No ambiguity in OUI law

Once might be a mistake, a serious lapse in judgment that puts lives at risk. Twice is the infuriating act of a recidivist. But three times? Well, if an individual in Massachusetts is charged for a third time with drunken driving — with the two previous cases having ended in a conviction — then a judge should be able to hold that person without bail to ensure they stay off the roads. Legislation filed by Gov. Charlie Baker yesterday would clean up “ambiguous” language in the current law, allowing prosecutors to seek pretrial detention in such cases, and lawmakers should pass it.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled earlier this month that, as currently written, state law allows prosecutors to seek pretrial detention of an accused drunken driver (without bail) only if the accused has prior convictions and has been charged with a fourth offense. (There was one dissent — Justice David Lowy accepted prosecutors’ argument that the law would apply in cases where an offender is charged with OUI after previous convictions.)

But that’s simply too much rope to give a person who has repeatedly flouted the law and in doing so, made Massachusetts roads more dangerous. The law needs clarification, and we hope those lawmakers who double as defense lawyers don’t put up a needless fight.

Baker’s fix removes only three words from the current statute — but in doing so removes the ambiguity and ensures prosecutors have a tools they need to crack down on repeat offenders.

“We should resolve this ambiguity in favor of public safety, rather than in favor of recidivist drunk drivers,” Baker said in a letter to lawmakers.

It seems sloppy drafting has created a loophole that a repeat drunk driver can careen through at top speed. This is an easy fix.