Massachusetts Democrats have a bad name as a back-scratching oldboy’s club that look the other way when it suits them. The new drunkdriving bill passed last week by the Legislature is a case in point.Willard said the bill had loopholes "so large you could fly a 747through" them, and sent it back with three amendments, according to theAssociated Press.
Willard "asked lawmakers to restore language that would letprosecutors use certified court records as proof of prior convictionswhen sentencing alleged repeat drunken drivers, instead of having torely on the testimony of eyewitnesses or the arresting officer as proofof those convictions. That can be a daunting challenge if the originalarrest took place years earlier," the AP reported.
He also said he "wants to suspend the driver’s licenses of repeatoffenders who refuse to submit to a breath test for at least one year -instead of the current six months – and to increase the mandatory jailsentence for anyone found guilty of motor vehicle manslaughter from twoand a half to five years," according to the news service.
"The House and Senate both initially approved the use of courtrecords to establish prior convictions, but that provision was strickenby a legislative conference committee made up largely of lawyers thathad represented drunken drivers," the AP said.
The Governor’s proposals deserve our support. More to the point, theLegislature should not defend drunk drivers, and the Demoratic Partyshould not let Willard take the lead in protecting the citizens of theCommonwealth.
One of these provisions basically says that if you have been convicted of drunk driving before, and you refuse a brethalyser test, but are ACQUITTED of the charge, you still have to lose your license for a year. Fifth amendment right against self incrimination? Innocent until proven guilty? Not under Willard’s proposal…
As a pedestrian, cyclist, and (occassional) driver, I support tough drunk driving laws.That being said, two things concern me:1. Violating civil rights. I’m simply not willing to violate search-and-seizure philosophies to crack down. There are intracacies here and IANAL, so I simply have to trust that folks like the ACLU are on top of things.2. Making drunk driving laws tougher relative to laws that should be just as tough. Congresses have a bad habit of making some laws tougher, to the point that commiting crime A is a much greater offense than B in the eyes of the law, when crime B is more hurtful to society. This uneven “inflation” of punishment is something to keep an eye on.So, the real question is: given that driving is a privledge and not a right, why are convicted drunk drivers permitted to regain their liscences so easily?
I’m with Bob on this one. The MA Dems, led by Eugene “You’ve reached Rep. O’Flaherty’s Office. No one is here right now, as Rep. O’Flaherty is in Portgual even though the legislature is still in session” O’Flaherty, disgraced themselves with this bill, and our illustrious Governor did the Dems a big favor by giving them the opportunity to correct their mistake.Re breathalyzers: some background is in order. DUI suspects cannot be forced to take a breathalyzer test, but most states allow the refusal to be introduced as evidence at a DUI trial – a practice upheld by the US Supreme Court. Not in MA, however, where the SJC has held that the state constitution forbids a driver’s refusal to take a breathalyzer test from being used at trial. So there has to be a substantial administrative penalty for refusing to take the test, and if the legislature wants to increase the penalty from 6 months to a year, I have a hard time seeing why they shouldn’t. This has nothing to do with search/seizure, self-incrimination, or anything else – the issuance and suspension of driver’s licenses is an administrative procedure, not a criminal one.
This has nothing to do with search/seizure, self-incrimination, or anything else – the issuance and suspension of driver’s licenses is an administrative procedure, not a criminal one.IANAL, but I simply don’t believe this claim. If an administrative procedure requires going into your basement, can a government official do it without a warrant? I should think not. The idea is that a breathalizer is a search, and is philosophically no different than a tour of your basement.
If an administrative procedure requires going into your basement, can a government official do it without a warrant?This is the wrong question. Of course gov’t can’t bang down your basement door without your permission (or a warrant). But unless you voluntarily allow gov’t inspectors into your basement, you’re not going to get a license to operate your basement barber shop.
It’s great to see all the profiles in courage now; no one wanted to support O’Flaherty when he attempted to question some portions of the bill (while supporting most of the tougher penalties)and that’s because this blog and most lefties don’t like O’F. Look beyond the cover of the book and I think O’F had a lot of guts to stand up and question provisions of the bill, the only thing, perception wise, he did wrong was to go on vacation.
“The Governor’s proposals deserve our support. More to the point, the Legislature should not defend drunk drivers, and the Demoratic Party should not let Willard take the lead in protecting the citizens of the Commonwealth.”SO JUST GIVE UP AND RUN TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS IS THE NEW MESSAGE TO WIN BACK THE CORNER OFFICE….PATHETIC!
JGI assume what you are saying is pathetic is putting politics over substance? The substance of this bill really isn?t at issue. As David rightly points out the constitutional issue is a red herring. As to the stricter penalties and the overall efficacy of the bill go, reasonable minds can differ. However, reasonable minds apparently didn?t differ very much since the tougher version of the bill was overwhelmingly passed by the Legislature only to be gutted in committee. . . and then the committee FLED THE COUNTRY. Profiles in courage indeed.Gene-O and company dropped a huge gift in Mitts lap. Mitt has gotten 0 traction on any issue since before last summer. His clout in the state had fallen to such a low point that he had trouble filling vacancies in his cabinet this August. And now he has an issue where he is on the same side as a vast majority of the commonwealth with the legislature on the other, EVEN THOUGH THE LEGISLATURE OVERWHELMING SUPPORTED THE TOUGHER LAW. Furthermore the thing that put the legislature in this absurd position is back-room maneuvering, and it was backroom maneuvering that won Romney the corner office in the first place (Gang of Three anybody).The way to win back the corner office was to make Romney a lame duck so the only story about the Governor is his travels around the country throwing red meat to the republican faithful. Now the dynamic of ?Mitt the reformer vs. the corrupt democratic legislature? is back for the first time in over a year.Gene-O is a nice guy and he will win reelection handily. But the smart move by democrats to pile on O?Flarrity and pass the friggin? bill everyone wanted to pass in the first place.
James,what you say is sad, but true. Gene-O was killed by Mitt’s great media machine which sold the red herring idea on the constitution even though it was a legitamate issue. O’Flaherty will pay the price because he should have known better. Did he really think reason would win out? This episode has definitely hurt him and he will have trouble getting back his credibility, regardless of how right he was. He gace Mitt a gift. Shame on him.