Red tags of shame for DUI cases? (Ca. license plates)

(snip) Call it the scarlet letter for drunken drivers.
A California lawmaker wants to force two-time offenders to attach red license plates with the letters DUI, for "driving under the influence," to their vehicles - a rolling advertisement of their crimes.
Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, said he is proposing the plates, which would remain on offenders' vehicles for two years, to help tackle a disturbing rise in alcohol-related roadway deaths.


http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/story/14233854p-15055602c.html

Gee, that seems fair :wtf:

Anybody see a business opportunity in making license plate security devices for the increase in plate theft which would likely follow such a law?

and this isn't.

Do we legally punish whole families for the crime of one?

> Do we legally punish whole families for the crime of one?

Frequently.

For example, when we jail the only bread-winner in
a family, we punish the entire family. They may lose
their cars, their home, their education, and even
their lives.

By comparison, suffering the embarrasment of driving
around with a plate that says the registered owner of
the car is a known drunk driver is small potatoes.

Tesha

not as SEVERE of an injustice as "jail the only bread-winner in a family"? Very poor argument here.

Work on the heavy-hitting injustices first, then we can solve
life's little offences.

Tesha

You're right that this isn't just! I don't think the punishment is severe enough! In addition to special license plates and a notation of the previous DUIs ON THE DRIVER'S LICENSE, I favor punishments to really get drunks off the road, similar to Sweden's: First offense, 30 days+1 yr suspension (regardless of need to drive for a job), second offense, 1 yr jail+5 year suspension, 3rd offense, 5yrs + lifetime revocation. Killing someone while driving drunk is considered murder, 20 years to life. They have very few second offenses.

Don't "unjust stigma" me. Criminals need to know that actions have real consequences, and DRUNK DRIVERS ARE CRIMINALS. At the very least, they are guilty of attempted assault with a deadly weapon when driving with a BAC of .08% or higher.

It might be worth it if the cops stop the drinker than if the family always has to play the bad guy. Can we get any comments from people in that position?

when you are taking the kiddies to soccer practice.

Fucking California out-of-touch politicians--they assume EVERYONE owns their own car or two, and that sharing is totally out of fashion.

Can you imagine being a child and you're parents drop you off somewhere with this license plate? It's already a very difficult experience for the child if the parent/s have a real drinking problem. But to expose this to everyone would be so harmful to anyone else. Stupid idea.

Thus your statement is to a NON-PROBLEM. The Child already has to deal with the fact WITHOUT such a plate. Your fellow kids says your father is a drunk, and you just say so what? You can DENY IT for it is true. My point is this plate will NOT harm children and their Friends, they know your parent's problems, it will help people see a person they do NOT know has a problem AND may even get the drunk to quit drinking.

Thus I see nothing but good coming from this plate as far as Children are Concerned. As to Adults who have to drive the same car, most teenagers will grab the car no matter the plate if that is all that is available. Thus again NOT a problem. As to the spouse, she or he has to make a choice, either NEVER drive the Drunk's car, OR if you do accept the fact that you are driving the Drunk's car and do something about it (i.e. leave your spouse, or tell him or her you will leave unless he or her seeks treatment).

I am sorry for being cold hearted, but if a ONE DUI convictions is NOT enough to get someone to quit drinking and driving then the law is sp strict today that the mere conviction for the second DUI will do more harm to the family then any signs on a Plate. Sorry, people have to realized that if caught Drinking and Driving they and their family will suffer (For they ARE suffering BEFORE the recent increase in DUI Sentences) and if they are NOT willing to stop drinking then the suffering will continue till the drinking ends within the family one way or another (i.e. Arrest, Jail time or Divorce and break up of the Family).

Much drinking is secretive. I don't see how the kids at school would know about it but a license plate would tell them. I speak also as a child of alcoholics and this would have mortified me. Children are completely powerless and they would be collateral victims in this punishment. We disagree.

That other kids would not only know about the drinking but also accept it at least to the degree that they would not take it out on their peers.

it must univerally apply :eyes:

I do not think that DUI plates would make any difference to the habitual drunk driver but it is good to hear the voice of someone who sees the issue from within the family.

While we're at it, why don't we strap these people to a poll and give them 40 lashes per DUI offense?

I could go off on a rant here, pointing out that DUI has turned into a money-making machine for lawyers and the goverment, especially given the fact that .08 BAC is no where near "impaired," but why bother? The idiocy of this on its face, I think, is enough. I'm not usually one to scream about the rights of the criminal over the victim, but in this case, the right to privacy sure as hell trumps the right of the state to point its finger and go "Nyah nyah nyah!"

What is really needed is better alcohol treatment programs.

Remember, one of the first things to go out the window is judgment. Maybe that's why we have so many people Well I haven't hit anyone yet!"

Don't forget the insuance industry!

