Massachusetts legislators have been notoriously lenient on drunk drivers, theory being that a lot of them make a good living as defense attorneys for clients charged with DUI.
\nExamples of same include House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Reps. Michael Costello, Daniel Webster and Eugene O’Flaherty.
\nDiMasi, in fact, appointed the latter three to the conference committee which has been tasked with reconciling the Mass. House and Senate versions of Melanie’s Bill.<\/p>
Massachusetts legislators have been notoriously lenient on drunk drivers, theory being that a lot of them make a good living as defense attorneys for clients charged with DUI. Examples of same include House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Reps. Michael Costello, … Continue reading
\nThe most vocal opponent of the bill, O’Flaherty recently accused the bill’s supporters of being “too emotional” in what is characterized as a “profanity-laced outburst” during a debate on the House floor.
\nThe rest of the conference committee is similarly packed: 2 of the 3 members from the Senate, Robert Creedon and Steen Baddour, are also attorneys who have defended clients accused of DUI
\nThus, 5 of the 6 members<\/a> of the conference committee charged with drafting the final version of Melanie’s Bill have a clear conflict of interest.
\nNot surprisingly, the committee has refused to hold its meetings in public.
\nLest one assume that the differences to be reconciled are trivial, the Patriot Ledger<\/a> reported the following:
\nCritics of the House version of the bill say it is far weaker because it would allow judges to suspend jail sentences for repeat drunken drivers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"