Scarlet Letter for DUI Offenders

[ethics]

Yep, as of January 1st, if you have been convicted of DUI, you will have to drive with new license plates that state so (http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/edit/story/014202004_edtduiplates1-4.asp).

The plates with red letters on a yellow background will have to be displayed until full driving privileges have been restored. The DUI plates will be used by drivers who have been given limited privileges, such as driving to and from work.
Now granted, this is a first (or is it?) in the US and I was wondering how the rest of you felt about this (http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20040104/localnews/163244.html)?

[Frodo Lives]

Works for me. :thumbsup:


Actually I feel if you are convicted of DWI you should have your license taken away permanently, but that would be unreasonable because driving is a constitutional right, not a privilege. :rolleyes:

[limeygit]

Lets face facts, in most places in the US you have to have a car to get to work.
Lets face it, we want these people to work, as they probably have families, and otherwise it is the tax payer who has to cover the expense.
So I fully agree with allowing people to drive to work, and work only. The problem is, how does one enforce this, well a plate saying that is all their are allowed to do is one way. Although what if that car is shared with a spouse?

[Techie2000]

Sounds good to me. However I feel they should have used a light pink background with purple lettering, and have a picture of a daisy in each corner.

[ShinyTop]

It's funny that the Geneva Convention does not permit the humiliation of prisoners but we are approaching it with publishing the names of criminals and making them wear the scarlet letter.

[Techie2000]

Well they aren't prisoners, and they don't have to have the scarlet letter if they don't want it. They just can't drive without it. They made the choice to drive while drinking, now they choose what they want the consequences of their actions are. Sounds lenient to me.

Of course I've only had my license approx 4 months and had some of my rights as a driver taken away recently for no reason other than new laws the legislature voted on passed. So for me, driving is still very much a privilidge, and defintely not a right. Besides if people want to get to work they can always take the bus or ride a bike or walk. I know some people that bike to work every day.

[FrankF]

It seems like a good idea on the surface. But I suspect that cars displaying the plates would be targeted for all sorts of nasty vandalism. Which isn't cool, even if you drove your car slightly inebriated one time and got caught with a BAC of .081. And how about if my wife was driving my car at the time. Does that mean it's o.k. for vigilantes to set fire to my car or slash my tires?

[cdw]

I think you bring up a very good point Frank. I see no reason why it needs to be tagged on the car. It should and does affect the person's license...and that should be enough, IMO

[Frodo Lives]

I think you bring up a very good point Frank. I see no reason why it needs to be tagged on the car. It should and does affect the person's license...and that should be enough, IMO

How would that be enough? Is having a mark on their license stop them from driving improperly? If common sense doesn't stop them from irresponsible driving, such as driving under the influence, then a mark sure isn't going to do it. At least a marked license plate will warn other motorists to take extra caution when encountering such a vehicle.

[Coot]

How would that be enough? Is having a mark on their license stop them from driving improperly? If common sense doesn't stop them from irresponsible driving, such as driving under the influence, then a mark sure isn't going to do it. At least a marked license plate will warn other motorists to take extra caution when encountering such a vehicle.Frodo, I can only assume that you would suppose that equal treatment be applied to folks driving under the influence of marijuana and alcohol? I mean, I don't see any difference in the degradation of hand/eye coordination between intoxiation when evaluating the two.

[Frodo Lives]

Frodo, I can only assume that you would suppose that equal treatment be applied to folks driving under the influence of marijuana and alcohol? I mean, I don't see any difference in the degradation of hand/eye coordination between intoxication between the two.

Sure, driving under the influence of anything enough that your not in complete control of your facilities, then your a danger on the road. Be it alcohol, marijuana, pain meds, cough syrup, old age, youthful immortality, etc. If your caught driving dangerous, you should be punished for your lack of respect for others on the road.

[Coriolis]

I think it's a rediculous idea. Take it from someone who has a DUI (yes, I admit it, a stupid thing I did in college), getting a massive fine, loosing your license for 6 months, and having your name in the paper (I went to college in my home town!) is plenty of humiliation. If someone is going to be a repeat offender (which I can proudly say I'm not!), putting a little yellow sticker on their license plate is not going to help.

[SixofNine]

It's a good thing to identify in some manner the car of a convicted drunk driver who is under some sort of driving restriction, e.g., can only drive to and from work.

It's not such a good thing to humiliate these people either intentionally or as a side effect of the identification part.

Perhaps technology will make it easier to separate the two issues: some sort of "ankle bracelet" for cars that identify the vehicles of drunk drivers to the police and have the same sensitivity to unauthorized removal.

There is a class of chronic drunk driver that no measure except incarceration and treatment will stop. How many times have you read about a drunk driver being caught without a license, registration, insurance, etc.?

Brian

[cdw]

It doesn't alert you to whether they are drunk AT THE PRESENT TIME, now does it? So, how in heaven's name does it protect anyone? IMO, it's being put in effect to try and humiliate the person into behaving and I don't see how it's going to work.
And, as stated above....what if there is one family car? Any driver from the household has to be designated as a dwi suspect too? Rediculous.
By the way, isn't alcoholism designated as a disease? How is this legal to begin with?