My guess is if the insurance industry says drunk drivers are costing it big bucks, they probably are!

the incentive for insurance providers, I think.

get real dude. And no, I don't support this idea for special plates.

http://www.geocities.com/dammdrinker/

A book from the cheekily named Drinkers Against Mad Mothers. It's only 60 pages long, all online, uses only government statistics, and shows just what a grossly distorted nonissue "drunk driving" is. It's a cash cow for lawyers and the government, nothing more. The statistics often bandied about -- that drunk drivers kill 20,000 or 25,000 people a year -- are utter falsifications. The problem has gotten so bad that Candy Lightner, the woman who founded MADD, has left the organization and now works for the distillers lobby. Nuff said.

There is a difference between drinking and driving, and driving drunk. And the line has become so blurred, and the laws so draconian, that the distinction has become utterly meaningless.

It would be different if they are saying this is for all offenders, but they aren't. If someone has proven that they didn't learn from their first time and they get a second DUI...we as drivers deserve to know. The driver clearly brings it on themselves.

And as far as punishing the whole family...not anymore so (and probably less so) than having a blow n' go installed in the car.

Drunk drivers kill far too many people, and this step doesn't seem draconian to me.

and throw away the key. Until they actually do commit a real crime in which victims have been injured or killed, this strikes me as nanny-state B.S.

one that is potentially fatal to others, right? This is kind of like saying 'sure, shoot your guns in the town square all you want, we won't stop you until you actually hit someone." you can fairly easily predict that someone shooting at random will eventually hit someone, just as you can predict that someone driving drunk will eventually hit someone.

I wouldn't do this, actually, I would simply confiscate vehicles after the third offense in two years, they can have them back when their license is returned. Suspending licenses doesn't work, if people keep their cars, since they will drive anyway. I don't care who's car it is, impound it, anyone stupid enough to let a habitual drunk driver use their vehicle should know their car may vanish.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying DUI shouldn't be a crime. But there are huge problems with the law as it stands. It has allowed the cops to shoot massive holes in the fourth amendment. It has that absurd .08 BAC attached to it (That's two beers in a freaking hour for an average man -- hardly impaired), and some states are even talking about going lower. In Wisconsin a few years back, MADD was pushing a law that would lower it to .02, until experts pointed out that you would be legally drunk after having cough syrup.

I'm not against DUI laws. But DUI laws as they now stand are draconian and counter-productive

helmet laws and drugs laws. All of those deal with your right to endanger yourself, DUI, besides endangering yourself, also endangers others, without their consent. I think .08 is reasonable, frankly, for many people, two beers on an empty stomach will, in fact, impair their ability to drive, and the line has to be somewhere, right? I did a simulation class as a teenager, where we were given alcohol (I have no idea how this was legal, but whatever, my parents signed off) and then drove an obstacle course in a go-cart. every time you completed the course in a certain amount of time, without knocking down a cone, you went to the next level. I washed out after my fourth drink in about an hour and a half, and I'm a big guy. So it really does make a difference.

Well good, I am too. You or I not wearing our seat belts isn't probably going to hurt anyone. Me smoking a bowl in my house surely won't hurt anyone. You get someone at .08 blood alcohol level (which is impaired for a majority of people) and give them the keys to a car and you are running the chance of hurting someone.

Sure, there are probably TONS of people who drink and drive daily and never hurt anyone, but what if it were your child killed on your street by your neighbor who that he wasn't impaired?

Continue the fight against absurd drug laws, more power to you...but at least try to see how drunk driving is a totally seperate ballgame.

Imagine if you were married to or a child of the person who had the DUI. Should you be punished too?

say it's my dad, and I'm a minor child. If he goes to jail, I am punished, if he loses his license and can't work, I am punished, if he wraps his car around a Honda and kills someone, who's family sues us for everything we have, I am punished. If his insurance goes up, and we can't buy food, I am punished. If I'm in the car with him, while he crashed, I am punished.

sucks, don't it? can you think of a single instance in which you could enforce any law without punishing someone's spouse or children in some way? I can't.

and is inflicted directly by the alcoholic. Many if not most DUI cases are just isolated incidences without any repercussions beyond the DUI. Many drunks pay their bills and lead perfectly normal lives on the surface. I just disagree with the idea that The State should be inflicting punishment to everyone in the family publically and directly. We disagree.

and I don't like te pink tags, I simply think your car should be confiscated. if you commit multiple crimes with a legal gun, they'll take your gun, right? why not a car, something that there is no constitutional right to own?

Perhaps I was connecting what you said to another post and I apologize. Drunk driving definitely should be punished. I'm just against the Branding of it with a plate.

Without trying to be argumentative here, I think you are failing to distinguish between "punishment as set down by a court of law" and the "inherent consequences of the original action".

Relevant definition of 'Punishment' in this context: "A penalty imposed for wrongdoing"
Relevant definition of 'Consequences' in this context: "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition"
(Source: Dictionary.com)

The children and spouse are not being directly punished by the court as they are not directly tied to the case (all other things being equal). However, the consequences of the individual who broke the law and was caught doing it will have direct consequences on the children and spouse.

