Two Things I Don't Get About Melanie's Bill

Last night, state lawmakers finished reconciling the House and Senate versions of Melanie's Bill, which intends to strengthen the laws against drunk driving in Massachusetts. The Senate version of the bill is said to be much harsher than the version the House passed, and in the reconciliation process, some of the language from the Senate version was dropped, making the bill more lenient than it might have been, but still much more harsh than what we have now.

Here's the first thing I don't get. Critics of the House version of the bill are casting their blame on defense attorneys in the Legislature who take up DUI cases. The Globe describes this as a "lucrative practice". I'll buy that, but if these legislators were concerned only with their own bank accounts, wouldn't they want increased penalties for DUIs? After all, the stiffer the penalty, the more likely it is that you'll get a lawyer to fight the charges. What am I missing?

Here's the other thing. The Globe is also saying that Mitt Romney might veto the bill, now that some of the penalties have been reduced. Politically, this might be a way to point out how the Legislature was "soft on crime" (even though they are increasing penalties from the status quo). Still, isn't doing something, even if you don't think it's enough better than doing nothing? It's one thing to be disappointed that the bill doesn't go far enough, but it's another to say that it's not even worth taking that step in the right direction. Let's see what effect the new rules, particularly the one requiring Breathalyzers in cars of repeat offenders, have on incidents of DUI in the Commonwealth and if it's not working, we can always make the laws tougher next time around.