Stiffer
penalties required
When a drunken driver causes an accident which results
in the death of others, citizens in the community are highly offended.
That is, they are offended for a short time until they return to
their every day activities. Although it is horrible to admit, Americans
seem to tolerate deaths from “driving under the influence”
as an acceptable consequence of the general use of alcohol beverages
by adults.
Nothing illustrates the truth of this more than the petty wrangling
in the state Legislature over efforts to strengthen the criminal
statutes against repeat offenders. The Legislature at first actually
weakened the bill while deceiving the public into believing that
they were reinforcing its provisions.
When faced with a veto from Gov. Romney and the ensuing bad publicity,
the legislators caved in. The most hotly contested provision was
a requirement that district attorneys present witnesses to establish
the existence of prior convictions. The compromise measure which
prevailed would accept certified court records as sufficient.
Another sticky issue was the length of time a driver’s license
should be suspended if he refuses to take a sobriety test. The present
suspension period is six months and that term was retained for drivers
without prior convictions or refusals. However, people with prior
convictions would face longer suspensions.
The Bill includes a number of other tough provisions including a
criminal charge in a fatal accident called “manslaughter by
drunken driving”. Nonetheless, the cavalier remarks of some
of the legislators as reported in the press are inappropriate given
the seriousness of the danger to society of inebriated drivers.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, in 2000 there
were 16,653 fatalities from auto accidents involving drunken drivers.
This amounts to 40 percent of all crash fatalities. And 512,000
people were injured in DUI accidents. This is a frightening national
hazard.
While there should be some leniency for first time DUI offenders,
the law should throw the book at repeaters. According to the NTSB,
one third of drivers arrested for DUI in 2000 were repeat offenders.
If the law provides for the confiscation of a vehicle used to transport
a relatively small amount of a controlled substance, why not confiscate
the vehicle of a driver after a few DUI convictions? It is time
to be serious about renegade drivers on the roads.
A
conspiracy of ignorance
The Banner did not endorse any of the candidates for
the Boston City Council because all of those who might otherwise
have warranted endorsement opposed the construction of the Biosafety
Lab in the South End. All gave as the reason for their opposition
a fear of the risks to the abutting community.
Indeed, the laboratory will handle very toxic substances –
anthrax, Ebola, the plague and smallpox – with the objective
of discovering cures for persons infected by them. The safety measures
built into the lab are designed to protect workers in the lab and
community residents.
Opponents have been unable to present any evidence to support their
conclusion that a dangerous outcome is likely. It is hardly enough
to assert that it is merely possible. Our representatives should
have been negotiating for construction jobs and a major role on
the security team. Instead they wasted an opportunity and generated
a needless fear in the community.
It is time for the people to demand some meaningful victories from
their political leaders instead of empty posturing.
|
Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher
Bay State Banner |
