The Last (?) Word on Bling

So there it is. There’s always at least two sides to every story, and the truth usually is somewhere in the middle. Having practiced law for over a quarter of a century, I should have remembered that and taken it into consideration before blasting the AOC and Mr. Stahl for their decision, and for that I apologize.

Let me say first that I did find Mr. Stahl’s email address; it wasn’t especially easy to find (I’d never ran across www.ncgov.com before his email, but you can bet it's in my favorites now), but it’s not hard to make an educated guess once you know the format for the agency. His phone number was readily available, and I could have contacted any number of people at the courthouse and probably gotten the address. Having been the administrator whose name appears on the front page of the paper myself, though, I didn’t initially publish it because I figured enough other people would find it and his email box would be flooded already. I’m not completely without compassion for those who work for state or local government; It is included in his response only because of his permission, which I appreciate.

After reading the rebuttal, I see that the decision not to use ankle bracelets to detect alcohol use wasn’t an arbitrary decision by a bureaucrat ran amok as I first maintained but rather was made after some research occurred – research that the media didn’t bother to discuss in much detail. If I were in court arguing on behalf of a client, I’d be making a great many of the points that Mr. Stahl has made in his letter about why my client shouldn't be subjected to this intrusion into his or her life.

It’s different to be advocating for a position, though – something that my clients expect and my profession requires – and being “Joe Citizen” who is appalled at the number of lives ruined by drunk drivers and the failures of the system to deal with repeat offenders. My job in the courtroom is to play by the rules that exist, but as a private citizen I can argue for a change in those laws.

I’d also point out that my own liberal ideology leads me to object to any intrusion on individual liberties or freedoms, and I seldom think that those intrusions are a fair trade for the rights that are diminished. If those who want to restrict our liberty are not continually beat back, we’ll soon have no liberty left. That being said, though, the approach to dealing with repeat DUI offenders is inflicting terrible harm on our society, and something needs to change.

What is apparent is that there is a lot of blame to go around for the failures in the systems that handle the problem of drunk drivers.

People are not responsible in their actions.

The legislature fails to appropriate sufficient funds to adequately address the problem.

Programs and solutions are fractured across a variety of state agencies, many with competing goals and interests, so that they are in effect undermining one another.

As an attorney, I’ve seen that regardless of what restrictions the judge imposes, many probation officers feel it is their function to see that those under their supervision violate the terms of their probation and eventually go to jail. This isn’t how the system is supposed to work, but the power trip that goes with being able to control virtually every aspect of someone’s life is a powerful drug and is a reality that those involved in the criminal court system face every day.  The game of "gotcha" is one that never seems to get boring for some people.

The one aspect I will address about the use of these devices is the cost. I don’t think that the argument about the cost to the individual is especially relevant, because we do other things that have financially devastating impacts on offenders and their families and I have a hard time seeing the difference.

For example, in some circumstances you are required to have an ignition interlock device (i.e. “blow-n-go”) installed on your vehicle. This costs $70.00 to install, plus there’s a monthly monitoring fee of $60.00 during the use of the equipment (usually 12 months). This is paid to Monitech, the private company that is the only approved provider in North Carolina.

The argument for differentiating between the blow-n-go and the ankle bracelet is that driving is a “privilege”, as opposed to merely existing, which is a “right.” I’d submit that this is slicing the onion a bit thinly.

Anyone who lives in a place that doesn’t offer reasonable public transportation can hardly survive without the ability to drive. As a result, once they can’t drive they lose their jobs, which often leads to losing their home and any number of other problems. When faced with those choices, many, many offenders chose to drive despite the restrictions. In reality, driving isn’t much more of a privilege than existing is. In a perfect society that offered alternative transportation that wouldn’t be the case; that’s not the world that we live in, though, at least in North Carolina.

What I do agree with is that the alternative shouldn’t be “jail or the ankle bracelet.” There shouldn’t be the opportunity to buy your way out of a conviction, but one need only sit in any District Courtroom to see that isn’t the case. Those with money to hire the right attorneys, to delay, obfuscate or otherwise work the system have the ability to affect the outcome of their charges in ways that the poor and powerless do not. While I don’t agree with “no tolerance” policies, there shouldn’t be the range of discrepancies that currently exist.

The cost to the individual of participating in programs involving any level of monitoring need to take into account the cost to society of not undertaking that monitoring, warts and all.

Finally, I want to thank Mr. Stahl for taking the time to respond and present his point of view, rather than simply writing me off as another curmudgeon with a keyboard and an opinion. I wish more people would disagree with me (well, maybe not those with whom I live) so that I’d have a chance to engage in civilized discourse that used to be one of the hallmarks of the practice of law.

Arguing and debating with someone who’s on top of their game is a lot like playing tennis with someone who’s just a little better than you. While a victory is extremely sweet, playing the game without keeping score and working up a good sweat can be pretty satisfying as well.

And sometimes, you can get someone to change their mind when you least expect it.