.

It has been far too long since sentencing took such a civil-minded approach.

Ignition interlock devices duly punish offenders without compromising their ability to lead normal lives.

This is a step towards the reform our justice system needs.

While ignition interlock devices face strong opposition, these devices ensure that a one-time mistake does not become a repeat offense.

The ABI’s goal is to serve the interests of the businesses it represents.

You simply will not find me on the picket lines with the ABI. Profit losses are inconsequential when it comes to true justice.

[email protected]