Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by elkfersupper
An annual campaign presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving caused some concern within Pima County's Justice and Superior courts Tuesday.
MADD members spent the day next to the courthouses handing out ribbons as part of their Tie One on for Safety campaign, which aims to get people to use designated drivers during the holiday season.
At least two judges, Justice of the Peace Jack Peyton and Superior Court Judge Ted Borek, were presiding over driving-under-the-influence trials Tuesday and were forced to question jurors to see if they were tainted by the display. The jurors were asked if they saw the display, which included a crushed car and photos of DUI victims, if they spoke with anyone about it, and if they were swayed in any way.
The trials continued uninterrupted after only a handful of the jurors said they saw the car but weren't influenced by it.
Defense attorney James Nesci said the display was a "blatant attempt" to influence the judicial system, noting MADD could have held the event anywhere, anytime. "They have a First Amendment right to protest, but that right ends where the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial begins," Nesci said.
Theresa Babich, a victim advocate with MADD, said Presidio Park was chosen because of its heavy foot traffic, not because jurors were around.
"We weren't out soliciting anyone specifically," Babich said.
MADD members attend DWI cases in an attempt to intimidate the judge. These people are crazy.
Reacting to the use of this article by defense attorneys in their state, the Washington State Toxicology Laboratory conducted their own studies to refute the findings -- this time with the machine used in Washington, a DataMaster. Unfortunately, their research only confimed Price's experience.
We don't need a subset for DWI, cell phone usage, radio tuning, ogling members of the same or opposite sex on the sidewalk, so on and so forth.
Actually, that's okay with me, just don't involve the rest of us.
Even the founder of MADD has said that the organisation has become far more extreme than she ever intended.
the accident happened over 25 years ago.
You'll also be surprised to know that I don't like MADD and its tactics either. But drinking is a major problem in this Country and the cause of alot of pain and misery.
Great link. Thanks.
Most drunk driving fatalities occur at BAC levels way above the 0.08 limit (I don't have the source handy, but I think 50th %l was over 0.15), even though comparatively few drinking drivers have such high BACs. Any resources spent going after drivers with a 0.08-0.09 BAC are resources not spent going after drivers with a 0.15+ BAC, even though catching the latter drivers would do far more to improve public safety.
Sometimes it takes longer than that. Stay healthy!
Everywhere.
yes...everywhere....
You need to look in the mirror.
The issue isn't the numerical value of BAC. Rather, the issue is a willingness for MADD et al. to ignore the fact that the most dangerous drivers are clearly visibly impaired. If someone is not visibly impaired, odds are pretty good that he's not one of the most dangerous drivers (or, if he is, it has nothing to do with alcohol).
If a particular person is capable of driving his vehicle sufficiently smoothly and safely with a 0.11BAC that an observer wouldn't be able to tell that he was drunk, I don't care if he 'slips through the sytem'. The people I want off the road are the ones who can't control their vehicles safely and effectively. And observation is probably a better predictor of that than BAC.
POT KETTLE
Claws, guys - retract the claws!
Yes, but MADD is deliberately blurring the lines between the people who go driving with a BAC of 0.15+ (sometimes 0.20+) and those whose BAC is 0.09. They classify many accidents as "alcohol-related" even when there is no way alcohol could have played a meaningful role (car with an intoxicated sleeping passenger gets rear-ended by another (sober) motorist). The goal of doing so is to make the problem seem more severe than it is.
Using MADD's statistical techniques, one could demonstrate that nearly any condition is associated with causing accidents. For example, well over 50% of fatal accidents involve vehicles whose licence plate is "odd" [the last character is a 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, A, C, E, G, I, K, etc.]. So should we ban odd licence plates?
I did a research report as a senior in high school (1982) about BAC levels. The ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control board) sponsored the contest and I placed high enough to win $300 in scholarshop money for college. Anyway, all my research was done by interviewing people. One of those was Dr. Patricia Waller who was head of the Highway Safety Research Center at UNC. They did a BAC test using med school students who, as it turned out, rarely drank. She said virtually all passed out by .10. Dr. Waller then had an idea. The building was being renovated so she asked some of the construction workers to volunteer. She chose those who drank regularly. At .10, she said these people barely showed any impairment. I also spoke with the head of the NC Highway Patrol and even he conceded that BAC levels were not a good measurement of impairment and added that it was easier to convict with a quantitave benchmark.
I've never been arrested for anything, nor do I even drink much at all, and I agree that MADD is a group of fanatics. This stunt is reprehensible. Too many of these idiots think that because drunk drivers have killed before, the defendant in the cases at that court house on that day are guilty and should be punished irrespective of the facts of the case. Their intent was to influence the jury, and the judge should have declared a mistrail and reset the trial date.
Unfortunately, MADD has permeated the DA's offices all over the country and have put pressure on DAs not to plea cases. The problem with that is that we have trials that shouldn't be trials in the first place as smart defense attorneys know the prosecution can't convict on weak facts. I was on a DWI jury 4 years ago when we acquitted on facts that never should have been brought to trial. The officer involved had obviously been trained thoroughly to testify instead of being trained to do his job in a competent way. He should have let the defendant off in this case after checking him for wants and warrants.
So I wouldn't make a smart-ass comment if I were you about someone being obsessive if you think there was nothing wrong with what these people did. I think drunk drivers should be shot, but I'd rather wait until AFTER they are convicted in a fair trial before shooting. Otherwise, let's run you up through the system charged with a crime you didn't commit and see how you like people outside trying to influence the jury to convict you.
Here's hoping that you never find out that actually using your brain can be dangerous.
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.