E.g., When my father was in jail for pushing dope across the state lines in the early 70's, I was not punished, however I was affected by the consequences of his action.

Your argument is valid if we broaden the definition of "punishment" to include any and all negative consequences of an action, but I don't think that's very precise or appropriate. Otherwise, we'd have people attempting to sue lightning strikes as they might unjustly 'punish' a person for being in the wrong place during a rain storm.

Just my dos centavos....

Getting around this law would be as easy as renting, borrowing, replacing, or re-registering a car (unless the DUI designation was placed ON THE LICENSE). It penalizes other family members who may need to drive the car. And it gives the cops carte blanche to pull them over for no reason. Oh, and why are two-time drunk driving offenders driving AT ALL? Take their liceneses away!!!

:headbang:
rocknation

This is much better than other states suspending licenses for repeated offenses. :eyes:

Get drunk, kill somebody and get your own soon to be valuable collectible license plate!

Call within the next ten minutes and we will include a front plate as well!

using a combo of punishment, shame and making people feel guilty and others to presume their guilt to force them into line, in this case the line being drinking is bad.
Not all that different from the anti-smoking laws being passed that are skirting the line of prohibition, but have a clearly prohibitionist sentiment. Years ago in Germany I visited a museum that had medieval shame masks. People would be forced to wear them, then would be paraded down the street, subject to the town's condemnation, both verbal and physical. We seem to be returning to that time and behavior.
Here's a link to the museum if anyone is curious. It is a fascinating repository of punishment devices, legal and legislative documents and, fo all things, love poems from that time. The image on the front page is one of the shame masks.
http://www.kriminalmuseum.rothenburg.de/Englisch/page1.html

enforce social norms?

ways to punish past acts and to create a presumption of future criminality. I think that's a dangerous trend.

about as useful as those "baby on board" signs.

To be honest the "baby on board" signs do a little to calm my sometimes-present road-rage...that and little old people.

Just sayin.

time, Require treatment and issue a serious FINE, IMPOUND the car and sell it the second time and put them in jail for a year of AA meetings and take there license for 5 years and tripple the fine.. the 3rd time they lose the car do 5 years and never get to drive again.. anywhere in the USA.

there needs to treatment centers to accompany this program, INTENSE EDUCATION from early elementary school, and meetings twice a day in prison.

i am an alcoholic.. alcoholics do not take any vacations, if you are drunk all the time you will drive drunk all the time.

i essentially blacked out on my first drink and woke up 30 years later.. i want to thank my wife Candace for providing the 'Rock Bottom' event that ..'Woke me Up'.

we need to provide 'Rock Bottom' events earlier in the alcoholic process, alcohol is an insidious drug. killing people under the influence is Murder, NOT manslaughter. treat it as such.

I'm pretty sure a law alot like this in MN was found unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. I know the MN law gave repeate offenders specific licence plates and the car could be pulled over and the driver brethalized at any time.

BRIGHT orangy yellow plates with bright red letters - EVERYONE knows they mean "drunk driver coming."

The whole family gets to have one...every car the offender could drive which is registered to the same address as the offender...and the Ohio BMV gets red flagged for you and your family if you try to sneak around it.

Has been that way here for a couple of decades now..

My knee-jerk is "forehead tattooing! ARRGH!" but then, this is cars we're talking about, not foreheads, and so they don't have to drive them. Also you can't see the person inside that easily.

Also I wonder if it might mean unnecessary Highway Patrol harassment.

and it did not stop them....

Also in reference to the poster who asked about OSP harrassment...yes, that happened too..however, if you live in Ohio and are driving on a freeway after near or after 0200 hours, it really does NOT matter if you have those type of plates or not...they assume you are drunk.

Now, I know they have to have some probably cause to pull you over...like one bulb on one side of your license plate light being out, or the every popular "swerving" excuse...but, I was with my son one night and we were coming back from a family gathering that ran rather late, no drinking involved by anyone, he was driving, and he told me "watch, before we get home I will be pulled over"

True to word, about 3/4 of the way home, we were pulled over on I70 EB by OSP, and told "stopped you because you rear license plate has one bulb burned out...license, registration and proof of insurance please?" I asked the officer what type of ticket he was writing, and he said "it is a simple warning verbally that your light is out."

OK, now my son is starting to panic cause he sees "the look" coming over my face. (Psst..Mom...hush up, it does not matter). Well, I wanted him to show me exactly which bulb was out, you know, so I can make dang sure I get the right one replaced first thing in the AM when it is daylight and might be hard to see. At that point, the OSP officer did NOT want me getting out of the car...so I was nice enough to tell him I would check it after he pulled away if he was concerned for his safety, and could I please have his badge number so I can send a thank you letter to his post commander for his concern over our safety with the every so serious issue of one (out of two) burned out license plate lights. Such a courteous officer.

