Melanie's Story

A first-hand story from the grandfather of 13-year-old victim Melanie Powell
Memories of Melanie: A photo slideshow

STORIES

State ranked among the worst in nation
Quincy judge was among first to take a hard line

GRAPHICS

PART 1
TIMELINE: How Massachusetts drunken driving law has changed
Alcohol's causes and effects
How local and state courts treat repeat drunken drivers
Busiest courts in state for drunken driving arraignments

PART 2
The cost of drunken driving

PART 3
Massachusetts fails compared with other states
Death toll from drunken driving

This web site uses elements designed in Macromedia Flash.
If you cannot view some of the graphics,
you may need this free browser plug-in. Click here to download it.

Editorial

Get tough on drunken drivers

The rogues' gallery of drunken-driving offenders in Massachusetts is large, infuriating, frightening.

• Kevin R. McPhee of Kingston, first arrested in 1979, most recently in August, 2003. Nine arrests total.
• Michael Carey of Jamaica Plain, first arrested in 1983, most recently in August. Eight arrests total.
• Mark E. Sullivan of Hanson, first arrested in 1980, most recently in August. Seven arrests total.

These three are just a sampling - all middle-aged and serial offenders. Despite repeated brushes with the law and the courts, they continue to drink and drive.

Massachusetts laws need to be toughened to require graduated penalties for repeat offenders.

There's little question that repeat offenders know how weak the system is in this state, how slim are their chances of ever seeing a jail cell. If the likelihood of severe punishment does not exist, there's little incentive to put down the drink or the keys.

The majority of drunken-driving cases are heard in district courts as misdemeanors. The maximum sentence is 2½ years in jail. Last year, just 15 percent of 7,306 convicted drunken drivers saw jail time and only 1 percent received the maximum. Of those convicted a second time, the number who went to jail was just 8 percent.

Massachusetts laws need to be toughened to require graduated penalties for repeat offenders.

But the laws are just part of the problem. Massachusetts judges routinely suspend sentences for drunken drivers. That may be due to the fact most repeaters hold full-time jobs.

Again, the sympathy of the court is misplaced. The courts are weighing the fate of a drunken driver's family, which depends on that person's wages, against the danger to the public if the alcoholic continues on the loose and likely to repeat. The public is losing too much and too often because judges are reluctant to dole out severe punishment.

This year the state took two important steps. It became the last state in the country to have a per se law using .08 blood alcohol level as indicating drunkenness, rather than .10. And Gov. Mitt Romney directed the Registry of Motor Vehicles to require interlocking breath alcohol test devices in the cars of convicted drunken drivers who have hardship licenses. The car would not start until the driver blew into the device and was cleared as not intoxicated.

These measures are salutary, but more is needed. Besides graduating penalties for repeat offenders, the courts must implement programs such as that initiated in Quincy District Court 20 years ago by Judge Albert Kramer. Repeat offenders must be involved in treatment programs. The courts must work more diligently with Alcoholics Anonymous and other treatment programs to ensure that offenders are fulfilling a requirement to learn how to get sober and stay sober.

Prosecutors in Massachusetts courts now tell the families of drunken-driving victims in advance to expect leniency toward offenders. This is a crime of a different kind - admitting to victims that the courts will not deal harshly with the drivers who are responsible for their loss.

Justice is not being done in these cases. That must change.