Bitter flaw in Melanie's law

I had an oui 25 yrs. ago and recieved another 8/07 it should not be my 2nd offence, trust me I don't condone driving drunk but shit happens!

i agree it is bull shit they were in too much of a hurry to pass the law they should have left the law the way it was going back only 10 yrs the judges have no leeway in sentancing

The lifetime lookback in MA is unconstitutional for those convicted prior to the passing of Melanie's Law.I don't agree with drunk driving.
The laws are way to harsh.

they passed the law during an election period it was a get tough on crime thing it was political to make the governor look good for reelection she lost now we are stuck with this mess!!

I was convicted of a subsequent OUI in 2004. I was sent a letter by the RMV 1 year latter I was eligible for reinstatement. I held off and went and paid my reinstatement fee of $500.00, paid the fee to take the Learner's Permit and passed it in early 2006. When I went to schedule the road test I was denied due to the Melanie Law. I could have been reinstated before the law went into effect but did not have the money. Then I paid the state the reistatement fee and other fees and was shut down. I could not afford the maintenance of the "program" and had to sell my cars to pay my mortgage. I was elegible for reinstatement before the law took effect. Does anyone know if I have a case. If not I want my money back because I don't have my license reinstated but the Commonwealth has my money. Thanks

I got 2 dwi's 17 years ago both within 2 weeks of each other.For the last i3 years I have made my living with a cdl licence.The last time I applied for a job in 2001 the dwi's were no longer on my driving record.In 2008 I am agian applying for a cdl job and those old dwi's are front and center right on the top of my driving record.Think I'll get hired?Lets get real.17 years is ancient history.I paid my penalty and learned my lesson.let a man get on with his life.

I got a couple OUIs, the last in 2001. I did 16 weeks of 1 night class's,which I paid $35 each,2 weeks away from home$800, mandatory aa meetings,fines and penalties $$ which equal alot of missed work and alot of money for both my family and I and the state,no accidents I got pulled over.I dont condone OUI,but I too learned my lesson and still am paying for a law that was placed after the fact,this law is a pyramid scam for the state.Im sure when everyone is out of work they'll change it, but not soon enough.

crock of shit.how about drugs and guns. some guy drives into a little girl while drunk. Send him away not every person who has learned. why doesnt the state pay everyone the money its taking.Kind of makes me wanna have a couple beers.

I was just poped the other night,only because the cops in one town got a call from cops in another town.I was told i was not drunk(wich in fact i WAS NOT),but i seemed to be slightly impaired.I was taken to the police station and the whole night i had to the cops tell me that they are sorry and because of the call from the other town they had to do something.It seems to me that the whole thing is a fu@#ing scam. No doubt i am going to fight this with everything i have,unfortunatelythats what it is going to take.EVERYTHING I HAVE.

They made the law too severe. Why is anyone surprised that people are looking for a loophole?

Humane laws are written by humans. Extreme laws are written by extremists.

Fix this law.

I am 50 yrs old. When I was a teenager if you got stopped for oui the cops would take your keys and tell you to come back in the morning or they would follow you home. Back then alcohol was good and drugs were bad. Now alcohol is bad and drugs are good. There is a question on the ballot to reduce the sentence for possesing drugs. Alcohol related arrests are a huge money maker for the state right now. Can't wait till the pendulum swings back...

Joke wrote:

I am 50 yrs old. When I was a teenager if you got stopped for oui the cops would take your keys and tell you to come back in the morning or they would follow you home. Back then alcohol was good and drugs were bad. Now alcohol is bad and drugs are good. There is a question on the ballot to reduce the sentence for possesing drugs. Alcohol related arrests are a huge money maker for the state right now. Can't wait till the pendulum swings back...

Q2 is just about pot, no other substances.

The Law is a Joke I'll drive anyway and take the extra time for being revoked its an EX-POST FACTO LAW PURE AND SIMPLE=UNCONSTITUTIONAL you just need judges with some balls and brains TO TELL THESE SCUMBAG POLITICIANS THAT instead of these boot licking half-witted intellectuals who would sell there mother out for a carreer boost there disgusting FUCK EM SOMEONE SHOULD CHECK TO SEE HOW MUCH HIT AND RUNS HAVE GONE UP SINCE THIS SO CALLED LAW

I was stop in 84 86 had one on a navy base and the state tried to pin that one me also. But thank god I TALK TO THE JUDGE AND EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THE PUBLIC HAS NO ACCESS TO THOSE ROADS.THE PROSUCATION TRIED TO NEAL ME EVEN THOW IT HAPPEND SO LONG AGO.I AM HOPING SOMEONE WITH SOME MONEY CAN TAKE THIS TO FEDERAL COURT. We have the strictest laws in the country thank you Miss Haley

I'm on the back nine of a 3rd offense suspension...I missed the go-back statutes by a month on my third offense. Now, 6 months in jail and 8 years loss of license seems a pretty fair sentence...I admit I was wrong, and took the penatly for it. But the ignition interlock system the state pushes, at least in my eyes, is a completely unconstitutional continuation of a sentence that was more than served.

