Presumption Of Guilt
By Mitch Berg
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is the most dangerous group in America today.
They’re not dangerous merely because of their ongoing effort to criminalize any drinking, any time, or even because of their massive assault against civil liberty.
No, the big problem is that MADD has convinced a lot of otherwise intelligent people that what they’re doing is an objectively good thing. The Strib editorial board opines in favor of MADD’s effort to force the law-abiding driver to prove his/her worthiness every time they step into a car:
MADD says you pull out all the tools we have — and work to develop some more. It has joined forces with insurance- and auto-industry groups to create the Blue Ribbon Panel for the Development of Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology. It will encourage the development of technologies that include and surpass today’s sometimes-used ignition interlocks — which test a driver’s breath for alcohol and, if the driver fails, prevent the car from starting. Minnesota and many other states already have provisions to require such equipment in some cases. New Mexico has had some success with a law requiring their installation after the first DWI conviction.
MADD wants these intrusive, not-always-reliable interlocks in every car. They want you, whether you’ve had a beer or are a complete teetotaller, to prove your innocence every time you get behind the wheel.
And they want you to cheer and say “please, ma’am, may I have another”.
It’s a promising line of inquiry. In the meantime, however, most of those who drink must make the same old choice: Stay put or find sober transport.
Simple facts: drunk driving fatalities are off by over 40% in the past decade. Very few accidents and fatalities trace to drivers with blood alcohol levels below .10 – indeed, the big spike starts at .14, and lowering the legal limit to .08 or even lower will have almost no further effect on the issue.
In response to success, MADD proposes…more and more onerous regulation. More punishment of the law-abiding. More power for them.
And if you dare criticize them? As they said when civil libertarians opposed random checkpoint dragnets:
Opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught.
“If you criticize us and our ideas, it’s because you’re a criminal”.
The Strib – which sniffs and phumphers about the “Civil liberties implications” of surveilling phone calls from terrorists to their contacts in America – stands up and cheers at the fascist antics of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which in the long run are vastly more dangerous.
Yes. I said “vastly more dangerous”. If you want to create a nation with no civil liberties, you don’t go out and ban them. You kill them with a thousand cuts – and get the people used to the idea that “civil liberty” is an obtuse, picayune concept meant for others.
Which, of course, has been the Strib’s point of view all along. The Second Amendment refers to the National Guard, Freedom of Speech is for people with printing presses, and that whole Innocent Until Proven Guilty thing only counts if you’ve been arrested.
The Star/Tribune; our own printed Abu Ghraib
November 27th, 2006 at 8:00 am
in 2004, there were roughly 17,000 fatatilies in car accidents where alcohol was involved. I don’t know the figure, but I’m assuming that a good proportion of those deaths were victims who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time – grandmothers coming home from a quilting gathering or Timberwolves players on their way home from a friends birthday party.
I’ve listened to supporters of the Iraq disaster say for years that they would gladly forfeit some civil rights to be protected by our government. I’ve also heard plenty of people say that they have no problem with invasions of privacy because they “haven’t done anthing wrong and have nothing to worry about – it’s only the people that are guilty that are worried.”
Take your sides own advice Mitch.
By the way, the difference between your complaint and my sides complaint Mitch is that driving a car is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:10 am
in 2004, there were roughly 17,000 fatatilies in car accidents where alcohol was involved. I don’t know the figure, but I’m assuming that a good proportion of those deaths were victims who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time
Actually, you’re right, although you don’t know it, or why. Any time any alcohol is involved in an accident, it’s classed “alcohol-related”, even if the alcohol wasn’t the issue. If someone has two beers and a rock falls on them as they’re driving home, it’s an “accident where alcohol was involved”.
driving a car is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
Either is going to school, having sex, reading, eating, having a job or drinking a beer. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee rights to us. It enumerates the government’s rights and powers. So the (as you put it) “difference between your complaint and my sides complaint” is that one of us has a warped perception of what the Constitution is supposed to be.
We don’t have a constitutional right to drive. But we DO have a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:53 am
So, Doug, I’m curious: is it your contention that any time someone is engaged in an activity that is not guaranteed in the constitution, civil rights becomes a non-issue, and the government gets to control any aspect of that activity which it feels compelled to?
