I totally disagree and agree with BorgHunter. They both present a repeated and lethal danger behind the wheel. The drunk is even worse, though–he chooses to enter into and keep driving in that state (at some point before he/she gets drunk, a choice is made).
Not a problem. Guess who should pay for all that? Don’t have they money? Then the state starts seizing and selling assets. Instead of being a drain on the economy, they can actually help it a bit.
To the OP, I think a plate after one DUI, and a shredding of the license after the second DUI is perfectly acceptable.
actually, that is part of the punishment…and might just be a good deterrent .
If you are guilty of drunk driving, the special plates dont just punish you—they punish the other people in your family (who won’t drive your car because they are afraid the boss will see them.)
Imagine a guy in a bar, after a couple drinks, and ordering more, thinkingof possible consequences:
Facing an anonymous judge in traffic court one day for 10 minutes …result: unpleasant.
Facing an angry spouse in the kitchen every day for hours…result: just might be the thing that that convices him to drive safely.
For some reason, Minnesota’s whisky plates aren’t brightly colored. They are plain white, starting with the letter W. The thing that most often catches my eye is the lack of the traditional graphics.
Based on that, I believe that the Minnesota Whisky plates purpose is to let police and sheriffs ID the cars. It’s not to notify other drives, who most likely won’t even notice them.
Just think off all those poor people who had someone tie them to a chair, force liquor down their throat, and then drive at gunpoint. :rolleyes: Drinking is a choice. Driving is a choice. People who make stupid choices repeatedly should not expect to be shielded from the consequences of their actions. If they don’t want to crippled economically they should choose not to drink and drive.
At which point you’ve established a standard that punishing innocent people for the transgressions of others, for no other reason than making the guilty party feel bad about it, is considered legally acceptable. People who have themselves done nothing wrong are facing practical consequences, on the gamble that the consciences of those who’ve already seen fit to endanger themselves and others a minimum of three times are juuuuust strong enough that THIS will be the tipping point that makes them see the error of their ways.
Even ignoring everything that’s wrong with that idea from a moral and/or ethical standpoint, and instead taking a purely pragmatic view of things…are you sure that’s a bet you want to take?
Not really…if you really need three DUI to learn a lesson you don’t deserve a license, and all that comes with it.
In Singapore (ok, hardly the paragon of freedom but still) there is a MANDATORY jail sentence for the second DUI, for the third, straight off the top of my head I think its six months. Typical loss of license for second is two years I think.
A fact drivers should take really seriously at least after the second time they’re convicted for drunk driving, don’t you think?
In the UK, if you are convicted for drink-driving, you will typically get fined and banned from driving for a year. For a second offence within ten years, it’s another fine, a three year ban and a requirement to get examined and signed off by a doctor if you want to drive again after the 3 years.
So losing your licence for drink driving might lose you your job too - but so what? It’s completely avoidable.
There were 250,844,644 passenger vehicles in the U.S. as of 2006; outfitting all of them with ignition interlocks (not counting the periodic recalibrataions or replacements when they break) would cost $376,266,966,000 - that’s over 370 billion dollars. At about 1.5 million DWI/DUI convictions yearly that’s about $250,844 per driver you convict, not counting whatever extra costs it would involve to prosecute and seize their assets. Needless to say, very few of them have it; they typically have a hard time coming up with the two or three grand it takes them to get their license back here. Even if they did have the money (or if the federal government or auto industries paid for it and passed the costs along to you), do you really want to be facing federal financial or criminal penalties if you don’t get your interlock recalibrated every two months, or have to blow into your steering wheel every thirty minutes on a cross country trip and have your engine shut down in the middle of nowhere if you’re too slow?
Quick question: last time you started your car, did you do it with your driver’s license or the ignition key?
Mandatory and permanent license revocation for a first DWI is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory and easy to implement, but every time someone suggests it a misdemeanor prosecutor somewhere bursts into tears, the reason being licenses don’t start cars, keys do. Licenses don’t make operating the car possible, they make operating the car legal, and criminalizes driving without one.
Okay,so the guy driving without a license is now subject to criminal charges, so what and why should we care? We should care because we’re paying for it, a lot. Since Texas imposed a $3000 surcharge to get your license back and keep it following a first DWI conviction (more for subsequent), the number of cases of driving while license suspended (DWLS) because of people who can’t pay the surcharge has skyrocketed. In some larger counties entire days of a misdemeanor docket have to be devoted to DWLS cases, and it costs around $60 a day for everyone sent to jail for DWLS. This adds up quick. With mandatory and permament revocation for a first offense, it would be a nightmare.