[Bill Jackson]

A commercial that ran recently on telivision in Illinois claimed that there were some 50,000 DUI arrests in that state alone last year and most of these were of the .08 variety. Police Officer Lawrence Polk, of Cicero, was was no. # 1 with 283 DUI arrests--what a guy!! If it weren't for him the entire town would have stumbled off the face of the Earth in an alcoholic stupor.

The real issue here is; who is being arrested and why? Below is a link to a CATO Institute report on the subject that I think people might find interesting...


Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social Drinking

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf)

[Advocat]

Here in the province of Ontario, the laws on drinking and driving are extremely strict. If you get stopped by one of the RIDE programs (police checks for drunk drivers), and the police think you have been drinking, you have a choice; blow into the tester, or get arrested for non-compliance. If you blow more than .00, but less than .08, your drivers license and car are confiscated for 12 hours... but if you're too high, the officers can choose to charge you with impaired driving anyways. If you blow .08 or higher (this can be disproved by a blood test, which you can refuse... but it doesn't help your case), you get charged, and your license is confiscated

Refusing to take the breathalyzer test results in the same charges as if you had blown .08.

Just being charged with impaired driving results in a 90 day suspension of your driver's license. If convicted for the first offence, the minimum fine is $600 dollars and your license is suspended for a further year (there are no "hardship" clauses which allow you to drive to work, etc.). At the end of that period, you don't automatically get your license back... you have to have successfully completed a special course. "Successfully" is determined by the course administrators, not just by passing a test.

A second conviction results in a 2 year suspension. A third conviction results in the loss of your license for life.

[Bill Jackson]

"Here in the province of Ontario, the laws on drinking and driving are extremely strict."

It's called zero-tolerance. I think that it is time for people (at least in the United States) to begin showing zero-tolerance for public officials that flaunt the U.S. Constitution.

[Frodo Lives]

I am going to have to agree with you Bill. I have lost to many friends to people driving under the influance to want to see it continue.

[Steve]

I think convicted DUI/DWI offenders should have to pay to have a BAC interlock installed into their ignition system. In order to start the car, they'd have to blow into a tube and have their BAC measured. If it's zero, the car starts. If it's between .01 and .07, the car doesn't start. If it's .08 or higher, the ignition is disabled for 24 hours.

This will keep convicted drunk drivers from driving their automobile while intoxicated and will allow their spouse or anyone else to use the car without worrying about vandalism or reprisals.

[Coriolis]

I think convicted DUI/DWI offenders should have to pay to have a BAC interlock installed into their ignition system. In order to start the car, they'd have to blow into a tube and have their BAC measured. If it's zero, the car starts. If it's between .01 and .07, the car doesn't start. If it's .08 or higher, the ignition is disabled for 24 hours.

This will keep convicted drunk drivers from driving their automobile while intoxicated and will allow their spouse or anyone else to use the car without worrying about vandalism or reprisals.
Damn, perhaps every car ought to have one of those!

[Advocat]

I think convicted DUI/DWI offenders should have to pay to have a BAC interlock installed into their ignition system. In order to start the car, they'd have to blow into a tube and have their BAC measured. If it's zero, the car starts. If it's between .01 and .07, the car doesn't start. If it's .08 or higher, the ignition is disabled for 24 hours.

This will keep convicted drunk drivers from driving their automobile while intoxicated and will allow their spouse or anyone else to use the car without worrying about vandalism or reprisals.

It might be additionally effective if the drunk is made to pay for the equipment rental, installation/deinstallation. Why should the public bear the charge?

[Steve]

It might be additionally effective if the drunk is made to pay for the equipment rental, installation/deinstallation. Why should the public bear the charge?I believe that's what I said.....:)

[Advocat]

I believe that's what I said.....:)

Whups... "<i>Note to self... read previous post before responding</i>" :nut:

[cdw]

Damn, perhaps every car ought to have one of those!

Hell yah, why stop at those that have been caught. Get them installed in every car. Make it even. And those that are sitting there saying that they never drive drunk, because we all know there are some here that do drive drunk under the terms of the law, they just don't feel it, can't drive either! Fair is fair. Put it in everyone's car and everyone can share the cost. And, when you get MJ legalized, or even not, when they can test proof positive for that too, make sure that's in there also. Yay!

[Coriolis]

Hell yah, why stop at those that have been caught. Get them installed in every car. Make it even. And those that are sitting there saying that they never drive drunk, because we all know there are some here that do drive drunk under the terms of the law, they just don't feel it, can't drive either! Fair is fair. Put it in everyone's car and everyone can share the cost. And, when you get MJ legalized, or even not, when they can test proof positive for that too, make sure that's in there also. Yay!See Steve! One hell of an idea! In Washington DC alone you could put congress out of business in one swell foop! :)