November 27th, 2006 at 11:40 am
‘I’ve listened to supporters of the Iraq disaster say for years that they would gladly forfeit some civil rights to be protected by our government”
Which civil rights, exactly, Doug, and what is their relation to the ‘Iraq disaster’?
November 27th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
bovious said,
“I’m curious: is it your contention that any time someone is engaged in an activity that is not guaranteed in the constitution, civil rights becomes a non-issue, and the government gets to control any aspect of that activity which it feels compelled to?”
No. My contention is that if you’re ok with the government intruding into your privacy and monitoring your activities to keep society safe from those that would harm you then you should ok with this as well.
Mitch said,
“But we DO have a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.”
Nobody is assuming guilt Mitch. If you haven’t consumed beyond .08, you have nothing to worry about – even with the interlock system.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
.08 is ridiculously strict. Even my cop friends admit that.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
“Nobody is assuming guilt Mitch. If you haven’t consumed beyond .08, you have nothing to worry about – even with the interlock system.”
If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you certainly wouldn’t object to the police coming into your house just to look around would you?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
“Nobody is assuming guilt Mitch. If you haven’t consumed beyond .08, you have nothing to worry about – even with the interlock system.”
Let’s play with words for a moment:
(cue wavy video effect indicating dream sequence)
“Nobody is assuming guilt, Doug. If you’re not talking to people in terrorist sponsoring nations, you have nothing to worry about – even with the Bush administration’s NSA surveillance program.”
Do you see the glaring inconsistency you have presented us with, Doug?
November 27th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
“My contention is that if you’re ok with the government intruding into your privacy and monitoring your activities to keep society safe from those that would harm you then you should ok with this as well.”
Your putting up a strawman, Doug. Being in favor of the GWOT in general or the NSA surveillance program in particular does not compel you to agree to some utilitarian vision of government where concern for perceived threats to the safety of citizens trump every other concern.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Doug, we are still waiting for you to expand on this statement:
“‘I’ve listened to supporters of the Iraq disaster say for years that they would gladly forfeit some civil rights to be protected by our government.”
Please enlighten us. Which civil rights and what relationship do they have to the “Iraq Disaster?”
November 27th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Paul:
4th amendment – unwarranted search and seizure. The government admits that it inadvertantly monitored domestic calls through the NSA surveillance program.
mitch
The interlock system doesn’t arrest you, it just makes you call a cab if you blow more than .08. Maybe you and Terry can take turns being the designated driver.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Robert said,
“If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you certainly wouldn’t object to the police coming into your house just to look around would you?”
Of course I would Robert just like I would object to a device being placed on my vehicle that would prevent it from starting until I blew into it.
Bill C said,
“Do you see the glaring inconsistency you have presented us with, Doug?”
Yup Bill I do. It’s the same inconsistency I see when someone says the provisions in the Patriot Act for example- sneek and peek and full access to your personal, medical, financial, and library records without court oversight- are fine in the name of keeping the public safe yet mechanical devices to keep potential drunks off the road in the name of public safety isn’t ok.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Also phipho, you can add the possible search of persons personal, medical financial and library records via the Patriot act.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Doug is right! Let me add one more layer: An IQ test for all drivers, to be administered every time they renew. The benefit to public safety would be enormous! Just think of all the senile cell phone users we could cull from the herd.
The “news” story on local TV the other night was particularly amusing. I think it was WDFL. 3/4 of all inmates at the Hennepin County Hotel are in for DUI. These dipshit “reporters” couldn’t quite bring themselves to draw the correaltion between that and .08, though.
Surprise.
(just to stop Doug, no, I’ve never had a DUI or a moving violation.)
November 27th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Kermit said,
“These dipshit “reporters” couldn’t quite bring themselves to draw the correaltion between that and .08, though.
Couple thoughts here kerm… First, you didn’t mention the percentage of these 3/4 blow a .08. We do know that they all blow at least a .08 but I would be willing to bet that the majority if not all blow higher than that.
