Mass. Officials Hope To Close Loophole In Drunk Driving Law
It's called "Continued Without A Finding" - basically, it admits guilt, but doesn't charge for the full offense; rather, if one stays out of trouble for a certain period of time, it's like the initial event never happens. Call it the legal mulligan, if you will (and yes, I know I am grossly oversimplifying things here). Yes, we know you screwed up - you know it too and aren't fighting it - but if you work hard and keep your nose clean we'll forget it ever happened.The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that motorists who admit there’s enough evidence for drunken driving conviction but aren’t technically convicted are not subject to certain increased penalties.State Attorney General Martha Coakley, Democratic state Senator Katherine Clark of Melrose and House Judiciary Chairman Eugene L. O’Flaherty said they have proposed to amend the definition of a conviction to include those who admit to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty.
They're claiming, laughably, that this allows drunk drivers to get away with lighter sentences. Yeah, in Massachusetts, where we give our drunk drivers
I'd have a much easier time believing this will have an effect if they were making better use of the mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders. After the first offense there is the option to jail the offender for 2.5 years - and increases to five years on the fourth offense. Yet read any of the stories of folks arrested for their fifth or sixth offense and there is never any mention of more than 3-6 months in jail - total - for their offenses.
Start jailing repeat offenders - rather than whining about "loopholes" - and you'll start seeing some immediate results (not the least of which would be a reduced politician level)...
That is all.
4 comments:
Or just get elected to Congress or the Senate and claim the Kennedy immunity.
No fair! Craig stole my comment!
Having a nephew in a federal office doesn't hurt, either, especially if you're the ONLY GODDAM illegal in the US who has been issued a driver's license.
You know, I'm beginning to wonder... maybe part of the problem is that these people like passing laws, but they don't like enforcing them. So when a law doesn't work as it should, the answer is never to look into stricter enforcement; the answer is always a new law.
It fits into the stereotype of talkers vs. do-ers, doesn't it?
Post a Comment