Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, August 30, 1993 TAG: 9308300157
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
\ When politicians talk about getting tough on crime, it's usually easy to identify the bad guys - drug dealers, gunrunners and violent criminals.
But one law-and-order issue in this year's campaign concerns thousands of offenders who are not so visible, but perhaps just as dangerous.
They are people who drive illegally, often blending into highway traffic unnoticed until it's too late.
According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, there are an estimated 665,000 people in Virginia with suspended driver's licenses, about 13 percent of the state's driving population.
In the past year, motorists with suspended or revoked licenses in the Roanoke region have caused accidents that left five people dead.
While tough talk on drunken driving has become a political refrain, this year the candidates for governor and attorney general are focusing more on the problem of suspended drivers.
Democrat Mary Sue Terry, who fought against drunken driving as a state legislator "way before it became fashionable," says she plans to continue that crusade as governor.
While seeking tougher penalties for those who kill while driving drunk, Terry also is proposing the same minimum five-year sentence for people involved in fatal accidents while driving on suspended or revoked licenses.
State law now sets a minimum sentence of one year for someone convicted of involuntary manslaughter as the result of reckless driving.
Terry's opponent, Republican George Allen, says he, too, supports stiffer punishments - but with an important difference.
Allen wants to abolish a parole system that allows most inmates to be released after serving fractions of their sentences.
"Her five years in effect means 1 1/3, because she doesn't want to abolish parole," Allen said. "She thinks someone who kills should be out in 1 1/3 years; I think they should be serving five years, minimum."
Terry supports an administrative revocation process that would allow police to confiscate on the spot the licenses of people arrested for drunken driving. Allen opposes such a law.
Terry estimates the measure would save nearly 50 lives a year by getting dangerous drivers off the road before they go to court, which takes an average of 88 days. "That's just too long," she said.
Allen, however, has problems with assuming people to be guilty before they get their day in court.
"I have a problem with having the police officer being the arresting officer as well as the judge and jury," he said.
With recent DMV figures revealing for the first time the large number of suspended drivers in Virginia, the candidates also are offering ideas on how to target potentially dangerous drivers before they kill.
Because many people have their licenses suspended for failing to pay court fines on relatively minor offenses, part of the challenge is to sort out the true threats from the thousands of suspended drivers.
Allen said he likes the idea of a specially marked license plate that would identify vehicles belonging to suspended drivers.
Terry, on the other hand, wants to take another look at confiscating automobiles driven by suspended motorists.
Virginia once had such a measure, but the law was repealed after it was deemed too time-consuming and not cost-effective. To protect the rights of lienholders and joint owners, the law could be used only against offenders who owned their cars free and clear. Even then, administrative costs often exceeded the value of the car.
But the idea of a revamped confiscation law now is being considered, and the topic was mentioned frequently when the House of Delegates Courts of Justice Committee held a public hearing in Roanoke last month.
Allen said he believes going back to confiscating cars "is a bit too much" and could create "undue punishment on a co-owner."
He does support the mandatory suspension of someone's driver's license after a drunken-driving conviction.
Jim Gilmore, the Republican candidate for attorney general, supports more jail sentences for suspended drivers, even if they are not involved in fatal accidents.
"It is appropriate to impose jail sentences," Gilmore said. "A suspended license is taken for a reason."
His opponent, Democrat Bill Dolan, prefers what he calls a "smart-tough" approach - advocating stiff punishment for the most dangerous drivers, but with the realization there aren't enough jails and prisons to hold them all.
Dolan suggested that some offenders be sent to regional work farms, with prison cells reserved for drivers involved in fatal accidents.
He also favors an automobile confiscation law. "It may be an administrative hassle and an additional burden on the courts, but I think it's worth it," he said.
"For many people, one of their most valuable possessions is their automobile. . . . I think the punishment has to be something that really stings."
Gilmore, a former Henrico County prosecutor, said he opposes recent moves to reduce the punishment for illegal drivers, such as a new law that creates a two-tiered punishment for habitual offenders.
Habitual offenders are people who have had their licenses revoked for 10 years because of at least three serious driving offenses. The penalty for driving after being declared a habitual offender used to be a mandatory one-year minimum, but a new law lowers the punishment to a 90-day maximum for offenses that are considered "nondangerous."
"It needs to be understood that a habitual offender has already had three bites at the apple," Gilmore said.
While Virginia historically has taken a tough stand against habitual offenders, he said, "the new law goes away from that community standard."
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB