It is unlikely that this 1979 amendment will be more than marginally effective as a deterrent, since this sanction has not previously proven effective. Moreover, the amended statute is likely to create substantial practical problems. By restricting the flexibility of the criminal justice system and increasing the likelihood that offenders will decide to go to trial, the mandatory jail sanction will aggravate the current problem of overloaded court dockets and place an additional burden on overcrowded jail facilities. Further, the statute limits judicial discretion in sentencing, thus precluding the imposition of penalties that could be more appropriately tailored to individual offenders. Finally, many experts believe that a substantial proportion of drunk-driving offenders are alcoholics, who need to be treated rather than imprisoned. The recommended approach is to permit the judge to order a diagnostic examination after the first offense to determine whether the offender would benefit from treatment for alcohol or drug abuse. The judge would then have the discretion to sentence offenders to sanctions appropriate for the offense, which might include substantial fines, jail terms, and restrictions on driving. For a diagnosed problem drinker in need of treatment, much of the fine and all of the jail term would normally be suspended, contingent upon successful completion of a rigorous alcohol treatment program. A total of 133 footnotes are listed. (Author summary modified)