Of course you all know there was no burned out light, and the officer received a very nice letter for his file, sent courtesy to his post commander.

had to drive around with "party plates". When I see the plates (I live in Ravenna, OH), they remind me of New Mexico plates. Do I think it's a bad idea? I've gotta say no. It's the fault of the drunk driver that all family members must suffer the consequences of drunk driving, not the state.

One more thing to add to my running talley of bizarre things in Ohio....;)

we know how stupid it has become.

That WILL change in November :)

Now, there's an idea I could go for.

Governor Ahnuld on board

hanging around their necks instead?

...crime, they have paid it in full. If you disagree, work to stiffen the penalties, not stigmatize them. The point here is rehabilitation, not perpetual punishment.

PB

...then don't register cars to them at all.

I have zero sympathy for drunk drivers (our family was almost killed by one a few years ago on New Year's Eve), but this proposal sounds rather 1700's-ish, doesn't it? Shades of the Scarlet Letter and all that...

Here's just one small example. A European town had a litter problem. They decided to increase fines for littering. That didn't solve the problem. They tried other solutions to no affect. Finally, they decided to have special garbage cans with recorders built into them, so that when litter was placed into them, a joke was played. Different cans had different jokes. And they were rerecorded every few weeks. Immediately, the litter problem was solved.

America is punitive driven. War on this, war on that. And it doesn't work. Humans do not respond positively to punishment. It really pisses me off that we just keep repeating the same mistakes.

First of all, let's ask why people are getting drunk. Let's turn the problem around. The results we get might not be so agreeable with our society. Perhaps people drink and get drunk. And perhaps it's not drinking that is the problem. Maybe it's driving. And I don't just mean driving while drunk. I mean, driving period. Hint: global warming? Or if that isn't it, maybe instead of billions on bombs, perhaps just a billion on taxi's or even (god forbid) transit systems. Oh, yeah, we used to have that, but it didn't fare well with the big corporations.

I'm just throwing out ideas. I'm sure no one cares, or that they will get ridiculed. We don't like thinking outside of the box, even if the commercials blab that that is what we should be doing.

I have argued for years that the subway (I'm in the Boston area) should be fully open 24-7 to allow people to travel safely to and from bars etc without driving.

I am all for geting creative and addressing the underlying causes. However for those who currently continue after being caught a couple of times to drive severely impaired (I know not all are severely impaired but let me use the sub-set for a min.) I seriously doubt anything is going to change the situation to much. The problem is that many of these drivers are alchoholics and in many places public transit is not a real option. At some point reasonable penalties need to be part of the system. And getting creative with the pentalties isn't the worst concept ever. I don't think this law is necisarily a good idea but comming up with creative punitive options as well as creative preventitive strategies to address the underlying problems is a good idea IMO.

Yes, we're really having to fight our own government, or compete with corporations, to get what we really need. It's a bit late now, after we spent our nest egg on bombs. Oh well. I agree, totally with you. I also think repeat offenders are really lost. They can't find their way out. Punishment only adds to their problems.

They can't wait to drag us all back into the Dark Ages. Keeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrriisst!!!

The embarassed trailer trash needs be outed with plates of shame.
The DUI party gifts us with further reflective irony, how charming.

applied to those irresponsible asses.
But that's just my opinion.

my boyfriend's sister was killed by a fucking drunk driver who been cited numerous times before. I HATE drunk drivers! :grr:

No plate is going to stop an alcoholic. He should have been handled at his second infraction well before your boyfriend's terrible loss.

people that there is this character on the road who doesn't care enough about his/her life and the lives of others around them. I would prefer to know so I can switch lanes and pass, if necessary. It's just too damn bad if family members end up having to drive with the tag. Maybe they could work something out where family members don't have to put the tag on their own car, but if DUIer is caught driving without the tag, he gets jail time or something.

How about signs in their front yard, "Home of Drunk Driver".

Red arm bands for the whole family to worn at all times.

Tattoos on their foreheads, DUI.

And finally, FORMER DRUNK DRIVER on their grave markers after they die. Why should death excuse them from their sins?

Here lies the body a wonderful guy,

He'd be in heaven if not for his DUI.

If you understand drunks and they families they Already have those signs and even the local dogs can read the signs (and these signs have been know for Millenniums)

twist your views about public policy.

People will NOT face their faults unless it is brought to their attention (And sometime NOT even then). Remember in a family with a drunk you generally have TWO people not willing to face their problem, the drunk and his or her partner (i.e. the drunk's enabler). You have to force one or the other to face the facts, and by giving them the mark of shame you force BOTH of them to face the facts. If they can NOT face the facts then other family members (i.e Their parents and siblings) will have to face the facts and if that does not do it then CYS. The children of drunks are often hurt but not by other parents, and when told NOT to by their parents, other children. The Children of Drunks are most hurt by THEIR PARENTS, who everyone knows is a drunk with or without such mark of shame.

