June 29, 2008
Crime and Punishment Department
Civil DUI?
Grits For Breakfast has now joined the discussion we've been having about how DUI is enforced. In his first post, he picks up on Shawn Matlock's suggestion that DUI should be stripped of it's criminal aspects and treated as a civil matter.
I don't like the sound of that. In fact, I want exactly the opposite.
If you're drunk and you hit my car, that's a civil matter: I can sue you for the damage to my car, medical bills, pain and suffering, and so on. But as everyone has been pointing out, most drunk driving episodes end uneventfully---no injuries, no property damage, nothing to sue for.
But that's not what Shawn and Grits are talking about. They're talking about the civil process by which the state suspends driver's licenses and levies fines against drunk drivers. I've never understood how this is constitutional.
In DUI cases (among others) the government waves its magic wand and says that the punishment is not really punishment, making the proceedings civil rather than criminal, and depriving the accused of many legal protections, such as forcing the state to bear the burden of proof through the presumption of innocence.
In fact, the accused need not have a trial at all. The state simply uses its administrative powers to impose a fine or suspend the accused's driver's license. If the accused doesn't like it, he has the option of going to court. This completely reverses the burden of proof.
There's also the matter of Gideon v. Wainwright, which ruled that all criminal defendants are entitled to legal counsel, provided for them by the government if necessary. There's no constitutional right to a publicly-paid lawyer in civil matters.
As near as I can tell, the massive collateral civil punishments associated with DUI are a case of legislative theater---"getting tough on drunk drivers!"---and the siren call of a profitable punishment scheme. DUI convictions make so much money for the state that bills to increase DUI punishment are as much about revenue as they are about public safety.
DUI endangers people. It's a criminal act. It shouldn't be a source of revenue. If the state wants to pick our pockets, they should have the balls to raise taxes.
Update: On re-reading Shawn Matlock's article, I notice this:
If a DWI is truly only a matter of opinion, or worse yet a numerical threshold, why don't we just make them administrative? How is a blood/ breath test case different than a speeding ticket at that point? I say it's not.
Hmm. So does Shawn---or the jurisdiction where Shawn practices---consider traffic tickets a non-criminal matter? Here in Illinois, as I understand it, traffic tickets are usually violations, which are less severe than misdemeanors, but still criminal cases. You can even request a jury trial.
That would be okay with me, I think, at least for a first offense.
.
Leave a comment