Operating Under the Influence

[R Nitelight]

Mass. Considers Drunk Driving Plates
By JOHN McELHENNY, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a sort of ``Scarlet Letter'' license plate for drunken drivers.

Legislators are scheduled to take up a proposal Thursday requiring anyone convicted of driving under the influence at least twice within 10 years to have special ``OUI-2'' plates, for Operating Under the Influence.

Republican state Sen. JoAnn Sprague, sponsor of the proposal, said the special plates would allow police to keep a closer eye on offenders and could dissuade some people from drinking and driving.

The proposal also would increase the minimum penalty for second convictions from 60 days in jail to one year.

``If they don't want a license plate,'' Sprague said, ``they should not drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol.''

Other states such as Ohio, Oregon and Minnesota have experimented with special striped license plates for repeat drunken drivers. Georgia lawmakers are considering a proposal to force offenders to display a scarlet letter ``D'' for ``drunk'' in their rear windshields.

``It's like having a sex offender in your neighborhood. People should know about it,'' Adeline Rotondo, a mother of two, said of the Massachusetts idea.

Bill Redfern, a supervisor at a financial company, called the proposal archaic. ``It's like the `Scarlet Letter,''' said Redfern, 28. ``If you're going to punish somebody, punish him, but don't make a spectacle out of him.''

John Roberts, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, said such a plate would stigmatize not only the offender but also any family member who drove the car.

``We thought the public pillory on Boston Common had been done away with for good reason,'' Roberts said.

The proposal is given little chance of success in the Legislature.

``We have such a strong civil liberties environment that the idea of marking people and setting them up for a police stop is not going to work,'' said Barbara Harrington, executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Massachusetts.

 

[Cirrus]

Interesting. Can I think out loud here? On one hand it's a good idea because it lets other people know when you see someone on the road with the mark they might be hazard. It's a good deterrent too because who'd want to have to do that?

On the other hand, it's a bad idea because if you get an OWI when you're 21 and in college, you're still marked when you're 40 with a family depending on how long they make you keep if for. You should be able to live down your mistakes at some time, unless it's JUST for repeat offenders. It might or might not be setting someone up for a police stop if it's only that you can stop someone with the mark IF they're driving erratically but how would you enforce that?

 

[Tabby432]

tough

John Roberts, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, said such a plate would stigmatize not only the offender but also any family member who drove the car.

My grandmother died because of complications from an accident involving a drunk driver.

It doesn't infringe on anyones rights. It's a great way to promote safe and sober driving from REPEAT offenders. They should be more visable to police.

I also think it would work great as a deterant. You don't want the stigma of being a drunk driver? Don't do it. And definately don't keep doing it.

 

[Wizard]

Ok .....I got nailed about 9 or 10 years ago.....I got caught driving when I had made a mistake and had the"one for the road" drink......I was over the legal limit a very small bit. I think it was 1/10th over the legal limit but still I broke the law non the less. I paid my fines and went to classes and did what I had to do.
Now I may have read that wrong but they said two DUI's inside of 10 years so If that is the case well then there is a problem.
I feel I made a mistake and very bad one and luckly no one was hurt but my pride that night. I think some folks DO MAKE MISTAKES , It will happen........
With that said you understand that most of "us" than have made a mistake will not let it happen again.....
If someone makes two well they knew what could happen to them.........I find it hard to belive that 2 inside of 10 years can happpen by "mistake" a life time maybe but not in 10 years...........

Just my thoughts on this matter................

I say bring on the plates......................

 

[Mustang Sally]

I've been proof-reading court judgments for the past few months. From what I've read, this would never work, at least not in the Canadian system.

A police officer who stopped a vehicle with the sticker/plates would have to prove - every time - that they had just cause for stopping them. Otherwise, the accused could plea the officer infringed on his/her Charter rights. If the officers don't have ample evidence to prove they actually witnessed erratic driving or had other just cause for stopping the vehicle, the evidence (ie. breathalyzer test), would not be admissible in court, even if it proved the driver was drunk as a skunk.

I don't know if I've explained it very well. Criminals get off on stupid technicalities all the time. This would be too easy.

 

[Tabby432]

Too easy?

Let them go through the expense of hiring a lawyer then. It may be easy but at least it will be expensive.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Let them go through the expense of hiring a lawyer then. It may be easy but at least it will be expensive.

They determine costs at the end of trials, usually depending on who won. If it was determined that the Charter rights had been infringed upon, the Crown would almost certainly pay their lawyer's costs.

 

[Tabby432]

Mustang Sally

I'm not familar with Canadian law to know if it's a workable deterant there or not.

I think it can and would work in the U.S.

 

[Mustang Sally]

deterrent

Legalities aside, (and I wasn't saying it wouldn't ever work legally, just that the burden of proof would be on the officer that they had just cause in stopping the vehicle, leaving a big loophole open to offenders), I don't see it as a sufficient deterrent.

The decision to drive drunk is obviously not a rational one, because, well, you're drunk. If threats of suspended licence and jail time don't work, why will a stupid licence plate or window sticker?

