In 2012, South Carolina was the 6th most dangerous state to drive in. We rose to 2nd most dangerous in 2013. Come 2014, something had to be done to improve South Carolina’s roadways. Fortunately, the S.C. House’s Criminal Law Subcommittee passed a bill last Thursday to combat drunk driving, which is obviously instrumental in improving our road safety. Unfortunately, the bill wasn’t able to make it through the subcommittee without purpose-defeating alterations.
The DUI-related bill dubbed “Emma’s Law,” nicknamed after Columbia 6-year-old Emma Longstreet, who was struck and killed by a drunk driver on New Year’s Day 2012, will require some charged with DUI to install a breathalyzer-controlled ignition interlock in their car. The interlock will only allow the car to start with a clean reading from the breathalyzer. The mechanism isn’t infallible, but it will certainly combat drunk driving and consequently improve road safety.
If only the House had passed the bill without shooting themselves in the foot. Despite taking testimony from DUI victims’ family members and medical experts, the House Criminal Laws Subcommittee made several changes that advocates say severely weaken the bill.
One such alteration is that only those convicted of DUI, not charged, will need to install the ignition interlock. This is one change we actually support, considering the sanctity of our justice system’s “innocent until proven guilty” motto. For better or worse, the police aren’t completely objective, and sometimes mistakes are made. Ideally, this change will protect those that are wrongly charged.
But that’s the only change we can rationalize. Another change states that the law would only apply to those who blow a blood alcohol content of .15 or higher, nearly double the legal limit and higher than the previously drafted BAC of .12. Why the House felt like giving drunk drivers an additional .03 in wiggle room is beyond us, especially since medical experts were available to point out that the new limit of .15 means the person is drunk enough to vomit and will have considerably less muscle control than normal.
With a poor road safety record, it’s about time South Carolina’s leadership cracked down and actively saved some lives. If only they had taken the full measure.
Ultimately, we appreciate the initiative, and agree that the interlocks are a practical method of cutting down on drunk driving, but we wish the House had stuck with their original BAC threshold. It’s a matter of saving lives, and it’s a device that simply enforces the law: Why not err on the side of caution? Maybe it’s embarrassing and a hassle to work around, but considering how many lives drunk driving takes every year, it’s plenty fair compared to additional jail time.