Marking repeat drunk drivers with special license plates

[Sean Howard]

What? Since when? Then why have DUI laws at all? I mean, they haven't *done* anything until they actually have a wreck.

Ex convicts aren't allowed to own guns. Should we repeal that law as well?

If they've been sober for several years (say, 7+), where's the probable cause they might operate machinery under the influence again?

ghetto edit: this is of course assuming they've had only one offense. two or more, I wouldn't be as willing to take the chance.

Well, the whole thing is that we're talking about repeat offenders. My beef is with people that get multiple DUIs, get thrown in jail, have breathalyzers installed on their car's ignition, are forced to go to AA, and somehow manage to get further DUIs. Those people absolutely do exist.

[Big Phil]

Zod, why can't you address the point? You've had plenty of time to explain how colored license plates are beneficial, constitutional, and a good idea. Start your own thread about whether alcohol and drugs are addictive if you want, but don't hijack this one. Stay on point.

Coming from someone who's not addressed a number of my points, I find this post rather amusing. That said, do you believe sex offenders shouldn't be listed in a governmental database? That's hardly any different from labeling the license plate of a known alcoholic whose committed a serious driving offense while drunk. If anything it simply shows that they've had a propensity for commiting such crimes in the past. If someone's been shown to commit driving accidents while drunk numerous times, then there's precedent for labeling him a danger to society. By not drinking responsibly and endangering others they give up some of their rights by default.

I haven't addressed your points? You fucking responded to ME, dipshit! I didn't start this - you decided to hijack this thread and go off onto a addition tangent, and now you're bringing in fucking sex offenders? Like I said before, if you want to start another discussion about alcohol addiction (or sex offenders), do it in another thread.

I will respond to the one on-topic thing you said, which I highlighted and italized above. I believe I've already responded to this, but I'll do it again anyway. People who commit a DUI offense pay a price for their crime - some get locked in jail for a time, others lose their license, insurance rates go up, etc. THAT is the punishment for the crime. Once they've been punished, and paid their debt for the crime, you cannot continue to punish them becuase they MIGHT, possibly commit the same crime again in the future, which is essentially what you're suggesting. Furthermore, people do NOT give up their rights by acting irresponsibly - that's such a bullshit statement it isn't even funny. They are punished for the crime, if convicted, and afterwards are restored as full members of society. Felons cannot vote, but ex-felons can have this right restored. You are suggesting we take away their rights permanently.


My post
Cops will pull over an erratically weaving car anyway - they don't need a special license to encourage them to do so. And other drivers won't notice unless they're really close.

Salm's response to my pose
The problem is that most drunk drivers aren´t that obvious. You can be drunk as fuck and still be able to drive straight, stop at red lights and maintain a normal looking driving style.

The problem is that your reaction will suck, you might have random bad behavior like running into a tree or another car.

I think the licence plates are cool and should be mandatory after the first time you´re caught. Cops will then be more likely to pull you out and you´re going to think twice before drinking and driving again.

My respons to Salm
So the fact that the constitution prohibits unlawful search and seizures (i.e., without probable cause) doesn't bother you? If somebody's committed a crime one, we should harass them from now on to make sure they don't commit a crime again?

Your response to my response to Salm
You do comprehend the difference between comitting crimes while under the influence of a potentially dangerous substance, especially an incredibly addictive substance, as opposed to crimes which can be corrected through simple behavioral changes, yes?

[Big Phil]

The problem is that most drunk drivers aren´t that obvious. You can be drunk as fuck and still be able to drive straight, stop at red lights and maintain a normal looking driving style.

The problem is that your reaction will suck, you might have random bad behavior like running into a tree or another car.

I think the licence plates are cool and should be mandatory after the first time you´re caught. Cops will then be more likely to pull you out and you´re going to think twice before drinking and driving again.

So the fact that the constitution prohibits unlawful search and seizures (i.e., without probable cause) doesn't bother you? If somebody's committed a crime one, we should harass them from now on to make sure they don't commit a crime again?

We're not talking about people who commit one crime, we're talking about repeat offenders that show an inability to learn from 3 or 4 DUIs. They've already been thrown in jail, and they still don't get it.

So if they don't "get it," please explain to me how colored license plates will PREVENT them from drinking and driving again?

This is a stupid-ass brainbug that sounds like a good idea to some people but is pretty fucking stupid in reality. If somebody is a repeat offender, the courts have all of the jurisdiction necessary to decide they are a threat to society and can revoke their license and sieze possession of their vehicle. A colored license plate is a fucking joke.