Public shame is a powerful punishment, I understand that's the idea behind it, but man, I've known too many alcoholics to believe this would have much effect.

 

[CW]

One side of my brain says this is a super idea. Nail the bastards in any fashion possible,,, drag out the branding irons and mark their foreheads even,,, and mark them deep. To hell with visability to police,,, how about visability to me and my loved ones,,, or you and yours?


Then the other side says that I'm being very stupid,,, cause, 2 offences in 10 years is not the main problem. 2 in 10 seems to be over reacting. The problem is the driver with 5 or 6 or more offences in a year or two ( or less ),,, BTW, insert any numbers you desire, but I think 2 in 10 is off base. And the solution is not a liscense plate that will be affixed to a vehicle that someone else may happen to also drive. Then to, this wonderful plate gets put on a vehicle,,, and that vehicle just sits parked while the offender simply drives another that is titled in another name.

On second thought, perhaps the branding iron idea is best after all.

 

[Tabby432]

No one thing works for all people.

I agree that it wouldn't effect many alcoholics. It's not only alcoholics who drive drunk and risk the lives of others. A large percent are just out having a good time and under estimate the amount of alcohol they've had. With something like this in place they may decide to err on the side of caution and not drive.

I don't buy the argument if it makes one person...etc. But I think this would make a real impact on more than just a few.

 

[MinkSoul]

Oh My.... that's Nice...

instead of helping someone with a drinking problem.... Let's Humiliate them....


then we can All point our fingers at them and chant.... 'We're Better Then You Are... 'We're Better Then You Are... 'We're Better Then You Are...'

 

[Cirrus]

MinkSoul, let me say and I'm not trying to flame you here, that I think you're a little off. I have a family member that's had multiple DUI's. Even for a first offence you're offered help. She's had 4 in the last 2 years, 2 of them on a suspended licence. If she wanted the help, you'd think she'd have taken it by now. She lost her job because she couldn't drive to work and had to take one that payed much less but was in walking distance. Someone has to drive at least 20 miles out of their way for family functions depending on who's picking her up. Yet she still drinks. She doesn't want help. She's had TONS of chances. Can't help someone that won't take it.

Now that's just one case so I don't want to say you're flat out wrong because each case is different but sometimes public embarassment might be the only thing that'll work.

 

[Tabby432]

Mink Soul

instead of helping someone with a drinking problem

Have you ever known anyone with an addiction to alcohol or drugs? There is nothing you can do to help them. Nothing. Not unless they want help.

Maybe this would be the thing to make them reach that point? I don't know, and frankly, I'm more concerned about my loved ones health and safety than an alcoholic I can't help.

 

[MinkSoul]

i realize that there are addicts that don't want help...
and i agree that something Has to be done about people who drink and drive.... i've seen the aftermath...

i just don't see where humiliating them will help.... it might be counter productive... they will say: "Well, i have this license plate, everyone knows i'm a drunk so everyone will avoid me... i think i'll have another drink before i drive home"

i'd rather they had their license suspended/Revoked.... get them off the road, enforce all the laws we already have instead of making new ones...

 

[unusuallyconfused]

Most drunks, and I believe that the repeat offenders are exactly that, do not want help. I have relatives that have had several dui's and still drink and will always drink. You can put them through detox, you can have an intervention, you can let them sit in jail, and they still fucking drink. Now, look at the parents that have lost children because some idiot had to go to the bar and had their umpteenth dui and kills little joe and julie. I bet the parents would of been more than happy to have some type of identification for that vehicle. Screw the rights of the repeat offenders. Humiliate them and maybe it will will save a few families of heartache, grief, and terror.

That just my opinion.

Barbara

 

[Weird Harold]

They're not needed and they're probably dangerous

Such plates are not only not needed, they just might wind up counter-productive if people start paying too much attention to them.

I can see people getting the mistaken impression, "now that drunk drivers are marked with special license plates, all I have to do is watch for the plates and I'll be safe." I'm not claiming it's a logical or rational impression, but "Something Has Been Done" and everyone will therefore be safe has a strong appeal to many people.

I prefer the philosophy of Weird Harold's School of Paranoid Driving:

Every third car on the road is driven by a DRUNK.

The two in between are driven by a DAMNED FOOL and a HOMMOCIDAL MANIAC.

Every tenth car is all of the above.

I'll let you all worry about which one I am.

If you keep those tenets in mind every time you get behind the wheel, and drive like you believe them, you're life expectancy will go way up with regards to accidental death due to another driver's actions.

 

[Willing and Unsure]

my aunt was the cause of a drunk driving accident, and she will never drive again, (not because of health problems or anything like that) because she was not responsible enough to pay for the damages that she caused. and yet i still think that is unfair to the people she injured. i dont think there is really any way for a deterrent since she has no intention of ever repaying them for her actions... there should be more of a deterrent and more of a sentence for repeat offenders besides revoking of the lisence in that state (at least in illinois anyways). maybe if there is sumthin else done about it all, there will be less of it happening