I am sorry, some time a stick is what is needed. Remember we are NOT talking about someone who generally just started to drink, but has been drinking for years and believes he or she can handle it. They can't, but you have to show them they can not and do so over and over. Some people will NEVER get the message. Some people are so addicted they can not quit (and if that is the case the best way to handle such can not quit drunk is to mark them with a plate that they can not quit drinking).

Remember my position is that you can NOT use the fact that a family member will be "harmed" do to having to use car with DUI plate on it. Such family members already have the stigma of living with a drunk and all their friends know it. When you use the other family members as excuses NOT to punish the drunk, all you are doing is protecting the Drunk NOT his or her family. In fact you tend to hurt such family members by covering up the drunkenness. Address the real issue is how to handle the drunks and alcoholics in our society. You have to have a one two punch, the right hand punch of force and embarrassment to force them as much as possible to get help and the left punch of providing support while dealing with demon rum (Examples of the later would be permitting drunks and alcoholics to get Social Security when it sis shown they can not quit and can not work and to provide such aid till one or the other condition is no longer true).

One of the problems with most drunks is that so many people are covering up for their problem that the problem is never addressed by the drunk nor society as a whole. What do you do with a drunk who can not quit and can not work to do his alcoholism? You can not just cut him off from support (because he has none since he can not work because he or she can not quit drinking). On the other hand you can not give him or her the Social Security Check (In the days before Congress outlawed Social Security when such a person received Social Security he or she had to have a third party take the check and make sure his and her rent, food and other day to day needs were meet, it was a very good way to handle the problem of alcoholics who could NOT quit and could not work).

We, as a society, need to address the problem of alcoholics, in a way not to cause harm to the alcoholic nor they families, but at the same time accept that the greatest harm to the alcoholic family is the Alcoholic NOT the punishment to the Alcoholic. You need to force the Alcoholic to face his or her addiction, and at the same time minimize harm to the Alcoholic and his or her family. It is often tough to do, but it requires both a left and right drive, the right punch of force and the left punch of love. BOTH must be used, one by themselves will not work.

While the left right punch is the key, lets us remember when using the left punch NOT to use the family as a way to protect the alcoholic from the consequences of being an alcoholic. Lets the alcoholic face the music and the punishment he entitles for being an alcoholic, at the same time support his or her efforts to quit. IT is often a tough balance to do, but protecting the drunk under the guise of protecting his family is NOT such a balance, it is enabling the alcoholic.

Or something like that.

Might as well run around drunk, firing off a pistol.

I don't think the law should play this role

It's about time that people who commit crimes understand that their actions have consequences, and public censure should be one of those consequences. It still is in small towns; in larger communities, special licenses or bumper stickers can substitute.

I think we should do whatever it takes to keep drunks off the road.

or a Hot pink shirt for women who "put out" (would save guys a lot of time looking for 'em)

or black clothing for depressed people (oh wait.. they already DO wear black a lot)

or horizontal stripes for fat people so they stand out even more

or ......

I think most of us here would agree that after a being caught a second time drunk driveing that its time to take the licence away for a bit right?
But many states offer hardship licences etc. to prevent other problems (like the whole family being put out of their home becuse someone can't work). So would it be reasonable to require anyone with a hardship licence to sport a certain plate for that period? If the car was seen driveing outside the hours etc permited it could be stoped to see if the operator was the person on a hardship licence (If a cop runs your plate and its registered to a suspended licence holder a similar thing is done). Would it be reasonable to stop them for random alchohol screening (remember already caught twice and only on a hardship licence).

As a side note. What if the punishment varied with the level of intoxication on the previous arests. Lets say you have someone who was pulled over twice smashed out of their mind... they eventualy get back on the road (why is beyond me) would special plates be reasonable for them but perhapse not for the person who was just barely over the limit twice?

learning tool. :sarcasm:

VS. Attempting to save lives by discouraging drunk driving.





Yeah, I really have to think about that one . . . :banghead:

So what about the humilation, it will help stop the spread of the disease.

Lets label people with Herpes with Red arm bands.

Lets label unwed mothers on welfare with green arm bands. Moochers.

Pink shirts for anyone who ever went to prison.

Sex offenders should be required to wear Bright Yellow shoes. Even if they were only accused.

two-time offenders ?

Damn right..throw the book at the b*stards!

....anyone even try telling me anything like "it's not fair to punish someone else using the car". My answer, "Oh well, if others in the family have to suffer as well, maybe, just maybe, protecting the family will be a concern the next time."

I can hear the younger male crowd boasting about how soon they got their red tags.

I think it's a P for Provisional (?) on your car if you are a new driver or have had your license taken away for any reason (including drunk driving) for 2 years. If after 2 years you have no problems you have the P taken off.

That seems more fair to me.

Invasion of privacy. Should they force you to have stuff put on your license plate if you had a speeding ticket, seat belt violation, or illegal parking? So why single out DUIs? There are car chases every day in California. The guy is caught, arrested and sent to jail. Once his time is up he can go back on the streets without any scarlet letter branded on his car, and they are just as dangerous if not moreso than DUIs. It is an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional.

