Not just 'liberals' to blame for drunk-driving tragedies

During breakfast at Jimmy's in Fells Point the other day, several topics were raised in a short span of time -- children with autism, slot machines in Maryland, banks and credit cards, and the latest outrage over a serial drunken driver.

This time, it's the serial drunken driver linked to the tragic and infuriating death of Miriam Frankl, a 20-year-old Johns Hopkins student. Thomas Meighan has had eight drunken-driving convictions and was facing additional charges when arrested last month. He's the new face of drunken driving in Maryland, if not the country.

"I tell you, these liberal judges!" Nick Filipidis, the affable owner of Jimmy's, started in on me, and I stopped him right there.

Liberal, conservative, moderate -- judge, lawyer, defendant or next of kin, or state legislator -- it doesn't matter. When it comes to drunken driving in Maryland, and most of this country, we are almost all enablers.

Here's a number to consider: 25,120. That's the number of Marylanders who had three or more convictions for driving while intoxicated as of April 2008. Mothers Against Drunk Driving came up with that figure, based on statistics from 20 states and the District of Columbia compiled last year by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In Maryland, there were 3,980 with five or more convictions, 62 with 10 or more, three with 15 or more and one who had 21.

Assuming most of them still drive -- and that's a fairly safe assumption in this state, and one that MADD makes -- that's a huge number of potential dangerous encounters for any of the rest of us who drive.

Are liberal judges responsible for this?

I think not.

From what I've seen over the years -- following drunk-driving and auto manslaughter cases in my own newspaper, and actually sitting in city and suburban courtrooms as defendants appear before judges -- coddling of drunken drivers cuts across society. It has not been liberalism at work in the making of laws and the setting of sentencing guidelines. If anything, a libertarian philosophy has defied efforts to restrict those who drink and drive, from hard-core punishment (heavy fines and long jail sentences) to outright prohibitions on future driving.

The latter has been a particularly hard sell.

Seizing vehicles or license plates from repeat offenders? That, for many, would be a confiscatory practice by government, a violation of individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

Check the dockets. Listen to the arguments the defense attorneys give: "Mr. So-and-So made a mistake, your honor. He's doing all he can to make sure it does not happen again. Please do not take his license away, for it will deprive him of the ability to get to work and to provide for his family, and if that happens, then there will be even more innocent victims of Mr. So-and-So's poor judgment."

The livelihood argument has been used thousands of times in courtrooms: If we tell a repeat drunken driver that he can't drive anymore, we will deprive him of a chance to earn a living and his family will suffer. We don't tell these defendants to move or find a job on a bus line, or carpool with co-workers. For the most part, we let them keep driving.

We don't take the zero-tolerance approach. You can get caught drinking while driving in Maryland and still drive a motor vehicle -- if not immediately during a license suspension, then certainly in the near future. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, but many view it as a right, or a right with a few inconvenient conditions once in a while.

Even the measure that many agree would be effective -- requiring use of an ignition interlock device, a dashboard Breathalyzer that keeps a car from starting if the driver isn't sober -- presumes that someone established as a danger will be allowed to drive again. That's the reality, and I accept it. We don't have one-time loser laws for drunken drivers and probably never will.

So requiring the device would seem to make sense. Eleven states made interlocks mandatory. Virginia, supposedly far more conservative than Maryland, mandated the devices for people who have had two convictions. Talk about your nanny state!

In Annapolis last winter, a similar requirement passed a Senate convinced of its potential effectiveness. But the measure never got out of a House of Delegates committee chaired by Joe Vallario, who in his other life is (can you guess?) a defense attorney.

Mr. Vallario told The Washington Post that requiring the use of the devices could cause problems for people convicted of drunken driving who "don't have a car, because we can't compel them to buy a car and put one of these in it."

Aren't you glad we have guys like this, who can see the big picture?

Given that the vast majority of offenders probably own a motor vehicle, requiring them to install the ignition-linked Breathalyzer would probably be a good start toward reducing accidents and deaths. Not giving it a try -- or copping out with some lame excuse like Mr. Vallario's -- sounds distinctly like enabling, and haven't we had enough by now?

Dan Rodricks' column appears Thursdays and Sundays in print and online, and Tuesdays online-only. He is host of the Midday talk show on WYPR-FM.