License suspension is appropriate for DUI

80% of people who receive DUI's have a history of major alcohol problems (http://www.williamwhitepapers.com...). Up to 65% have lifelong pyschiatric problems (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). Therefore, license suspension tends to affect people with addiction problems and/ or mental illness. Although it is cruel to disproportionately punish people who have serious problems via license suspension, it could be rationalized IF there was evidence it was effective. Unfortunately, studies have shown that license suspension does not decrease the overall recidivism rate for DUI offenders. The rate is approximately 35% regardless (file:///C://sers/Tyler/Downloads/811991-DWI_Recidivism_in_USA-tsf-rn.pdf). If suspensions cannot objectively be shown to decrease the recidivism rate, how can we rationalize them? A 35% recidivism rate is remarkably low compared to the 68% recidivism rate for crime in general in the US (http://www.nij.gov...). Therefore, the problem of drunk driving is relatively controlled. If I believe the problem is relatively controlled, then why do I think we need to change things at all? Drunk driving costs the country $182 billion each year (http://www.lifesafer.com...). So even if the recidivism rate is controlled relative to other crimes, it is still a major issue. From a logical perspective, removing someone's ability to drive can not be expected to teach someone to drive sober again once they have their license reinstated. As mentioned above, DUI recipients typically have major addiction and mental illness problems. Combine these problems with the excessive difficulty of acquiring or maintaining employment without the availability of a car, problems due to having a criminal record, an average cost of $20,000 in fines and insurance premiums, and severe social stigma and it quickly becomes hard to continue rationalizing the need for license suspensions(http://www.bactrack.com...). Removing license suspensions will not in any way be letting DUI recipients 'off the hook' for their crime, but it will increase the likelihood they can change. It's only logically to try and make a life of drinking and driving asymptotically unstable. In other words, we should be making the drinking-and-driving lifestyle something that needs to be actively maintained, not the result of a failure to change one's life. When you suspend someone's license you're essentially writing an absence note for their boss. Instead, ignition interlocks allow people to continue driving while eliminating the risk of them drinking and driving. The devices are known to be incredibly unlikely to fail and are known to decrease recidivism by two-thirds (http://www.madd.org...). Therefore, ignition interlocks will decrease recidivism while encouraging DUI recipients to change their lives. They can also be billed directly to the offenders which would save tax payers money. An ignition interlock system actually creates an added barrier to drinking and driving that license suspension cannot match. Those who have been given license suspensions are breaking the law and risking years in jail even if they're sober when they illegally drive(http://www.dmv.org...). For that reason, it's reasonable to suspect that someone who already has a DUI and is driving on a suspended license in order to get to work every day would be inclined to rationalize drinking and driving again. Also, this disproportionately hurts the poor. The rich can choose not to work; the poor and middle class cannot. I don't care if you consider people who receive DUI's as human beings or not, pragmatically speaking, we need to change the way we handle DUI's because the current plan is not working. All we currently have is an archaic, deterrent-based criminal justice system. The major limitation of a deterrent-based criminal justice system is: A deterrent system fails as soon as it's implemented.