These policy concerns apply to this wacky idea of MADD court monitoring. First, what good is it for the MADD court monitors to report back on DWI cases unless the court monitor has full insight and knowledge into the case? A seemingly “light” punishment on a defendant may be the result of the defendant’s stellar character and service to the community, or because the prosecutor faced a problem proving their case and thus made a compromise deal, or some other reason. Any lawyer (or other person intimately aware of the justice system) knows that it’s risky and foolish to compare case results (or to question the motives of the judge or prosecutor) unless you know every fact and issue in that case.

Second, will judges and prosecutors reject compromise plea deals, out of fear of looking too lenient on DWI defendants? YES. As a DWI defense lawyer in VA, I have dealt with prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions who tell me expressly that they agree that their DWI case has problems, but that they’d rather lose the case entirely than to make a compromise plea deal [in other words, blame the loss on the judge]. I respond by asking these prosecutors “So, you think MADD would prefer that you try but lose a DWI charge, so the defendant gets off completely, rather than doing a compromise plea deal on a lesser charge with some probation and alcohol education?!”

Finally, the idea of an executive branch agency [NHTSA] monitoring (pressuring?) the judicial branch smells of a separation of powers problem.