Oh, for fuck's sake

[yendi]

I am decidedly not sympathetic to drunken drivers. At all. As far as I'm concerned, getting behind the wheel while drunk is the moral equivalent of firing a gun randomly down a street; if anyone isn't hurt, it's because of dumb luck.

Fortunately, there are some good laws* (Melanie's Law and others) in MA that are supposed to ensure that three-time drunk drivers get to spend a year in jail and lose their license for eight years.

Unfortunately, there's a loophole, allowing folks to "bundle" multiple arrests together as long as the third arrest comes before the second conviction. In other words, the guy who shows recidivistic tendencies after six months will likely go to jail, but the guy who hops on the road the next day after tying another one on will get off.

Worse, one of the offenders is Somerville City Solicitor John Gannon, who will not be spending the year in jail that he so richly deserves, even though he's been caught driving while soused three times in the last year (anyone want to lay odds on how many times he endangered lives and wasn't caught?). Yeah. Makes me feel real good about his ability to represent that city.

Gannon is married to Watertown state rep Rachel Kaprielian, which also doesn't give me much hope about the odds of the legislature actually attempting to close this loophole. But since she's my state rep, I can at least make a statement when voting this fall if she chooses not to take any action on this law.

Note, incidentally, that the judge and prosecutor in Gannon's case bear responsibility here as well; he might have slipped under the minimum sentencing for a third offense, but he could (and should) have gotten jail time for the second conviction.

*This link goes to the website of a DUI lawyer, which disgusts me, but it does offer the clearest explanation of the current laws that I can find. The state has a website with a 4.5MB pdf file that has only cursory information.

Comments

DUI Lawyer(s)

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

As much as the tone of that page disgusts me (and, probably, so would the man himself), it is critical that DUI lawyers exist. When there is a behavior which is socially acceptable within too many of our subcultures, but is nonetheless criminal, far too many people are amenable to reform with a minimal penalty (after the first offense) to throw the book at everybody.

That said, judges are supposed to judge.

How does that work?

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

But since she's my state rep, I can at least make a statement when voting this fall if she chooses not to take any action on this law.

Do you feel that legislating a correction to that loophole is more important than anything else Representative Kaprielian might have worked on? I.e., hypothetically, assuming that a representative has historically voted as you would prefer on most other issues about which you are concerned -- would you withdraw your support of such a legislator if he failed to represent you on one, very important issue?

To be clear, I agree with your position on this issue. I am simply curious about the process by which you determine how to vote.

Re: DUI Lawyer(s)

[yendi]

Agreed on both fronts.

Re: How does that work?

[yendi]

I vote (like many folks) based on the issues a rep chooses to champion. It's not impossible for Kaprielian to do enough good to outweigh any inactions on Melanie's law (and since any such action or inaction is hypothetical, I'm certainly not judging her now). I'm not a single-issue voter, but some issues get more weight than others.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info. As a Watertown resident, I'll be eligible for voting on her as well.