Who Needs Evidence When You Can Feel?

A North Carolina attorney demonstrates that the state's certified breath alcohol tester can be fooled by alcohol in the mouth (from the Durham Herald-Sun)

Marcus Hill took a small swig of bourbon and swished it in his mouth.

He spit the liquor into a cup, then blew into the Intoxilyzer 5000, a machine police and the Highway Patrol commonly use to help determine whether a driver is drunk.

Despite not swallowing a drop of the bourbon, the Durham lawyer registered 0.25 -- more than three times the legal threshold for intoxication.

However, Ollie Jeffers, president of the local chapter of the Anti-Saloon League Mothers Against Drunk Driving, can't be bothered with evidence of the machine's inaccuracy.

"I'm just appalled," Jeffers said. "I really feel the Intoxilyzer is credible."

That's right, she "feels" that the machine is credible, even though it has been shown to be able to produce false evidence against innocent defendants. Who needs evidence when we can rely on feelings to determine the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants? I think we should bring back trial by ordeal. Who cares that it's long been discredited? I really feel that trial by ordeal is credible.

(link via DUI Blog)