Weaving justice

In 1978, my mother's car was run off the road and through a guardrail by a drunk driver in a semi. The car flipped over several times, breaking her neck while her two sons -- ages 3 and 6 -- were inside. She lived -- technically a quadriplegic -- for another 15 years, before dying of an illness that an unparalyzed person would have been able to stop.

So, no, I have no real love for people who drive drunk. Yet this offends me.

Linked via Fark.com is this story from Maryland, which outlines plans to give an automotive Scarlett Letter to repeat offenders. Those people convicted of twice driving drunk would get a special license plate identifying them as such; the movement is similar to that in several other states.

The very same arguments for and against the sex offender registries apply here -- what are the thresholds, can people move on after being convicted of the crimes and serving their dues, does this invade the privacy of people finished with their sentences, all of that. But this next segment should be appalling to all:

"(The bill) will allow (police) to, without probable cause, pull them over and check" their driving records, Taylor said.

Sure, who needs probable cause? I mean, if a guy drove drunk two times, no matter how long ago, surely there's a good chance he's driving drunk now, right? So clearly we can violate any remaining rights, ad infinitum.

What?

I'd be willing to bet any cop could follow a drunk driver for five minutes and find a reason to pull them over, such as weaving. What good does it to serve if someone who has since gone clean and sober gets pulled over for no reason? What good does it do society if that person loses his job because aggressive police just made him late for work? What good will it do for society if he -then- turns back to his poorly chosen coping mechanism?

This bill's author desperately needs to reassess his intentions -- and their possible effects.

If nothing else, this is a great opportunity to bring greater scrutiniy to our traffic courts, which are often sorely ignored.

Witness one effort by the Kansas City Star:

An investigation by The Kansas City Star found that the Municipal Court repeatedly allows thousands of speeders and red-light runners to reduce dangerous moving violations to defective-equipment pleas. That means tickets for serious violations are pleaded down to offenses such as broken taillights, which means no points against a driver’s record.

The legal tactic — called “buying points” — is common in the metro area. But it is spinning out of control in Kansas City. The result? Problem drivers keep on speeding, even when their licenses should be suspended or revoked.

According to a computer-assisted analysis of court records, one lead-footed driver received six defective-equipment pleas in a year’s time. Several drivers received five. Nearly 250 a year get three or more in Kansas City, because there effectively is no limit on how many a defendant can receive.

Other traffic-court stories were cited by the Al's Morning Meeting blog; one story found out more than 10 percent of parking tickets are dismissed without any accountability in Nashville, and another found that Dallas is owed more than $40 million in unpaid parking tickets.

I seem to recall a Boston Globe letter to the editor by a U.S. Supreme Court justice, who pointed out that the lesser courts, such as traffic court, may be the ones most likely to see a lack of decorum, receive the least scrutiny, and are still the most likely place for the public to actually experience the courts. (I tried, and failed, to find the original op-ed. Sorry.)

The debate over "Melanie's Bill" in Massachusetts suggests that sufficient pressure to create appropriate -- no loopholes, and no excesses -- legislation is lacking, while stories suggest problems with enforcement.