DWI cases aren’t necessarily slam dunks for prosecutors either, so the more you rack up jail time and penalties the less incentive defendants have to accept a plea bargain and the more of them go to trial. To save prosecutorial and judicial resouces due to increased fines and penalties, some prosecutors offices have begun offering pretrial diversion programs to first time DWI offenders, so that if they undergo the prosecutor’s probation and keep their nose clean for a year or so, the charges are dropped. The defendant wins because he avoids the conviction and surcharge and gets to keep his license, the prosecutor’s office wins because they make money on the probation fines instead of spending money and resources prosecuting hundreds of DWLS cases, the court wins because the docket is no longer insane, and the county sheriff wins because they don’t have to house dozens of extra prisoners concivted of DWLS. See the irony? Due to the law of unintended consequences, increasing penalities for DWI actually reduced the number of convictions for those arrested for DWI.
I’m not advocating decreased penalties for DWI offenders, far from it. I’m just pointing out that ever increasing penalites for DWI offenders aren’t easy no-brainer fixes - they come at a cost to all of us, not just the offenders.
Wow! Three DUIs? IMHO if you’re convicted of your third DUI, you don’t get to drive any more. You sit in jail for a long time, pay a large fine and you do not drive any more. You cannot be trusted. After your second DUI you should get the bright red tag that warns everyone around you that you’re an irresponsible jerk who could very well kill them.
My car got totaled by a guy who’d lost his license to multiple DUIs. He was drunk and driving his wife’s car. What is out there to stop these people? The U.S. needs harsher punishments and actual enforcement! People here in Europe take the designated driver concept very seriously - because the courts here mean it!
I agree with chappachula. One of the reasons public stockades were used in the past (as opposed to private stockades) was to embarrass and shame the criminal. This shame naturally transferred to family members, who thus had an incentive to keep their relatives in line.
Regarding Roland Orzabal’s comment about not “punishing innocent people for the transgressions of others”, well, that already happens. It would be ridiculous to attempt to tailor punishments so as not to harm “innocent” family members. “Killed twenty people? We’ll let it go this time, since you have a family to support…”
I love how both the Ohio “party plates” and the proposed DUI plates for Maryland look like standard New Mexico license plates., I don’t know if it’s intentional or an inside joke; New Mexico is infamous for the prevalence and tolerance of driving under the influence.
The only way this could possibly be analogous would be if a transferable piece of property, with a reasonably high likelihood of actually being transferred between family members, was specifically designed to label one as the murderer of twenty people. For the record, I’d be opposed to that as well, for the same reason.
Had I objected to imprisonment on the grounds that the innocent may be indirectly affected, you’d have a point (and I’ll grant that I tend to erroneously assume that everyone considers the difference between direct and indirect effect to be as inherent to morality as I do). My point, though, had to do with the fact that underneath the existing system of law, by which it’s entirely legal for me to drive my wife’s car, I stand to come to direct harm by the state-ordered labelling of that car as the possession of a criminal. Punishment should affect the individual as unambigously as possible, with any indirect effects, such as those saddened or hindered by the imprisonment of the offender, being entirely irrelevant.
Assuming there was any actual confusion, this is why I would object to the measure in the OP, but not to the imprisonment of a serial killer. I hope this helps to clarify my position.
Roland Orzabal - Thank you for the clarification. It seems as if we differ on what constitutes a direct vs. indirect effect. Myself, I consider a teenager being too embarrassed to drive drunk Daddy’s car to be an indirect effect. I suspect everyone will draw the line in a slightly different place. Of course, that is what makes The Dope an interesting place…
Hrrm. You may have a point, at that. Usually when I’m debating direct/indirect, I’m the one fighting tooth and nail to prove that a given consequence is not a direct effect, and thus the original action should not be restricted by law. I’m thinking now that I might have been rationalizing a knee-jerk negative response to a legislated punishment I instinctively considered unfair. (I’m a social libertarian; we get like that.) I’ll mull it over a bit and decide whether my original argument is hypocritical.
And you’re right, that’s what’s great about these boards. Coherent alternate perspective can be hard to find in meatspace.
I stand corrected. After reading this again I think he did have two but they were far apart. I think one was in his twenties and the other was in his forties. Not quite sure about the time frame but I do now remember him having two.
My second ex had two and they were really far apart, like twenty years, and he never got the DUI plates.
On the Third DUI they should alert the public. How about one of those lit up Domino’s Pizza signs that says “Drunk Driver”. Then we could see them coming at night too. In my state they have to breathe into an ignition tube but they still beat it by having someone else blow for them.
It is one of those unworkable things that seems kind of logical but causes a lot of complications and troubles. If they have paid their fines and done their time, and it is deemed they are good to drive, then they should not have more grief.