Also, a .08 for one person is different than for another person. You can be impaired and be a danger to other drivers at a lot less than .08. The reality is that people get pulled over for things they do while driving. It’s only after they have pulled over and tested that it becomes clear that they’ve been drinking.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Wow, Doug. I want to move to your neighborhood. I have been pulled over for driving at 4am. That was my offense. Driving on a public street at 4am. Good thing I hadnt had a beer that night. Yes, .08 has very different effect depending on the person. However, if that person gets caught in a DUI checkpoint, where hundreds of people who are driving safely are pulled over, he is going to jail, his insurance is raised, his license is suspended, even if his driving skills are no more impared than someone changing the radio station or talking on the cell phone. The vast majority of accidents are caused by people way over .08. The professional drinkers either avoid the checkpoints, or dont mind driving with a suspended license. Cracking down on the social drinkers doesnt effect highway safety. Cracking down on the heavy drinkers do. The problem is that its hard to justify your funding if your only arresting the occasional .15 drinker despite the disproportionat effect arresting THAT guy has on safety. Much easier to continue to bring down the amount that will get you arrested. I have already seen the billboards telling me that I am impared after just one beer and need to get a DD. If you think the majority of DUI arrests blow more than .08, I would suggest you do some actual research. I think you will be surprised. This is yet another instance of laws that make you FEEL good rather than something that DOES good.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:31 am
“My contention is that if you’re ok with the government intruding into your privacy and monitoring your activities to keep society safe from those that would harm you then you should ok with this as well.”
Can I be against both? Scratch that.
How ’bout “Both suck you fascist bastards.”
Incidentally I see two issues being argued here:
1) Whether percentage based drinking limits are an appropriate way to judge impairment of impairment should be determined by performance. (I’m not taking a position on this one at this time, but I do want people who cause a fatal accident while talking on a cell phone to be treated the same as a drunk who does.)
2) Whether this sort of, er, “pro-active law enforcement” is an appropriate or desirable activity in a society built on the concepts of personal freedom and civil liberties. (I’m going to say generally, “NO.”).
Anyway, where can we get a breathalyser that makes sure you’re not drunk, stoned, tweaking, tripping, chatting on a cell phone, watching a little TV screen, smoking a cigarette that’s about to ash into your lap, yelling at your kids in the back seat, crying over a breakup, pissed off at being fired, reading a map sitting in the passenger seat, or getting head? I guess we also need a tube that determines that you’re not the kind of hyper-aggressive asshole who is going to flip out because that guy in front of you is going 2mph slower than you want to be going and so you’re going to endanger everyone around you by riding his bumper.
How about this – if a person is driving in an unsafe manner, they get pulled over and are given an appropriate ticket (or arrested if they’re risking public safety enough to warrant it). Hey, I’ve got a GREAT idea! If you see someone driving unsafely, note their license and your location, pull over and call 911. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t even think of trying to restrict me. (Or, er, an alternate reality me that drives a car. There will never be one of those devices on my motorcycle.)
Btw, on drivers license renewal, I don’t really care about the IQ test, but I’d like to see skills and knowledge tests repeated every so often. Some people do eventually lose the ability to drive safely and it isn’t just about vision. Maybe not every 4 years, but possibly every 8 or 12? I mean, if we’re going to license it, lets have the license represent something more than a check sent in every 4 years.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
“Also, a .08 for one person is different than for another person.”
You got that right, Doug. .08 don’t even scratch the surface with an adult male. Makes those skinny, liberal women criminals, though. Lay off the spritzers, honey!
“You can be impaired and be a danger to other drivers at a lot less than .08.”
Like, oh maybe talking on your cellphone? I’d like to see Mothers Against Stupid Cellphone Use, but that ain’t likely, now is it?
“The reality is that people get pulled over for things they do while driving.”
Like Driving While Black. God forbid our African American freinds stop at Applebees after work.
This is disgusting.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:37 am
Forgive them father, for they know not what they do—
I realize that these euphorian ninnies somehow expect that breathalyzer technology and accuracy will be improved by this wondrous impetus to spur new research, but really, this plan is so full of holes and apparently unforeseen consequences, it’s laughable.
Given: new research will create breathalyzer devices which are twice as accurate as today’s models. Another way to look at it: half as inaccurate, but still inaccurate.
