Re: "Impaired driving law appropriate," Sept. 6.
While I fully agree with the writer's assertion that immediate licence suspension for a breathalyzer reading over 0.08 is warranted before damage is caused, the underlying issue is not addressed.
That is the constitutionality - particularly for those blowing over 0.05 - of having the policeman act as policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury without any timely appeal mechanism.
While the intent of getting drunk drivers off the road is proper, surely the method is just the first step down the slippery slope of abrogating our constitutional right of a hearing in front of an independent judge before sentence, a judge who is there to protect the accused from both errors and the policeman's innocent mistake, ensuring that justice is done fairly.
We are not talking about minor inconvenience, but of major fines. If this is constitutional, where do we stop? Why not have the policeman also act as judge and jury for, say, domestic violence and shoplifting?
We now know that the roadside breathalyzers were originally calibrated incorrectly. How do we know that they are now accurate and remain so? What independent check is there against an officer's error? The Integrated Road Safety Unit should operate, but why not require a member of the independent judiciary to be present, to protect our constitutional rights?
As Benjamin Franklin put it so succinctly: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Roger Love
Victoria
