Mac, you're simply wrong on both counts. While the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines on the federal level, and statutory “mandatory minimums,” has curtailed a court’s discretion in sentencing somewhat, virtually every American jurisdiction has found that courts have broad discretion in fashioning any sentence that falls with the statutory range. "Although I am disinclined to research what the mandatory minimum penalty was for DUI in California in the mid-1980s, I seriously doubt it was mandatory jail time for first offenders. Mandatory jail time for drunk driving didn’t come along until later, and most states that have legislatively imposed mandatory jail time for first offenses came up with the “wet negligent” offense to evade strict compliance with that impractical and frankly nonsensical legislative mandate.

Assuming – I think correctly – that the court was not required to impose a prison sentence on first-time DUIs in California in the 1980s, she had very broad discretion in fashioning any other sentencing remedy or term of probation. Including ignition interlocks. Indeed, you have failed to present any authority or evidence to the contrary. Ignition interlocks are a perfectly acceptable condition of probation, absent any legislative mandate to the contrary... which clearly didn't exist when the judge started imposing this sentence.

Moreover, you are assuming the unfitness of a judge when there is, again, a presumption that judges are competent and unbiased. If the judge started handing out automatic 20-year jail sentences for every DUI suspect, then you might have evidence of bias... but here you have a creative sentencing option adopted by a court, an option which most other jurisdictions eventually adopted in one form or another. It is not outside the statutory framework as it then existed, imposing neither more nor less jail time than the law called for, it was reasonably calculated to meet a legitimate penological goal, and it was not "cruel and unusual" under the 8th Amendment. Is there evidence that the judge found people guilty when there was insufficient evidence to sustain the State's burden of proof? Evidence that she refused to consider aggravating and mitigating factors when imposing a sentence? Did she make statements from the bench which would lead an impartial observer to believe that she was predisposed for or against a particular party? Was she sanctioned for violating the Calfornia Code of Judicial Conduct? If not, you have nothing but your own rather bewildering hostility and animus towards this judge and/or this sentencing scheme as "proof" of your own premise.

People v. Groomes, 14 Cal. App.4th 84 (1993): “It is well established that the trial court has broad discretion when it comes to sentencing.”

U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005): Outside of the dictates of the federal sentencing Guidelines, the Supreme Court has “never doubted the authority of a judge to exercise broad discretion in imposing a sentence within a statutory range.”

U.S. v. Mitsubishi Intern. Corp., 677 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1982):
“A district judge has wide discretion in determining what sentence to impose; and as long as the sentence is within statutory limits, it is generally not subject to review on appeal. . . . It is well recognized that the sentencing judge has broad discretion in setting probation conditions. This discretion is not totally unbridled, but is limited by the requirement that the terms and conditions of probation be primarily designed to meet the ends of rehabilitation and the protection of the public, id., and the recognition that the statutorily prescribed maximum sentence cannot be increased by the terms of probation.”

Khalifa v. State, 382 Md. 400 (2004): "A trial judge is vested with very broad discretion when sentencing a criminal defendant, so long as the sentence is based upon findings consistent with the jury's verdict."