Let’s take a stroll down Illusion Lane, shall we?
OK, first off– which cars will be required to have these devices? All cars? A huge segment of the cars out there are in the range of winter beater to rust bucket, and they’re owned by people far too poor to afford the cost and expensive installation. Oh, did they forget the installation fee? Such a device must be installed in such a way as to deter even aggressive tampering while it intercepts the ignition circuit– hmm, if this law goes through, that’s the business I’ll be in (and I’ll make millions). OK, OK, we can’t just go out and legislate that *ALL* vehicles have them installed immediately, that would be a consumer nightmare.
So, let’s legislate that all *NEW* cars have to have these devices pre-installed. Oh oh, now we’ve done it. No one wants to buy new cars, the demand for used cars just skyrocketed (and so did prices), and new car sales tank– you think the automakers and car dealers will sit by and allow that to happen? No way. It will have to be all cars, or no cars. What about rental cars? Do you want to blow on a breathalyzer when you don’t know whose mouth has been on it?
OK, there’s no real way to figure that out, so let’s move on, assuming getting devices all installed in all cars is feasible (remember, this is Illusion Lane we’re strolling down…). How are we going to verify that cars have these devices CORRECTLY installed and functioning? Yearly inspections? Can you tell from looking at a breathalyzer ignition interlock whether it is correctly installed? No, gotta get in there and actually use it — first to see whether it actually is checking for breath alcohol content, and secondly whether on a positive reading, it disables the car (or has somehow been circumvented). My guess is that most inspectors won’t be drinking, so it will be tough for them to test that. In any case, those who modify the devices can set them back in working order once a year for inspection, if it would come to that.
Maybe police officers could be required to check every time they pull someone over? “Excuse me, ma’am, but could you and your kids go stand on the side of the road while I run a diagnostic on your ignition interlock system? It should only take 10-15 minutes.”– it’s unlikely the police will be doing that.
Now, let’s mosey on a bit further down Illusion Lane and talk about what a breath alcohol analyzer is capable of. What it cannot do for sure is be anywhere near as accurate as a blood alcohol test. If you Google “breathalyzer accuracy,” you’ll find reams of information about how inaccurate they are, how a wide array of things can cause false readings – you’re measuring gas from someone’s mouth, after all, and we all know how people’s body chemistry varies from person to person. Breath alcohol devices need to be calibrated– cops often do it monthly– imagine the new cottage industries that type of requirement will create, even if only inspected yearly. And also, the devices are calibrated for an “average” breath alcohol to blood alcohol ratios, but this has been shown to vary widely among people. Smoking or eating shortly before a breath test can create a false positive. Better not have a smoke after your meal at a restaurant. Just sit and sip water for 20-30 minutes after eating, or your car is likely to not start in the lot– the restaurant industry will love having all those patrons sit an extra half hour taking up table space. Oh, here’s a solution: “Hey, kid. I just had a big meal, a beer, and a smoke, and my car won’t start. I’ll give you five bucks to blow into this thingie.” Getting someone else to “blow your car started” would become a popular workaround, and it would only be a matter of time until kids think it’s a great idea to get into a car with a stranger to get some money for candy. I think everyone can figure out why that’s not good.
Devices which will either bypass or fake out the interlocks will be all over Ebay, and it will be really easy to fool them. When you take a breathalyzer test from a cop, the officer is standing right there, watching you blow. When you can do a blow test in the privacy of your own car, I foresee cans of “Breath(alyzer) of Fresh Air” being sold to spray into the blow tester to get your buggy started, or installing a bypass to the interlock, rendering it useless. And when it comes down to it, who’s going to go to extreme measures to get around the system? The ones who we really want to keep from drunk driving, the drunks, the repeat offenders. The 99% of us who do not drive drunk will have to suffer for nothing every time we want to drive.
The bottom line is that this idea has no chance of ever making it, because the proponents have only thought of one result, one outcome– fewer alcohol related accidents– they have not taken 10 minutes to contemplate how it would actually work in practice. And it wouldn’t work, not even in a communist country. It’s so insanely stupid, nevermind over-reaching.