Posted on 12/13/2004 8:50:56 AM PST by TaxRelief
RALEIGH -- For three years now, I've been hearing a lot of complaints from civil libertarians in North Carolina about the Patriot Act, lengthy imprisonments of enemy noncombatants, and other abuses of government power in the war on terrorism. On occasion, I've agreed with them. Now, it's time for all people of good faith who've worried about such abuses to come out against a bundle of similarly questionable proposals to fight the war against drunk driving.
Earlier in the year, media reports showed that a surprisingly large number of North Carolinians charged with driving while impaired (DWI) were acquitted at trial --and that this acquittal rate, around a third statewide, varied widely depending on jurisdiction and judge. Responding to these and related revelations, Gov. Mike Easley appointed a task force of public officials, health and safety experts, activists, and others to come up with a new strategy for combating drunk driving.
Now the group has prepared a long list of recommendations for the governor in expectation of passage during the 2005 legislative session. They include stronger efforts to keep those under 21 from getting access to alcoholic beverages, such as tougher penalties, more training for sales clerks, and tighter rules for selling beer kegs. The panel will also call for more sobriety checkpoints and greater access by officers to private clubs that sell alcohol.
Current law requires that those charged with DWI have their driver's licenses suspended for 30 days. Arguing that this does little to pressure defendants to plead guilty to the offense, the panel says that the suspension should now last until a DWI case is resolved in court. For drivers under 21 or previously convicted of DWI, the task force says that police officers should be able to install interlock devices immediately after a DWI arrest that would prevent the vehicle from being operated by anyone with alcohol on the breath.
One proposal had gained significant support among task-force members but not with the Easley administration: a $90 million hike in the excise tax on beer and wine, intended both to discourage underage drinking and to generate revenue for implementing the rest of the anti-DWI package. After some contentious debate, the panel has decided to recommend that a study commission be set up to examine the tax-increase option (Easley's folks have apparently already decided to propose some new taxes in 2005, just not those).
It's probably not fashionable to say so, but I find most of the task force's proposal to be wrongheaded, counterproductive, and deeply offensive. A months-long revocation of a driver's license is a serious, costly punishment. So is installing an interlock device on a vehicle that may be shared by several family members, including those never stopped for DWI. The state of North Carolina has no business passing laws to impose these penalties on people who haven't been convicted of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Furthermore, raising taxes on beer and wine to deter drunk driving and pay for its deterrence is an indefensible policy. I am a teetotaler. Thus I will pay little or none of the new tax. Yet as a daily user of the state highways, I will benefit from any successful effort to reduce the risk of drunk driving. Indeed, I will benefit just as much as will fellow motorists who are also beer or wine consumers. Why should they pay and I not pay? And why should the vast majority of drinkers, who do so responsibly, be targeted for a special tax because of the irresponsible actions of a few?
Perhaps it would be easier to understand the rush to embrace "solutions" if drunk driving was a growing problem in North Carolina. I see no evidence that this is the case, however. The problem appears to have been improving for years, perhaps because of past legislation and broader societal trends. From 2000 to 2003, total alcohol-related auto accidents declined by about 20 percent, even as population and vehicle-miles-traveled increased. Fatalities are also down 20 percent. This is no comfort to the loved ones of those killed by drunk drivers, but it is comforting to note that there are fewer such victims than there used to be.
If the real problem is too much judicial discretion in convicting and sentencing drunk drivers, let's address it. If DWI penalties need to be more draconian, okay. But what the governor's task force proposes to do represents a gross overreaching of governmental power--and deserves a commensurate level of condemnation from those who say they venerate individual rights, civil liberties, and equal protection under the laws.
Gee, to the non-statists among us, a 33% conviction rate would suggest better training of police officers so as not to arrest and inconvenience so many who are arguably innocent. These guys think it means they need to crack down. If they were smarter, I'd call them a$$holes, but as it is, that's an insult to a$$holes everywhere.
Confiscate the car, suspend the license, lock the offender up for 11 months and 29 days, and then hold a trial.
Yeah, who cares if they're innocent or guilty. The unfair laws and rogue juries that give us an unfair advantage just aren't enough. Some of these shmoes still think they're entitled to be judged by their peers.
Why are people being penalized before conviction anyway, aren't they entitled to the presumption of innocence (even if you buy the "driving is a privelige, not a right" crap)? Also, extending the suspension till the case is resolved gives the court the opportunity to ratchet up the pressure by failing to deal with the case in a timely manner. Hardly an incentive we want to put in place.
That's actually not the case here in NC. The poor conviction rate is highly skewed by a handful of counties, with Cumberland being the worst. There are ongoing state and federal investigations into several judges and attorneys. Some attorneys have so thoroughly gamed the system and corrupted the judges, that they will guarantee a client they will be acquitted for the right price.
So obviously it's not the law that's the problem. If the judges are corrupt, get them off the bench and into prison with the ones they did convict. Don't think up more ways to compromise the civil rights of the residents of the state.
I concur that there is a problem with the judges not the system. I know that in Michigan only about 5% of the OWI cases go to trial. I think our conviction rate is much higher, but my personal experience suggests that if a person is borderline, a jury will not convict especially if a person performs well on video.
New laws, such as some of those cited, most likely will not assist. In my jurisdication we obtain blood if the person refuses the breath test. We have a streamlined process that only adds about 1 hour to the arrest time. There is a penalty if the person refuses the breath test that is in addition to any penalty received from conviction.
Funny story: Last week my neighbor got burglarized, and I went down there to help him commiserate. The Deputy Sheriff showed up and was filling out the paperwork, as I stood there with a beer in my hand.
Half hour later, I finished my beer, got in my pickup, and drove home.
Later that night, a little light bulb went off in my head and I told myself, "Geez' I might not oughtta' done that." I really didn't think anything about it at the time.
(For all the blue-noses out there, it was only ONE beer and I only live 1000 yds. away on private property.)
I got caught in one of these one Saturday night, just trying to get my family home in my mini-van, and completely sober. It took an hour for me to get through it, and I went that way only because it is normally a short cut. I could have shot everyone involved with that #$#@% thing by the time it was done. These ought to be banned forever. If you read the Fourth Amendment, they are illegal, but then I'm only a peasant, certainly not a black-robed prince.
Boy. You really have that innocent before proven guilty thing down pat, don't you? Why not just go for summary execution and save the state the cost of dungeon time?
I got caught in one of these one Saturday night, just trying to get my family home in my mini-van, and completely sober.
Ain't you lucky! At least it was a "sobriety checkpoint.
Last time I was stopped in something similar, it was on a state highway, entering a town, with no way to avoid. Traffic was backed up about a mile, around two curves, and inching forward.
As we got around the second curve, we could see several fire trucks parked, with their lights flashing, but no smoke or sign of accident.
The firemen were all stopping traffic, and going from car to car, ASKING FOR DONATIONS to their 'firemen's benevolent fund'!
It caused about a 20 minute delay, and earned them more ill-will than donations.
That was America then.
This is America now.
If we hold a trial, the terrorists have won.
I didn't think of that, of course you're right - let's just throw away the key.
After a DUI conviction, mandatory sentence:
As it is, most animal poachers get more harsh punishment than convicted drunk drivers.
That shouldn't be a "sigh." You would be doing yourself a favor!
"(For all the blue-noses out there, it was only ONE beer and I only live 1000 yds. away on private property.)"
We still have a legacy of Puritanism in this country that avidly love to punish anyone for anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.