 |
 |
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
MADD
at Mass.
Drunk driving laws affect people, federal funding
By Brian Fitzgerald
To those who fight for driver safety in the state, it seemed like absorbing a one-two punch combination: a couple of recent reports in the press that Massachusetts is losing ground in its efforts against drunk driving.
|
|
|
|
|
| Ralph Hingson Photo by Vernon Doucette |
|
|
The first blow, according to a report released on November 21 by Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD), was like a left hook to the gut: Massachusetts
is among the three worst states in the country at keeping intoxicated
drivers off the roads. The second shot, delivered 10 days later with the
ferociousness of an uppercut to the face, was the revelation that the
commonwealth has missed out on about $29 million in federal funding for
infrastructure projects over the past five years -- and may lose up to
an additional $54 million by 2007 -- because the state’s drunk driving
laws lag behind national standards.
The news comes after Massachusetts had made considerable inroads in preventing
drunk driving in the 1980s and 1990s, although there have been setbacks
of late, says Ralph Hingson, associate dean for research at BU’s
School of Public Health. “More serious than losing highway funds
is the fact that in the last four years there has been a 27 percent increase
in alcohol-related road fatalities,” says the professor of social
and behavioral sciences. “That’s after two decades of decline.
We’re going in the wrong direction.”
Hingson’s numerous studies on the effects of alcohol on public health
-- especially regarding traffic accidents -- have been credited with changing
national drunk driving laws. Perhaps that is why he is frustrated that
his home state seems to be taking a step backward. In the MADD report,
Massachusetts, scoring a D-minus -- along with Alaska -- was the second-worst
state in the country in fighting drunk driving. Montana came in last,
with an F.
A major reason for Massachusetts’ dismal grade is the fact that
it is the only state that doesn’t have a “per se” law,
which would stipulate that a person with a blood-alcohol level of .08
or higher is impaired. On December 1, the Boston Globe reported that this
has prevented the state from qualifying for $29 million in federal incentive
grants for infrastructure projects over the past five years. Those inducements
will not merely be lost, but will turn into penalties if a “.08
illegal per se” law is not in place by next October. More than $5.4
million will be withheld the first year, and that figure could balloon
to a total of $54 million by 2007.
Currently, state law allows blood-alcohol levels only as evidence of intoxication,
rather than as proof. Consequently, juries can find a driver not guilty
of driving under the influence even if his blood-alcohol level is above
.08. In addition, refusal to take a blood test or breath analysis cannot
be admitted as evidence -- thanks to a 1994 decision on self-incrimination
by the state Supreme Judicial Court -- and the minimum penalty for refusing
the test is often less harsh than failing it.
“This makes it more difficult to get a conviction,” says Hingson.
“When a driver fails a breathalyzer test, prosecutors have to prove
that the person’s driving performance was impaired at that level.
And even if we passed a per se law, they could still challenge the test
results.”
“Per se” bills proposed by the last three governors have languished
in the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice, frustrating committee members
such as State Representative Reed Hillman (R-Sturbridge), who blames the
legislation’s failure on the powerful influence of defense attorneys.
Hillman, who was once in an accident caused by a driver under the influence
of alcohol, made arresting drunk drivers a priority when he was state
police superintendent in the 1990s.
A law went into effect in Massachusetts, however, on Thanksgiving Day,
allowing judges to consider all drunk driving offenses -- no matter how
old -- when sentencing repeat offenders. Previously, a provision in state
law treated two-time drunk drivers as first offenders if more than 10
years had passed since they were found guilty of the first offense. But
many feel that the law doesn’t go far enough. “I’m glad
it was done, but that’s not going to take care of the problem,”
says Hingson. “They expanded the window on how long you can look
back for prior convictions, but the issue is, if people aren’t being
convicted to begin with -- because we don’t have the per se law
-- then it doesn’t matter how long judges look back on the defendant’s
past. Drunk drivers simply won’t get convictions entered into their
record.”
Public safety officials may be temporarily reeling in their fight to stop
intoxicated people from getting behind the wheel, but they’re not
down for the count yet. “This report card is unacceptable,”
says Middlesex County District Attorney Martha Coakley (LAW’79),
who attended the November 21 MADD press conference at the State House.
“The good news is, we can do something about it, and shame on us
if we don’t.”
Hingson, whose 1993 study on the success of so-called zero-tolerance blood-alcohol
limits of .00 or .02 for underage drivers in 12 states led to a similar
law in Massachusetts, hopes that the state will stop balking at the .08
illegal per se standard. “In 2000, with the federal mandate to adopt
these .08 per se laws, there wasn’t a narrow margin of victory,”
he says. “The vote was 78-10 in the Senate and 344 to 50 in the
House of Representatives. There was a huge bipartisan approval of that
law. It gives you some idea of the national sentiment that we need these
kinds of laws.”
13 December 2002
Boston University
Office of University Relations