Justice Rolls Like a Mighty River (Monday's version)
Yesterday in the Courts Committee we took up a number of House bills which covered areas we had not previously addressed. Here are some of the votes:
HB 15 (Marshall): Would have prohibited Virginia from holding anyone accused of terrorism in its prisons. Where else are we going to hold them? In our schools? Thankfully we killed this bill.
HB 166 (Pogge): Expanded the death penalty eligible crimes to include the killing of a fire marshal in the performance of his duties. While I usually vote against death penalty expansions, I did vote for this bill since fire marshals have "felony arrest" powers but are not otherwise covered by the statute. The bill passed.
HB 502 (Gilbert): This bill revisited the "triggerman" rule but with a slightly different spin, i.e. it eliminated the rule only for the killing of law enforcement. However, all the same issues apply, e.g. how do you prove that an accomplice had the intent to commit murder when he's sitting in a get-away car? And he didn't actually kill anyone? Treating all defendants the same may give the prosecution leverage but it's not justice. We defeated this bill.
HB 513 (Rust): Permits the impoundment of the vehicle when an unlicensed driver continues to drive in violaton of the law. For reasons I can't quite fathom, this bill has been hotly contested. I voted "yes" and it did pass this time.
HB 728 (Albo): Limits the conditions of pre-release for those convicted of a felony. This bill became a huge "turf battle" as pre-release personnel lobbied against limitations on their taxpayer-subsidized services. Commercial bail bondsmen, on the other hand, supported the bill. I co-sponsored Albo's bill thereby earning mention in an hysterical Roanoke Times editorial (fyi, editors, my donor history is at www.vpap.org). In its pared-down version, the bill was a wash in terms of saving taxpayers. Regardless, it was "carried over" on an 8-7 vote.
HB 1197 (Iaquinto): Would require a mandatory ignition interlock device be installed on the vehicle of anyone convicted of driving under the influence. Right now, it's mandatory on second offense only. Otherwise, it's judicial discretion. This "all drivers" concept is complete overkill IMO and reflects what happens when single-issue advocates are allowed to dictate our criminal laws. (e.g. "abuser fees") The bill was defeated.
Dear Sen. Petersen,
Your vote on Del. Iaquinto's bill was misinformed. The fact is drunk drivers have driven drunk 87 times, on average, before being caught. In addition, 50 to 75 percent of offenders will continue to drive even on a suspended license.
Del. Iaquinto's bill would have required drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock device. That means that the offender could go to work, school, or anywhere they need to go. Offenders pay for the device, so it doesn't cost Virginia taxpayers anything.
If this bill had passed, over 80 Virginian's could be saved next year. If your Committee had approved this two years ago when it first had a chance to consider it, over 160 people could have been saved on Virginia's roads.
I hope you will change your mind on this issue and support interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers.
Mr. Griffin:
Thank you for your comment. Do you have a citation for these statistics? I am skeptical of #'s that are thrown around, especially in criminal issues like this one. (have you considered the cost when every single defendant elects to try a case rather than except a plea deal? it's very high)
Let me respectfully raise the issue of proportionality which is often overlooked. As you are likely aware, DUI is a misdemeanor. That means we assume the person that commits the crime -- assuming they are not a repeat offender -- is given a second chance. We don't ruin their life for a single incident.
However, you assume in your analysis that a "first-time offender" for DUI is a repeat criminal. We don't do that anywhere else in our State Code and I reject that concept.
If the focus is all about safety, we could make DUI a felony (perhaps a death penalty offense) and have long-term mandatory sentences for a first offense. That would certainly "save lives." Except that it wouldn't. Nor would it save the state money.
To summarize, we disagree but I thank you again for commenting.
Sen. Petersen,
I absolutely have citations for my statistics.
For 50-75 percent who keep driving, the citation is:
Peck, R.C., Wilson, R. J., and Sutton, L. 1995. “Driver license strategies for controlling the persistent DUI offender, Strategies for Dealing with the intent Drinking Driver.” Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular No. 437. Washington, D.C. National Research Council: 48-49.
For having driven drunk 87 times before being caught:
Zador, Paul, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore. (1997) “Drinking and Driving Trips, Stops by Police, and Arrests: Analysis of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behavior,” Rockville, MD: Estat, Inc, 1997.
I don't agree with your argument that an interlock "ruins" someones life. Why is it a bad thing to require a drunk driver to blow into a device for 6 months instead of losing his or her license? An interlock certainly gives a second chance.
In terms of saving money, drunk driving cost the nation $130 billion each year so I have considered the costs of what this legislation means. I urge you to also consider the cost to the families of the 271 people (2008 NHTSA FARS) who died on Virginia roads because of a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.
States like New Mexico and Arizona have reduced deaths from .08 BAC drivers by over 30 percent. The proposed law you voted against would most likely have had similar results, thereby reducing 271 deaths by 30 percent.
I hope you reconsider as we will be back next year! Again, interlocks wouldn't ruin the lives of DUI offenders, but they might save the life of one of our family members.
Thanks again,
J.T. Griffin
As someone who has taken many drunk drivers on the street and deal with them working in the jail I'd like to jump in for a moment.
We can all agree that drunk drivers are dangerous and I can attest as I was also taken out by one in front of Red Hot and Blue in Fairfax City two years ago. (A very sobering and scary experience) There are a lot of drunk drivers on the road and most aren't caught due to the lack of resources on law enforcement's end. Essentially, there are more drunks than there are officers on the street. Virginia already has very strict laws relating to DWI and even when one pleas guilty they still face substantial penalties such as ASAP which actually gets a lot of people in trouble due to non-compliance.
In my opinion, ignition interlocks are effective but when the offender truly needed one. As many repeat offenders there are I would argue the amount of first time offenders who simply make a mistake learn from it. The laws we have now relating to first offense drunk drivers I believe are substantial enough to wear we don't need to further burden the system with this. A second offense (within 5 or 10 years) also has substantial penalties and certain instances require ignition interlock. Lastly, technology can always be defeated by someone who is smart enough!
Either way, it is a misdemeanor and certain penalties after a first offense would be more properly applied.
DanielK: THanks, as always, for giving us the view from the front lines. We're agreed on this. Chap