Originally Posted at Source4Politics
Robert Guest (a Texas defense attorney) has
a story about the Texas Legislature's approach to the DWI problem. The most interesting part, to me, was near the end.
Apparently, there was a deferred prosecution bill proposed in the legislature. Deferred prosecution is like probation, but you're never actually convicted, assuming that you complete your probationary period. Sounds fair enough. But how do we know there wasn't anything wrong with this bill, and that it's a smart approach to DWI enforcement? Defense attorneys, prosecutors, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving ALL supported it.
When I read that, I had to make sure I wasn't dreaming. The idea of getting MADD to agree to something reasonable enough that the defense bar would go for it...it boggles the mind. But even more than that, how did the bill not pass? How did the legislature turn down a bill that garnered mutual support from natural enemies?
The bill, which was supported by prosecutors, defense attorneys and MADD, "had a lot of momentum," Alpert said, but the possible loss of money for the state from surcharges that accompany convictions may have doomed it. "This wasn't the year to be cutting into sources of revenue," he said.
Translation: the bill would probably cut down on drunk driving. It would help to rehabilitate offenders, and destroy fewer lives in the criminal justice system. It would save prosecution costs. But does any of that matter to the Texas Legislature? Of course not, damn it.
We've got to convict these people so we can take their money.