[General Zod]

I haven't addressed your points? You fucking responded to ME, dipshit! I didn't start this -

meh. Ignore that. I was confusing posters.

you decided to hijack this thread and go off onto a addition tangent, and now you're bringing in fucking sex offenders? Like I said before, if you want to start another discussion about alcohol addiction (or sex offenders), do it in another thread.

It's not a hijack to respond to someone who's making an idiotic analogy. Did you even bother reading the post I was responding to when you called ita hijack?

People who commit a DUI offense pay a price for their crime - some get locked in jail for a time, others lose their license, insurance rates go up, etc. THAT is the punishment for the crime. Once they've been punished, and paid their debt for the crime, you cannot continue to punish them becuase they MIGHT, possibly commit the same crime again in the future, which is essentially what you're suggesting. Furthermore, people do NOT give up their rights by acting irresponsibly - that's such a bullshit statement it isn't even funny. They are punished for the crime, if convicted, and afterwards are restored as full members of society. Felons cannot vote, but ex-felons can have this right restored. You are suggesting we take away their rights permanently.

How exactly is it punishing someone to label them as a potential threat? An alcoholic whose had -multipile- (and I stress the word multiple here) convictions should be distinguished somehow as a repeat offender, and likely to do so again. Second, I never suggested that we take their privileges away permanently.

Additionally, comparing them to sex offenders is a perfectly valid analogy. Someone whose been convicted of such crimes in the past is put into a criminal database of offenders. Unless you'd care to point out how, I don't see it as being any different than doing something similar to an alcoholic with multiple convictions for DUIs.

Fourth, I'm not suggesting that someone whose managed to sober up and reform should have their rights taken away permanently. I'm suggesting that someone whose -repeatedly- been shown to be irresponsible with alcohol should not be allowed to drive again. Being allowed to drive is by no means a constitutional right, anyways.

[Sean Howard]

The problem with this, is that is would take a huge agency to administer these licenses. It would be very expensive, and all that would wind up happening is alcoholics would just get their pals to buy for them.
.

A Huge agency? Perhaps a Department? But what shall we name this Department? Perhaps since it has to do with Motor Vehicles, we should call it the DMV?

C'mon, that's a stupid excuse. It wouldn't put that much more strain on the DMV.

Its not a license to drive, its a license to drink. Lots of people don't drive cars, especially in big cities.

And since it involves removing people's rights, now you have to have the capacity to hold appeal hearings. You have to have oversight and reporting. You have to have intake workers. You need to keep records.

I remember reading a report that when the DMV here in Nevada added the "turn sideways if you're under 21" thing to license pictures, it cost taxpayers something like $25 million a year. And that is a very very simple thing compared to a subjective decision like a license to drink.

Government might consider that chump change, but I for one don't.

[Sean Howard]

So if they don't "get it," please explain to me how colored license plates will PREVENT them from drinking and driving again?

I never claimed it would PREVENT them. It would just make them easier to catch.

This is a stupid-ass brainbug that sounds like a good idea to some people but is pretty fucking stupid in reality. If somebody is a repeat offender, the courts have all of the jurisdiction necessary to decide they are a threat to society and can revoke their license and sieze possession of their vehicle. A colored license plate is a fucking joke.

No one is claiming that colored license plates are some panacea, and that everything else goes out the window. Its an easy tool that you can charge back to the offender.

I'm all for increased penalties and enforcement. Colored license plates are easier to acheive in practice, and so aren't a bad starting point.

[Big Phil]

you decided to hijack this thread and go off onto a addition tangent, and now you're bringing in fucking sex offenders? Like I said before, if you want to start another discussion about alcohol addiction (or sex offenders), do it in another thread.

It's not a hijack to respond to someone who's making an idiotic analogy. Did you even bother reading the post I was responding to when you called ita hijack?

Okay, more calmly now... bringing in the addictive qualities of alcohol is irrelevant in thread about whether people previously convicted of DUI's should have to have colored license plates. That's why I call it a hijack.

People who commit a DUI offense pay a price for their crime - some get locked in jail for a time, others lose their license, insurance rates go up, etc. THAT is the punishment for the crime. Once they've been punished, and paid their debt for the crime, you cannot continue to punish them becuase they MIGHT, possibly commit the same crime again in the future, which is essentially what you're suggesting. Furthermore, people do NOT give up their rights by acting irresponsibly - that's such a bullshit statement it isn't even funny. They are punished for the crime, if convicted, and afterwards are restored as full members of society. Felons cannot vote, but ex-felons can have this right restored. You are suggesting we take away their rights permanently.

