RALEIGH – For three years now, I’ve been hearing a lot of complaints from civil libertarians in North Carolina about the Patriot Act, lengthy imprisonments of enemy noncombatants, and other abuses of government power in the war on terrorism. On occasion, I’ve agreed with them. Now, it’s time for all people of good faith who’ve worried about such abuses to come out against a bundle of similarly questionable proposals to fight the war against drunk driving.
Earlier in the year, media reports showed that a surprisingly large number of North Carolinians charged with driving while impaired (DWI) were acquitted at trial – and that this acquittal rate, around a third statewide, varied widely depending on jurisdiction and judge. Responding to these and related revelations, Gov. Mike Easley appointed a task force of public officials, health and safety experts, activists, and others to come up with a new strategy for combating drunk driving.
Now the group has prepared a long list of recommendations for the governor in expectation of passage during the 2005 legislative session. They include stronger efforts to keep those under 21 from getting access to alcoholic beverages, such as tougher penalties, more training for sales clerks, and tighter rules for selling beer kegs. The panel will also call for more sobriety checkpoints and greater access by officers to private clubs that sell alcohol.
Current law requires that those charged with DWI have their driver’s licenses suspended for 30 days. Arguing that this does little to pressure defendants to plead guilty to the offense, the panel says that the suspension should now last until a DWI case is resolved in court. For drivers under 21 or previously convicted of DWI, the task force says that police officers should be able to install interlock devices immediately after a DWI arrest that would prevent the vehicle from being operated by anyone with alcohol on the breath.
One proposal had gained significant support among task-force members but not with the Easley administration: a $90 million hike in the excise tax on beer and wine, intended both to discourage underage drinking and to generate revenue for implementing the rest of the anti-DWI package. After some contentious debate, the panel has decided to recommend that a study commission be set up to examine the tax-increase option (Easley’s folks have apparently already decided to propose some new taxes in 2005, just not those).
It’s probably not fashionable to say so, but I find most of the task force’s proposal to be wrongheaded, counterproductive, and deeply offensive. A months-long revocation of a driver’s license is a serious, costly punishment. So is installing an interlock device on a vehicle that may be shared by several family members, including those never stopped for DWI. The state of North Carolina has no business passing laws to impose these penalties on people who haven’t been convicted of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Furthermore, raising taxes on beer and wine to deter drunk driving and pay for its deterrence is an indefensible policy. I am a teetotaler. Thus I will pay little or none of the new tax. Yet as a daily user of the state highways, I will benefit from any successful effort to reduce the risk of drunk driving. Indeed, I will benefit just as much as will fellow motorists who are also beer or wine consumers. Why should they pay and I not pay? And why should the vast majority of drinkers, who do so responsibly, be targeted for a special tax because of the irresponsible actions of a few?
Perhaps it would be easier to understand the rush to embrace “solutions” if drunk driving was a growing problem in North Carolina. I see no evidence that this is the case, however. The problem appears to have been improving for years, perhaps because of past legislation and broader societal trends. From 2000 to 2003, total alcohol-related auto accidents declined by about 20 percent, even as population and vehicle-miles-traveled increased. Fatalities are also down 20 percent. This is no comfort to the loved ones of those killed by drunk drivers, but it is comforting to note that there are fewer such victims than there used to be.
If the real problem is too much judicial discretion in convicting and sentencing drunk drivers, let’s address it. If DWI penalties need to be more draconian, okay. But what the governor’s task force proposes to do represents a gross overreaching of governmental power – and deserves a commensurate level of condemnation from those who say they venerate individual rights, civil liberties, and equal protection under the laws.
-30-
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation, publisher of Carolina Journal.com, and host of the statewide program “Carolina Journal Radio.”
 
|
