It's been 30 years since significant changes in drinking and driving laws have changed the way American's approach their alcohol and driving habits. The standard rule put into affect by most states is that driving with a blood alcohol content of more than .08 percent could result in a conviction. Since this limit became standard in the 1980s and 90s, countries throughout Europe experimented with even lower limits to see the effect they had on drinking and driving accidents. What they found may not be good news for drivers who think they can push themselves up to the legal limit.
The NTSB, or National Transportation Safety Board, released a series of recommendations that included a lowering of the legal BAC level to .05 for all states. This would match the .05 level used in more than 100 other countries who report seeing drastic declines in drinking and driving accidents. While the United States also saw major declines in incidents involving alcohol after the .08 level was put into place, highway safety proponents say that is not enough.
It's hard to tell at this point if the new BAC recommendations will have a chance at passing in most states. The original levels were met with strong resistance from state legislatures and much of the public, so new lower standards may take along time to implement or may not even pass in the near future. It's also not clear what affect this will have on enforcement. The lower limit may motivate local police department to conduct more stops and set up more sobriety checkpoints around San Diego County. As people get used to the new limits, it may result in the need for more DUI lawyers.
May 19, 2013
May 9, 2013
Inequality in the Federal Courts
Federal budget sequestration is proving to affect even the basic pillars of justice in our criminal courts. The Federal Defenders of San Diego, a government funded non-profit that provides criminal defense for the accused who can’t afford an attorney, is being forced to make it’s 59 employees take furlough days until additional funding is provided. Public defenders offices all across the nation are also suffering through similar cutbacks in order to stay within their new budgets. At the same time, Attorney General Eric Holder stated in April that U.S. Attorneys wouldn’t have to take any furlough days as a result of the sequestration. What does this mean for defendants in the federal court system that can’t afford an attorney?
Civil rights organizations have complained that sequestration furloughs for public defenders that don’t affect prosecutors creates an unequal balance. The Supreme Court decided that defendants have the right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainright (here’s a great article about the case in The Atlantic), but if funds for this right are reduced, how can indigent defendants hope to get adequate representation. While the justice department is able to shift funds around to keep prosecutors and federal investigators working at full capacity, defenders have had to cut back on interviewing witnesses, investigating crime scenes and doing proper legal research.
As Dennis Courtland Hayes of the American Judicature Society succinctly points out, even self-represented defendants are being affected by the sequester:
Harms done by the sequester go beyond public defenders offices. Reduced budgets for clerks and other court personnel greatly affect the speed and efficiency at which the system is able to process cases. This goes right to the heart of American’s right to a speedy and fair trial. In non-criminal cases, Americans will have a harder time getting through civil suits or filing for bankruptcy. Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to have their voices heard at sentencing hearings. Overall, the justice system is going to have a much harder time upholding its constitutional requirements.
Civil rights organizations have complained that sequestration furloughs for public defenders that don’t affect prosecutors creates an unequal balance. The Supreme Court decided that defendants have the right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainright (here’s a great article about the case in The Atlantic), but if funds for this right are reduced, how can indigent defendants hope to get adequate representation. While the justice department is able to shift funds around to keep prosecutors and federal investigators working at full capacity, defenders have had to cut back on interviewing witnesses, investigating crime scenes and doing proper legal research.
As Dennis Courtland Hayes of the American Judicature Society succinctly points out, even self-represented defendants are being affected by the sequester:
Nationally, up to 2,000 more court staff could be laid off or furloughed under sequestration. This would come on top of the more than 1,800 positions eliminated by the courts over the past 18 months, representing a potential 18% reduction in court staff since July 2011... Of particular concern to the American Judicature Society, which has worked for decades to improve access to the courts for self-represented litigants, those people seeking justice without a lawyer would have fewer services to help them navigate the judicial system.
Harms done by the sequester go beyond public defenders offices. Reduced budgets for clerks and other court personnel greatly affect the speed and efficiency at which the system is able to process cases. This goes right to the heart of American’s right to a speedy and fair trial. In non-criminal cases, Americans will have a harder time getting through civil suits or filing for bankruptcy. Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to have their voices heard at sentencing hearings. Overall, the justice system is going to have a much harder time upholding its constitutional requirements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)