How exactly is it punishing someone to label them as a potential threat? An alcoholic whose had -multipile- (and I stress the word multiple here) convictions should be distinguished somehow as a repeat offender, and likely to do so again. Second, I never suggested that we take their privileges away permanently.

Additionally, comparing them to sex offenders is a perfectly valid analogy. Someone whose been convicted of such crimes in the past is put into a criminal database of offenders. Unless you'd care to point out how, I don't see it as being any different than doing something similar to an alcoholic with multiple convictions for DUIs.

Fourth, I'm not suggesting that someone whose managed to sober up and reform should have their rights taken away permanently. I'm suggesting that someone whose -repeatedly- been shown to be irresponsible with alcohol should not be allowed to drive again. Being allowed to drive is by no means a constitutional right, anyways.

Labeling them as a poential threat by putting them in a database of offenders sounds fine to me. Putting colored license plates on their cars a s a means of preventing future DUI's is idiotic, which is the idea behind them.

And I'm perfectly in agreement about taking people's licenses (and perhaps their vehicles) away, by the way. That is the correct solution, not this stupid license plate idea.

[Big Phil]

So if they don't "get it," please explain to me how colored license plates will PREVENT them from drinking and driving again?

I never claimed it would PREVENT them. It would just make them easier to catch.

This is a stupid-ass brainbug that sounds like a good idea to some people but is pretty fucking stupid in reality. If somebody is a repeat offender, the courts have all of the jurisdiction necessary to decide they are a threat to society and can revoke their license and sieze possession of their vehicle. A colored license plate is a fucking joke.

No one is claiming that colored license plates are some panacea, and that everything else goes out the window. Its an easy tool that you can charge back to the offender.

I'm all for increased penalties and enforcement. Colored license plates are easier to acheive in practice, and so aren't a bad starting point.

You seem to be suggesting, however, that they are a good idea, which is the crux of my disagreement. Colored license plates are a stupid idea. Here's a scenario for you: cops are told to start taking a closer look at people with these license plates to make sure they aren't drunk. As a result, a lot of perfectly sober people with previous DUI convictions and these pretty colored license plates are pulled over for no reason, wasting their time and the police's time.

The police already know what to look for for drunk drivers; they don't need a goddamn license plate to help them do their job. This is a fucking brainbug that some stupid people like, just like those dipshits who feel safer flying because 80 year old grandmothers are pulled aside for "extra screening" and nail clippers are taken away. It makes dumb people feel safer, all while accomplishing nothing but causing additional work and inconvenience for other people.

[General Zod]

you decided to hijack this thread and go off onto a addition tangent, and now you're bringing in fucking sex offenders? Like I said before, if you want to start another discussion about alcohol addiction (or sex offenders), do it in another thread.

It's not a hijack to respond to someone who's making an idiotic analogy. Did you even bother reading the post I was responding to when you called ita hijack?

Okay, more calmly now... bringing in the addictive qualities of alcohol is irrelevant in thread about whether people previously convicted of DUI's should have to have colored license plates. That's why I call it a hijack.

It's hardly a hijack to address false analogies that weakly attempt to compare crimes committed through simple behavioral issues as opposed to crimes committed as a direct result of being addicted to a substance.

[Sean Howard]

Labeling them as a poential threat by putting them in a database of offenders sounds fine to me. Putting colored license plates on their cars a s a means of preventing future DUI's is idiotic, which is the idea behind them.

Once again, that is not the idea behind them. The idea is that they will be easier to catch, and hence, less statistically likely to kill.

There is a certain humiliation factor involved, as illustrated by the story of someone putting a tinted cover over the plate to hide it. That would hopefully provide some deterrent. I don't happen to think it would, in which case its strictly a punishment.

[Sean Howard]

The police already know what to look for for drunk drivers; they don't need a goddamn license plate to help them do their job. This is a fucking brainbug that some stupid people like, just like those dipshits who feel safer flying because 80 year old grandmothers are pulled aside for "extra screening" and nail clippers are taken away. It makes dumb people feel safer, all while accomplishing nothing but causing additional work and inconvenience for other people.

Ahh, a delicious ad hominem. I must be stupid to see any value in them. It can't just be that I happen to disagree.