I do believe more can be done to lower the rate of recidivism among convicted drunk drivers, but allowing an unreliable piece of equipment to dictate this is unquestionably one of the most asinine feats the registry of motor vehicles has ever installed. To level the playing field a bit, I believe these devices should NOT be restricted to being sold by state approved vendors...allow the consumer (because that's what we still are!)the opportunity to research them and purchase one on our own. By having to go to one of their approved vendors and have no choice in the model being installed (and you get what they have - no say on your part, even if the unit is notorious for failures - which YOU will have to pay for, pay to have your car towed for, etc.) it only shows how communist the Commonwealth has become, and how they will continue to take away our rights at any chance to expand their coffers.

Oh, I wrote State Rep. George Peterson with the idea of a colored license plate for repeat drivers - put the burden of proof on the Commonwealth - so that they can be stopped at any time by the police and given a sobriety test, but was told that would never work because it violated the rights of the driver. Now I don't know about you, but my choice to drive is my own, and if the option was there for a plate that told the police I have more than 1 drunk driving offense on the books and CONSENT to a search to continue the privilege to drive than my rights haven't been violated. Having to buy their product, go their garage, pay out of pocket if their equipment fails, pay to have my car towed if it does, and possibly losing the right to drive for 10 YEARS regardless if it was the machine's fault and not my own sounds a HELL of a lot more like having my rights violated to me.

Oh well...I guess it just goes with the territory in living in one of the most politically corrupt states in the country...it's more important for politicians to see how much hush money they can make and screw us rather than actually doing something reasonable and intelligent and in the interest of every citizen in the state.

against melanies law wrote:

I got a couple OUIs, the last in 2001. I did 16 weeks of 1 night class's,which I paid $35 each,2 weeks away from home$800, mandatory aa meetings,fines and penalties $$ which equal alot of missed work and alot of money for both my family and I and the state,no accidents I got pulled over.I dont condone OUI,but I too learned my lesson and still am paying for a law that was placed after the fact,this law is a pyramid scam for the state.Im sure when everyone is out of work they'll change it, but not soon enough.

I think anyone who had to participate in the old "Dial" programs for earlier drunk driving convictions should be able to sue the Commonwealth - I mean, that system used to tell us it was ok to have a few drinks and drive, right? They refused to tell us that five years down the road everything we paid out of pocket to learn was going to be completely useless and subject us to arrest.

It is a Pyramid Scam, plain and simple. ANd it's about time somebody stood up and said something, or at least did something. If we don't do something then the laws will only get worse and they'll take more and more of our rights away until just thinking about maybe going for a drink will land you in jail for two years.

Melanie’s Law works for the most part. Like anything else, it’s not perfect. When it was enacted, I thought that more people would be given hardship licenses with mandatory use of the ignition interlock device. This seems like a reasonable compromise. Allow the DUI offender to drive to work and support his family, while protecting public safety by insuring that the offender does not drink before or while driving. However, for the most part, this has not happened. There are thousands of offenders suffering through long and license suspensions. Of course, if they are a danger to the public, they should be kept off the road. However, many of these offenders had ancient convictions which now have come back to haunt them because of the lifetime look back provision of Melanie’s Law. For example, I had a client with a DUI in 1967 that was counted against him. Back then he plead guilty without giving it a second thought. Now, because of Melanie’s law, his decision from 42 years ago has come back to haunt him.

Visit the Melanie's Law section of my website at http://www.suspendedlicensehelp.com/ for more information on Melanie's Law.

Oh, one more thing...I am eligible for a hardship license now, but I must attend 21 weeks of "aftercare" (you know, that stuffy room where the instructor does nothing and people sit around complaining about not having their license?)in Worcester to obtain it.

Now here is where it gets almost funny. I live about 20 miles from the place that these "classes" are held and without a license cannot attend them. I called to state this, and was told if I could make it to Marlborough, MA, there was a van each Wednesday that takes people to it.

To break down the math - 20 miles to Worcester from my home, or 30 miles to Marlborough to catch a van to take me to Worcester.

Well, maybe it's going to take enough people without licenses out there to smarten the system up a bit. Oh, and they might want to start enforcing these laws on the cops who drive drunk, politicians who drive drunk, judges who drive drunk, and anyone else who lives outside the "laws" you and I are subjected to.

Melanie is a duchbag. Risk is everywhere.

Puffin1241 wrote:

I was convicted of a subsequent OUI in 2004. I was sent a letter by the RMV 1 year latter I was eligible for reinstatement. I held off and went and paid my reinstatement fee of $500.00, paid the fee to take the Learner's Permit and passed it in early 2006. When I went to schedule the road test I was denied due to the Melanie Law. I could have been reinstated before the law went into effect but did not have the money. Then I paid the state the reistatement fee and other fees and was shut down. I could not afford the maintenance of the "program" and had to sell my cars to pay my mortgage. I was elegible for reinstatement before the law took effect. Does anyone know if I have a case. If not I want my money back because I don't have my license reinstated but the Commonwealth has my money. Thanks

did you get any results