Someone sent me an email about my post from Friday re the Seifert\/Emmer DUI flap.\u00a0 The writer noted that she believed the current laws are hunky-dory, because:<\/p>\n
The writer had a point about the alcohol imits.\u00a0 Alcohol affects people differently.\u00a0 And “laws” require objective measures.\u00a0 And while we’re being objective, we should note that there is virtually no evidence that BACs below .1 contribute to fatal accidents (other than the fact that the government calls every accident\u00a0 in which a participant registers a BAC as a “drunk driving accident.\u00a0 Every one.\u00a0 If a meteor fell out of the sky on a car driven by someone who’d had three beers in two hours, it’d be called a “drunk driving accident”.\u00a0 This is done at the behest of groups like MADD, who have become quite unhinged over the years; it’s dishonest at best).<\/p>\n
So it’s correct that a BAC level doesn’t tell us everything.\u00a0 Is the person measuring a .08 after having been a .16 six hours earlier, but is sobering up fast? Is it someone who had four shots in thirty\u00a0 minutes, and is on her way up to a .18?\u00a0\u00a0 Is it a high school kid and inexperience drinker and new driver who had three beers in two hours and is speeding around like Mario Andretti with all sorts of liquid driving skill, or is it a 35 year old experienced driver who is driving just fine but has a broken taillight and runs afoul of a cop who needs to fill his quota?<\/p>\n
The question you have to ask yourself is “is the law’s intent to curb drunk driving deaths, or is it to create criminals by criminalizing a fairly common behavior?”\u00a0\u00a0 Since there is no objective evidence that casual drinkers with ’08s cause deaths on the highway (that’s all people well north of .1), and the serious problems are most normally caused by repeat offenders who routinely driver well above .1, it’s most likely the latter – especiallly when you consider that the law distinguishes not one iota for the circumstances behind ones’ mild intoxication.\u00a0 When the sheriffs put up a roadblock and start breathalizying people wholesale and corralling everyone who blows a .08, they’re not asking themselves “is this person on the up or down swing, do they have a history, can they rationally be expected to be a problem”.<\/p>\n
No, they’re just racking up the fines.\u00a0 DUI is\u00a0 HUGE moneymaker, in fines, whiskeyplate fees, forfeited vehicles, court workloads (requiring more court staff, which feeds bureaucratic empires) and so on.\u00a0 It’s in the state’s interest to make sure there are more arrests.\u00a0 Cynically, it means they control more people (which Emmer’s second proposal would have partially rectified); without the cynicsim, it is an amazing amount of money coming in to government and government’s friends, the State Bar.<\/p>\n
I was shocked when I wrote about this a few months ago that something close to 10% of Minnesotans have had some kind of drunk driving arrest.\u00a0\u00a0 10%?\u00a0 That’s astounding.\u00a0 Are 10% of the drivers on the road a danger?\u00a0 If that were true, none of us should be on the street.<\/p>\n
It’s absurd, of course.\u00a0 Absent any kind of objective data linking .08 BAC with statistically significant numbers of fatalities (to say nothing of being *responsible* for them, which is another whole thing), it’s about nothing more than criminalizing behavior.<\/p>\n
The letter from Sandra Berg cast aspersions about Rep. Emmer’s support for two bills in the legislature\u00a0 last year (18 years after his most recent DUI arrest); one that would allow those accused of drunk driving to keep their licenses under certain circumstances, and another that’d take DUI arrests off the public record after 10 years of good behavior.<\/p>\n
Here’s the deal principles are hard.\u00a0 The thing about a principal is that it can hurt you as well as help you.\u00a0 Due process and “innocent until proven guilty” are principles,\u00a0 which most of us agree are good ideas.\u00a0 But sometimes those principles mean an alleged murderer goes free due to a hung jury.\u00a0 Ouch.<\/p>\n
So when the letter writer writes “I think the arrest is sufficient prima facie grounds for [seizing licenses on arrest rather than conviction]\u00a0 to be a prudent thing”\u00a0 – well, isn’t that true for EVERY crime?\u00a0 Think of what we could do for street crime if we just locked up everyone accused of any crime at all!\u00a0 Or if we gave cops portable “Field Lethal Injection Kits” to use on accused murderers!<\/p>\n
Saying “Driving is a privilege” doesn’t cut it; it’s a privilege that is a vital part of being able to earn a living for most people.\u00a0 The fact is, in every other crime judges have (per the Fifth Amendment) the right to consider extenuating circumstances in assessing the accused’s circumstances between arraignment and trial; someone accused of five murders who has a twenty year criminal record and a speedboat waiting to take him to Venezuela might not get bail; someone in jail for the first time for having 15 unpaid parking tickets might get sprung for $100 and no other consequences.\u00a0\u00a0 Why is drunk driving any different?\u00a0 Why can someone who got a .08 and has no record at all get the incredible burden of being without a drivers license, the same as someone with a .2 who’s already had several accidents and arrests?<\/p>\n
Because a well-heeled, emotionally manipulative pressure group has made due process an unfashionable principle, that’s why.<\/p>\n
So here’s the question; do you believe in the principles of due process and innocence until proven guilty by court and jury?\u00a0 Or do you only believe in it for crimes where there is no\u00a0 emotional baggage attached?<\/p>\n