Privacy's another thing altogether.

The US Courts have long held that economic equality is NOT part of the doctrine of Equal Protection of the laws, thus the old adage the "law treat everyone equally, it prohibits both the Rich and Poor from sleeping under Bridges". As to this Plate, if you are convicted of a Crime while operating a motor vehicle (Which is the type of Crime being discussed to justify the DUI plate) the state can impose any restriction it wants on you for as long as te state wants to provided it does the same to everyone convicted of the same crime. The state can even increase the length of a punishment based on previous convictions (Which again is the situation here). Furthermore no Court has ever ruled you have a constitutional right to drive a Motor Vehicle (You have a Constitutional right of freedom of movement but that right is based on your right to WALK anywhere you want to on a public road, note the right is restricted to Walking and argument can be made for the right to pull a hand cart, but the states have always have the right to restrict and even ban horse drawn wagons provided the restrictions are based on Health considerations, i.e. require the horse to wear a diaper).

Given you have no Constitutional Right to operate a Motor Vehicle, operation of such Motor Vehicle on the Public Roads can be regulated by the state. I.e. the State can require you to have a License Plate on the Car and obtain a Driver's License. As to the Regulations themselves, as long as they treat everyone in the same situation the same the Regulations are constitutional i.e. if on the Second Conviction of a DUI Everyone must have a DUI Plate, that is perfectly constitutional. IT is NOT a violation of Equal protection of the law.

As to the Constitutional Right of Privacy, this law does not affect that. If you do NOT want to operate a car with a DUI plate either do NOT Drive on the Public Roads or do NOT get the Conviction (i.e. do NOT do the crime of Driving while intoxicated). Again the Right of Privacy is based on your Right to be left alone in your own home. Once you leave your home and travel on the PUBLIC ROAD, you no longer have a right to Privacy as to you operating a Motor Vehicles on the Public Streets. Remember we are NOT talking about what someone is doing in his own home (Or on his own property), but what he is doing on the Public Streets. If you want to operate a car on the Public Streets you have to agree to the regulations of the State. If you want to preserve your privacy you can do so, by walking on those Public Streets. If you want to DRIVE on those streets then you have to agree to any reasonable regulation impose on people who drive on those streets. One of those regulation is that the Car you are operating have a Plate (another is you have a Driver's License). These regulations are reasonable and if you add the Restriction of a DUI plate upon the Second Conviction of a DUI, the person wanting to drive after his or her Second Conviction, will have to agree to that restriction OR give up his right to drive (If the person values their Privacy more than they ability to drive).

The above sounds harsh, but it is HOW the Courts will view this restriction. I did not go into the public Policy concerns as to adopting this Policy for that is up to the State Legislature to decide (and being discussed quite fully in this thread). I am just addressing the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the proposed law which I believe is Fully Constitutional. Whether it is good public Policy is a different story and I hope is not added to this sub-thread it is being address in this thread overall.

Attach that to the bill and see how many R-Pervs vote for it.

First, find a common enemy. Someone people will love to throw stones at. Now mark them. Make it so everyone knows who they are. Since they are already pariahs it will be easy to spread hatred for the group marked, hey,it's built in.

Now that people are used to that, start marking other groups.

Viola, Democrats hate america. They HATE freedom. They hate our troops. They love terrorists and debauchery like gay men marrying. They hate all decent america values like marriage, family and church. Let's make sure we mark them so nobody hires them. Lets just put a big sticker on their car so their neighbors, co-workers and heck decent red-blooded christian american gun owners - especially the ones that believe in taking the law into their own hands, can deal with them.

Let's spread hate. Let's start with the pariahs and then show you more pariahs. Lets let the "decent" people decide who the pariahs are.

I'm ashamed of many here on DU. Sad to see people who would instill facism the second it's convient to them. The second it's a group they loathe.

The people you are following have already said their agenda and it really does take a moran to think it stops with the drunks.

Please someone, send me links to a site where there are people who will stand against facism.

The problem with chronic drunks or alcoholics or whatever you want to call them is that taking away their licenses doesn't stop them from driving. This is a society based around the automobile. I knew a guy who drove two years without a license and often drove drunk in that time.I had uncles who weren't completely sober once in thirty years and drove all that time. The plates are an indication to police that the car is accessible to a driver who has been shown to be a hazard in the past and that it is reasonable to check to see if the driver is a current hazard. We just had a cop cause an accident while driving drunk, so I'm not sure that all the education in the world is going to stop the core group of drinkers. It makes the social drinkers more careful, but there is a group of people out there bound and determined that it's their right to go out and pound down a few and then drive home.

not the ones caught by this witch hunt. I say this, as does my husband, as the daughter in law and son of an alcoholic who later took his own life. Many a time he drove when he shouldn't have...and got away with it. Twice, we called the cops...He STILL got away with it. Meanwhile, my neighbor's wife was just brought in-an upstanding wife, mother, and middle school teach-who happened to go to a tupperware party. She'll probably pay the full price, while Mr. I have a ton of money and can get the best lawyers won't. This is where we need to aim our anger. I say this as one who doesn't drink at all...I see these DUI laws as making the wrong people pay. I am quite sure that if I drank cough syrup and got on the road I would be busted. One, our limit is low. Two, I haven't had a drink in about 10 years.

