« When Lawyers Attack! | Main | Common Sense Lesson #145 »
When I say MADD is mad, I’m suggesting they’re nuts, not angry
Lawrence Taylor (who’s not that Lawrence Taylor) over at the DUI Blog has posted a fascinating “insight into the thinking at the top of MADD’s” bureaucracy (MADD is, of course, Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Last week, Taylor took part in a debate with MADD’s CEO, Charles Hurley. At one point, he asked Hurley about “why the [DUI] fatality statistics have remained unchanged for 13 years.” And check this out:
The reason for the continuing fatalities, Mr. Hurley calmly explained, is that defense lawyers are more concerned with their clients’ constitutional rights than with their clients’ victims.
And a recent report MADD filed with the Feds included the following two items as hurdles to DUI reform:
A judiciary that struggles to define itself and maintain its objectivity in the face of aggressive defense attorneys.An organized DUI defense bar more concerned with “winning a case” than with the carnage on our streets and highways.”
I mean, look - I’m all for MADD’s goal to prevent drunk driving and trying to curb the “carnage on our streets.” No bones about it. But to argue that the problem here is that defense counsel is too concerned with protecting defendants’ constitutional rights is lunacy. I will never understand those who continue to argue that the best way to fix problems in this country is by taking away rights from folks, rights granted and guaranteed by our Constitution (…ahem, President Bush - I’m looking at you here, too). Seriously, MADD, maybe it’s time to update your thinking and look at meaningful ways to attack the problem.
Comments
I'm a misdemeanor prosecutor in Texas, and in this great state, MADD lobbying has resulted in CIVIL penalties for DWI convictions that amount to more than $3000 - plus mandatory driver's license suspensions. No one wants to plead guilty because attorney's fees for a DWI trial are less than the civil penalties, not to mention the criminal penalties. Moreover, the MADD lobby has made it impossible to give people [with ZERO criminal record] deferred for a first DWI. It is truly lunacy. People figure they'll roll the dice with a jury. It's maddening, pardon the pun, and has put an enormous strain on our courts. Very, very frustrating.
Posted by Kitty X | May 31, 2007 10:43 AM
agreed. here, for instance, are a couple methods of reducing drunk driving, alternative to taking away rights:
-improve public transportation availability in the evening (for instance, here in philly, none of the trains run after midnight, pretty much insuring people will either stay home-not likely- or drive when they've been out partying)
-let people sleep in their damn cars (it makes some semblance of sense to say you shouldn't even be in a car drunk with the keys, but giving people a chance to sleep it off is a pragmatic suggestion)
Posted by timaree | May 31, 2007 10:47 AM
If their lawyers were defending their constitutional rights and insuring that the case was properly proven I would agree with you. However, there is a great deal of abuse of technicalities going on. An active defense doesn’t mean that the guilty should get off.
I don’t read that as saying that defense counsel is THE problem, but the perception that you can beat the drunk driving law if you have the right lawyer contributes to it.
Posted by Ribinin | May 31, 2007 11:52 AM
I attend law school in the great City if Angels.
The number one contribution to drunk driving in L.A. is giving celebretards drivers' licenses. Seriously, Lindsay, Paris, Nicole... they can all afford drivers. Why don't they use them???
Posted by three elle | May 31, 2007 4:36 PM