ISSUE: Debating the DUI bill

OUR VIEW: Senator's case not about conflict of interest

Jokes about lawyers are as common as a courthouse conversation or a civic club speech. Attorneys are among those frequently bashing their own -- but only to a point.

Legal practitioners have reason to be proud of their profession. They are key players in the world's best judicial system -- and in this nation's history have played a big part in the legislative branch, too.

It stands to reason that someone interested in practicing law would have a passion for how laws are made -- and being a part of making them. Lawyer-legislators once dominated the General Assembly in South Carolina. Their ranks have thinned now but one, Orangeburg Sen. Brad Hutto, is no less proud of the continuing role being played.

Specifically, Hutto found himself again recently defending his position on legislation amid questions about potential conflicts of interest. As chairman of a subcommittee considering reforms in the state's drunk-driving laws, Hutto has been accused by Gov. Mark Sanford of favoring changes that will undermine the effectiveness of the bill and give attorneys more leeway in fighting drunk-driving cases.

Hutto counters that tougher penalties -- particularly for first-time offenders -- could appeal to him as a private attorney. Attorneys would be needed more than ever.

Not necessarily, since the ultimate goal of Sanford and organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to make courtroom proceedings in DUI cases practically a foregone conclusion. Breath or blood test results would be absolute. A person would guilty or not based on results.

That does curb a person's right to argue a case effectively -- an argument made most often by attorneys.

Hutto's primary argument in the Senate, however, is that the legislation is too harsh on first-time offenders.

He makes the case that first-timers are most often not repeat offenders, and penalties already are extensive and costly. The Senate version of DUI legislation he is pushing would increase fines, jail terms and the time that drivers' licenses are suspended for repeat offenders.

He cites three main goals for the legislation: streamlining the DUI process by removing impediments, maintaining fairness for people accused of the crime and cracking down on repeat offenders. And the same goal as every South Carolinian: Ending deaths on the road caused by drunk drivers.

Battling Hutto based on his profession as an attorney is not the way to achieve success through what is certain to be a compromise on the DUI bill. He is a junior senator from the minority party in the Senate, appointed to chair the DUI subcommittee by the majority Republicans. It should be apparent to the governor and all that senators want the Orangeburg lawmaker to have a say.

You must be logged in to comment.