I sent in a letter to the Stroller in our local paper dealing with the new DUI law here in SC. So i am going to post my initial letter, followed by a response from another person, and then a response to his letter.
My Initial Letter:
'NOT THE ANSWER': Jamie A. Steele of Lyman declares South Carolina's new driving under the influence law unconstitutional. "DUI is out of control in this state, however, stomping on the Constitution to bring it under control is not the answer," he argues. "The new law allows a past DUI charge to be taken into account when there is a new DUI charge, thus making a new conviction carry more punishment. This basically is punishing you twice for the same crime."
The response from another citizen:
'OFF HIS ROCKER': Nick Reed of Campobello says Jamie A. Steele is "off his rocker" with his assessment of the state's new driving under the influence law. "Not checking for past DUI offenses is why this state has had so many get away with keeping their driving privileges, going out and killing and maiming again and again," responds Mr. Reed. "Habitual DUI violators should not be allowed to hide behind the liberal interpretation of the Constitution."
Now my yet to be published response:
In response to Nick Reed, The Constitution can not be changed on a case by case basis. There is a problem with habitual DUI's in this state, but not adhering to the Constitution is not the answer. When you base future punishment on past completed convictions you are being punished twice for the same crime, this is also known as Double Jeopardy. The Constitution protects everyone, not just people who are not convicted felons.
Viva Liberty!
No comments:
Post a Comment