Thursday, July 12, 2012

Why I Drive a Full Sized Truck...

Because stories like this are depressingly common for Massachusetts:

Hundreds of offenders on roads
Nearly 1,000 drivers with five or more drunken-driving convictions are still on Massachusetts roads — legally, with licenses in their wallets, even after Melanie’s Law made lifetime revocation mandatory — according to state data obtained by the Herald that has lawmakers howling for reform.
Registry of Motor Vehicles data indicates an astonishing 947 drivers have five or more OUI convictions that predated the 2006 law, and still have active licenses — a frightening figure that averages nearly three chronic offenders for every town in the state.
Five or more convictions, and they still have valid MA licenses. Now, granted, these are events that happened before the law was enacted, so I'd wager that's why their licenses are still valid, but still. It shouldn't take a second law to revoke someone's driver's license after their FIFTH OUI conviction. Personally, it ought to be gone after the second conviction (on the third offense). It can happen to (just about) anyone once. Twice requires work. And three times is someone with a problem.

But here we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of people with five or more convictions. That's not five or more arrests, where maybe the breathalyzer exonerated them, or it was pleaded down in cort. That's five or more times that they were arrested, tried, and convicted in a MA court of law of driving under the influence. And they still have valid licenses.

I think, perhaps, that instead of calling the 2006 law "Melanie's Law", they ought to have called it the "until you kill someone" law - because that's really what this is. Letting someone continue to have the privilege of driving on the public roadways after they have shown a shocking disregard for the law and public safety is mind-bogglingly stupid. Can you imagine the outcry if someone convicted of five separate violent felonies was still eligible to own a gun?

Call me cynical, but I'm thinking that the only reason the state of Massachusetts doesn't start really cracking down on drunk drivers is that there's too much money involved. Each drunk driving arrest means thousands of dollars of fines, plus court costs, lawyer's fees, etc. - and what are most politicians before they become politicians? That's right, lawyers. If there was a serious and concerted effort to stop people from driving drunk, all those fees, fines, and court costs go away.

Maybe we should put a new 15 round magazine in the car of anyone caught driving while drunk so they actually go to jail???

That is all.


Anonymous said...

But I seem to remember you also ride a motorcycle.....

But really, why 5 or 3? Those are arbitrary numbers.

Lets call it what it is. If you walked to the center of town with a loaded handgun, while intoxicated, and started shooting you would be locked up...Period.

Why is it different when you drive a car while under the influence? ONE and DONE. Period.

Putting yourself behind the wheel while intoxicated is the same as attempted murder, random attempted murder, but nonetheless, the same.

Quit apologizing for people who will not accept responsibility for their actions.

I know thousands of people who have NEVER driven after even having one drink. There is NO EXCUSE for DUI, ever! Not five times, not three time, NOT EVER!

ONE and DONE! Period.

Its a privilige, not a right, and we revoke rights all the time for single offenses. This privilige should be no different.

Anonymous said...

wanna keep the money coming in? sell the car, they are not going to need it anymore.

Unknown said...

I think that the reason that they're so lenient on drunk driving in Mass. is due to the fact that the Kennedys live and drive there.

Note to the Kenne'tards: Oldsmobiles are not amphibious.

The Mad Magyar said...

Revoking a driving license does not make someone stop driving. If these people continue to drink and drive, no amount of license revoking will make them stop driving.

However making them quadriplegics will stop them from driving, they can still drink, but they will not drive every again.

Anonymous said...

I hope that a substantial portion of thise 947 people have found a way to dry up. That may be why they have not re-offended.

Unfortunately I am probably wrong. And my state probably has just as big a problem.

Brian E. Simoenau said...

Ignition Interlock Devices will stop repeat offenders from starting their vehicles if even the slightest amount of alcohol is detected. This protects the public more so than license suspensions.

Attorney Brian E. Simoneau

Robert said...

Dear Attorney Brian E. Simoneau:

The IID is the reason my former coworker had his minor children start his car for him. Not terribly effective.

Ian Argent said...

"predated the 2006 law..." Ex post facto comes into play here. Or is the Lautenberg amendment justifiable?

I believe that driving while impaired is one step from manslaughter or worse, myself, but even habitual drunks are deserving of constitutional protections, just like any other low life.

Massachusetts drunk driving  said...

Each Massachusetts drunk driving people when arrested means thousands of dollars of fines, plus court costs, lawyer's fees etc.And this is good such kind of people should be highly punished.