The reaction from the national office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is "neutral."
NEUTRAL?
My reaction to MADD's reaction is most definitely NOT neutral.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
An official at Mothers Against Drunk Driving says his organization has taken a neutral position on two drunken-driving proposals put forth by Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon).
On Friday, the two legislators held a press conference to announce they were introducing two bills they said would strengthen the state's drunken-driving laws.
One bill calls for a first drunken-driving offense to be a crime if the person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 or higher.
Current law makes a first offense a municipal violation. Current law also makes it a criminal offense if the driver has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher and there is a child 16 years of age or younger in the car.
The other bill would make a third and fourth drunken-driving conviction a felony. Currently, the fourth arrest for drunken driving is considered a felony if it comes within five years of the third offense.
But Frank Harris, state legislative affairs manager for the national office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said in an email to Darling and Ott that, while their bills are well intentioned, MADD wants laws that make drunken driving a misdemeanor at 0.08 as opposed to 0.15. Additionally, Harris wrote, MADD wants laws that require an ignition interlock for first time offenders who have a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or greater.
"MADD applauds your leadership on keeping the streets safe from drunk drivers in Wisconsin," Harris wrote in the email, which was also sent to the Journal Sentinel. "MADD supports making a third offense a felony but is neutral on the proposal to make a first conviction with a blood-alcohol of .15 or greater a misdemeanor.
That's nuts.
Strengthening current laws is an improvement. MADD should be supporting the efforts of Darling and Ott.
"Making a first OWI conviction a misdemeanor at .15 BAC is not a step and this does not represent progress against drunk driving."
Added Harris: "This .15 BAC bill sends a mixed message on what the illegal level of drunk driving is in Wisconsin exactly and will not send any message or deterrence necessary to stop drunk driving or the majority of drunk driving deaths in Wisconsin caused by drunk drivers with no prior convictions. The only benefit to this legislation is that more drunk drivers may refuse and thereby receive an ignition overlock."
The bill doesn't send a mixed message at all.
Harris isn't making sense. Increasing penalties for drunk driving is a deterrence. It's certainly better than doing nothing at all.
I really don't understand why MADD would choose to be "neutral" rather than strongly supporting any and all steps taken to save lives.
I find MADD's position extremely troubling. Something is not right here.
The organization is not living up to its mission statement.
I'm through making financial contributions to MADD.
No comments:
Post a Comment