This guy was higher than a kite but his lawyer managed to keep him out of jail several times. I don't have any idea how he managed to do that. I think the reason is that judges really are reluctant to put middle class white guys in jail, but I honestly don't know any other way to keep a chronic drinker out from behind the wheel. These guys will keep going until they themselves are killed.

Having said that, someone who has had one too many just one time is just as impaired as the chronic drunk. Impaired is impaired. Drunk driving is drunk driving.

would pretty much mean alcohol, in itself, should be made illegal. So many times the punishment doesn't fit the crime. We'll have to agree to disagree. This law goes too far, as do lowering intoxication levels to the miniscule.

"We just had a cop cause an accident while driving drunk ..."

If this cop doesn't lose his job, then the patrol car he drives should sport the bright red DUI plate. If other officers drive that car on their shifts, too bad.

Heck, all the patrol cars at that station should be red-plated, since the cop involved could possibly have access to them, even those cars not assigned specifically to him.

I'm sure his fellow officers would be in favor of this.... ;)

It's not the car's fault when someone drives drunk.

The Scarlet Letter should be applied to the individual's driver license, right there next to the "Must wear corrective lenses" box. It would be useful information for bartenders as well as police officers.

I'd combine that with my gun safety proposal that our legislators have been ignoring for years: Anyone who is legally disqualified from owning a firearm should have that fact reflected on their driver license.

can't see the driver's license until after he stops a car. He can pick out a plate in a line of cars going by. On a given Saturday night, the odds that someone with a red plate is driving under the influence again can be pretty good. Think of it as being on probation.

Swerving, changing lanes without signaling, driving too fast or too slow.

Think of it as being on probation.

OK, that would make it unconstitutional to impose it on anyone with a past conviction who has already been sentenced.

Sometimes the cop isn't around when the aberrant behavior is displayed. Remember too that a driver's license isn't an automatic right. That's why it's legal to set up traffic stops that allow the police to check every car and driver for seat belt use, registrations, DUI etc.

The red plates would be part of the original sentence. I think it would be applied on future convictions.

...right? Faulty logic my friend...

:eyes:

Read your local paper under the accident reports and look how often the person involved in a fatal crash was arrested several times for DUI or DWI. I'd rather see them stopped before the accident.

So everyone that has a red license plate is drunk ALL the time?

The problem here is that the law and sentencing do not adaquately address the over-riding cause. Simply labelling them public as having been convicted of DUI doesn't stop them from drinking, not from getting behind the wheel of a car smashed out of their heads...

It's called the French alcoholic syndrome. As I said above, I had two uncles who more or less kept a steady buzz on for about 30 years.

I don't think so.

Does that go with freedom fries?
Or is it just a culturally biased designation based upon prejudice against a group?
I put it in quotes and googled it and didn't get a single hit.
Where does it come from?

when she worked an alcohol treatment ward back in the 70's and 80's. It refers to people who keep a steady buzz on. They're functional, but in reality, they're never completely sober. When they're cut off from alcohol, for example they get sick and stop drinking a few days or are admitted to a hospital for something that has nothing to do with their drinking, they frequently go into withdrawal and develop Delirium Tremen's (DTs) My mom detoxed alcoholics and all kinds of drug addicts, she says that alcoholics have the worst time.

Gives stores an excuse to not sell you alcohol when they check your ID, even if you had already done your time. Might as well brand an "A" on their foreheads.

You don't have a right to buy anything from them.

If they would have sold it otherwise, why give them a reason to dicriminate?

Different legal concept, or so their attorneys would argue.

If they refused to sell to all black people, that would be discrimination. Refusing to sell alcohol to convicted drunk drivers could be spun as mitigation of potential liability.

Damn, I should have been a lawyer.

:evilgrin:

Naw.

It would be interesting to poll this thread yea or nay based upon whether the person responding has ever had a DUI or could have been stopped for a DUI. There is a reason why some of us have a zero tolerance in this area, and it's not that we're being judgmental. Drink all you want to, just don't tell us that you can still drive a car because you really can't.

hurt or kill people.

Putting red tags on cars of anyone ever convicted of a DUI doesn't differentiate between those convicted of one DUI in their lifetime after only 2-3 drinks with dinner at a restaurant and those who regularly get behind the wheel of a car after downing several sixpacks, and who habitually do so. It also fails to differentiate between those convicted of felony DUI (causing harm to property or people) and those convictued of DUI not involving causing such harm.

