Jim Harff, in his Aug. 11 letter, "Jail, not 9th DUI arrest," accused the courts of being soft on a man who has suffered eight DUI arrests and was cited 15 times for driving with a suspended license. The typical salvo of "shame-on-you's" was delivered, as accompanies all statements of outrage against people who need professional help more than condemnation. Let's look at the case of the Callery man in question objectively. After all this time, and given his many arrests, has anyone been killed or hurt yet? And his insistence on continuing to drive and the fact that he was caught 15 times driving under suspension, was he going from one bar to another, or was he trying to earn a living? It's easy to demonize the local judiciary, but small, self-serving sects like Mothers Against Drunk Driving ruined the terrain for justice in such matters years ago by insisting on unrealistic blood-alcohol levels and forcing police and judges to treat every matter as the "worse-case scenario." Perhaps the problem lies more in draconian DUI laws. Give this man a "bread-and-butter license" and raise the legal limit to .16.