Such tags could also have the effect of causing road rage in other drivers who have conditioned themselves, possibly like you, to strong emotional responses towards anyone ever convicted of a DUI. It could have an effect similar to the effect that might be caused by putting red tags on cars of anyone ever previously convicted of a sex crime - giving rise to vigilante violence.

Then there's the equal protection problem...

I can't think of one positive effect of such a red tag program. Except possibly to make people like you feel better about themselves.

..at them...:eyes:


WHAT FUCKING CENTURY ARE WE LIVING IN?

I can't wait for the first lawsuit to be filed after someone gets the shit beat out of them for driving their fathers/mothers/brothers/sisters car and some holier than thou asshole decides to get a little revenge...

..oh wait, that's been done before....

The red license plate is strictly for someone who has exhibited a behavior known to put others at risk for life and limb. Historically, drunk drivers are repeat offenders who drive regardless of whether or not they have a license. This is a behavior issue. It is not proper to compare it to labeling someone for who they are.

...wouldn't that be the logic used?

The license plate will NOT stop ANYONE from drinking and driving....It is not proper to label someone for their behavior. What century is this anyway??

It just might help get them off the road a little faster. Like before the crash. It might also alert other drivers to give that particular driver a wide berth.

...drive SOBER!!!

The red license plates would simply result in more cases of harassment than anything else.

Eating, applying makeup, or some other distraction. At least during the day.

:grr:

Can you then imagine 90% of the drivers on freeways going after the 10% without red tags? Driving would be pure mayem (as if it's not already).

Drunk drivers, at the very least, are guilty of attempted assault with a deadly weapon (a 2000+ lb vehicle). THEY ARE CRIMINALS. When someone engages in criminal behavior, they most certainly SHOULD be labeled for their illegal and dangerous behavior! Do you not believe in personal responsibility?

This is the 21st century, where criminals should understand that being labeled as criminals is a consequence of their criminal behavior.

who in their classes "exhibit a behavior knowm to put others at risk for life and limb."

Where does it all stop?

Why bother, when you're going to be stuck with a crappy plate that makes you a cop magnet? Just don't register the damn thing, and drive anyway. After all, how often do people really look at registration tags?

Think of all the money you'll save....

(Booze logic... )

I lost a very beloved person to a 15 year old who was on meth, alcohol, and in a stolen car. He'd never been arrested for anything. It wouldn't have saved her, and such a law probably won't save others. I think this is just another action to try to enforce the prohibitionist way of life, which leads to organized crime and a disregard for the law.

Drive without a plate or without a valid inspection stiicker
and you'll get *LOTS* of unwanted attention from the police.

Tesha

If the offender were wealthy, all he would have to do is go out and purchase another vehicle and then sign it over to someone else, like his spouse or kid. Then, drive the new vehicle and park the "red tag" car for a couple years. Right?

There's always a workaround for the well-to-do.

Yeah yeah, drunk driving=bad bad. But honestly where do we start drawing the line about public pronouncements of bad behavior? Can you start requiring special license plates for people who drive like shit, for parents who abuse their children, for doctors who mangle up simple procedures, for parents who use terrible judgement in giving their kids over-powered automobiles?

As you can see, the common denominator here is children, the wall behind which all these goody-two-shoe law-pushing psychotics hide when bellowing forth their temperance garbage.

I have a good idea. Let's put a special tag on the personal vehicles belonging to cops who get stopped and released when they are wasted just because they are enforcement. Heaven knows, cops never drink and drive to they?

have one attached to their State Car?

The way they roll out of bars should be recorded.

Bet someone will catch one of the sponsors of this bill in the act.

...he comes to California?

Want to make life inconvenient for someone? Just slap a couple red-colored tags about the right size onto their license plates.

Real smart, Ray. I hope any vandals start by red-tagging the Sacramento legislators' parking lots.

In the real world we live in a ownership society. Most of the people slick enough to get bailed out of DUI a couple times probably also have ample enough resources to get others to register the car(s) they are driving in others peoples name. Unless they make a law designating what car the drunk can drive this is a no win.

The kind of plate that would make me happy out here in California is one that would designate registered republicans. That way the next time there is case of road rage happening there will be a good identifiable target for them to crash into :evilgrin:

about which crimes receive the giant letter A?? I feel like I live in a land governed by children.

... tags that denote your status. I guess I'd need 'drives on the left' tag. (really I do... drive on the left and honk real hard, after all it's in the Ministry of Transport's Highway Code booklet... drive on the left! It's all them crazies who drive on the right!)

Mind you in all seriousness drunk drivers shouldn't have these special tags, but optional extra tags that people could put on their vehicle if they're unsure of their driving skills (the 'P' plates as used in UK, Australia, and other places) ... and learner driver tags for those who have not passed their test.

Mark.

Driving under the influence is appalling and dangerous irresponsibility, but to brand someone for life for doing it twice is more than extreme, and it certainly isn't progressive.

n/t

of shame. Then he can decide how he likes the law.