Its a tool, one of many that the police have at their disposal. The police don't have time to run every single license plate for past offenses. Not all drunk drivers swerve. Its a convenient index by which a cop can immediately have some information about this car.

BTW let me shed a tear for those poor repeat DUI offenders that have their time wasted when they weren't drunk that particular night.

[Big Phil]

The police already know what to look for for drunk drivers; they don't need a goddamn license plate to help them do their job. This is a fucking brainbug that some stupid people like, just like those dipshits who feel safer flying because 80 year old grandmothers are pulled aside for "extra screening" and nail clippers are taken away. It makes dumb people feel safer, all while accomplishing nothing but causing additional work and inconvenience for other people.

Ahh, a delicious ad hominem. I must be stupid to see any value in them. It can't just be that I happen to disagree.

Its a tool, one of many that the police have at their disposal. The police don't have time to run every single license plate for past offenses. Not all drunk drivers swerve. Its a convenient index by which a cop can immediately have some information about this car.

BTW let me shed a tear for those poor repeat DUI offenders that have their time wasted when they weren't drunk that particular night.

Sean Howard, if you want to call yourself stupid, feel free. I think this is an idea that stupid people support, so perhaps that's you. In any case, it's clear that you are supporting hassling people throughout their lives for crimes they've previously committed and been punished for. That's not a good position to be taking, because it doesn't prevent future criminal behavior; it just pisses people off. If you're not trying to prevent future behavior, then why do it?

[Sean Howard]

Sean Howard, if you want to call yourself stupid, feel free. I think this is an idea that stupid people support, so perhaps that's you.

Ok, I think that only stupid people wouldn't support it. Neener neener.

In any case, it's clear that you are supporting hassling people throughout their lives for crimes they've previously committed and been punished for.

So punishment can only be jail or fines, then when you're done you never have to deal with it again? It can't be an ongoing thing like probation or parole?

That's not a good position to be taking, because it doesn't prevent future criminal behavior; it just pisses people off. If you're not trying to prevent future behavior, then why do it?

Since you failed to read this the 3 other times I've posted it, here it is again:

Its a tool, one of many that the police have at their disposal. The police don't have time to run every single license plate for past offenses. Not all drunk drivers swerve. Its a convenient index by which a cop can immediately have some information about this car.

[Big Phil]

In any case, it's clear that you are supporting hassling people throughout their lives for crimes they've previously committed and been punished for.

So punishment can only be jail or fines, then when you're done you never have to deal with it again? It can't be an ongoing thing like probation or parole?

Probation and paroles end, dumbass. Did you miss that part? They are also part of the punishment for the crime. Once you're off parole or probation, you're done. Period.

That's not a good position to be taking, because it doesn't prevent future criminal behavior; it just pisses people off. If you're not trying to prevent future behavior, then why do it?

Since you failed to read this the 3 other times I've posted it, here it is again:

Its a tool, one of many that the police have at their disposal. The police don't have time to run every single license plate for past offenses. Not all drunk drivers swerve. Its a convenient index by which a cop can immediately have some information about this car.

Not all drunks have been caught and convicted before either, so this license idea won't help with them. It's also an invitation for cops to harass people - "Oh no, cops don't do that!" you say. "We can trust them to use their authority wisely!" Horsecrap; it's a pretty lousy tool, which won't do much to prevent people from driving drunk in the future.

[Darth Wong]

Personally, I think that repeat drunk drivers should not only have special license plates, but they should also be branded on the forehead.

[The Nomad]

Personally, I think that repeat drunk drivers should not only have special license plates, but they should also be branded on the forehead.

Personnaly, I think repeat drunk drivers should have their driving license torn apart before them by police officers.

[General Zod]

Not all drunks have been caught and convicted before either, so this license idea won't help with them. It's also an invitation for cops to harass people - "Oh no, cops don't do that!" you say. "We can trust them to use their authority wisely!" Horsecrap; it's a pretty lousy tool, which won't do much to prevent people from driving drunk in the future.

So because not everyone gets caught, and cops -might- harass them, they shouldn't be marked as a potential threat due to having a history of DUIs? You'll excuse me for not feeling any sympathy for a known alcoholic whose had a record for being singled out.

[Sean Howard]

Probation and paroles end, dumbass. Did you miss that part? They are also part of the punishment for the crime. Once you're off parole or probation, you're done. Period.

This is part of the punishment too, or have I not explicitly spelled that out the requisite 14 times it takes you to pick up on something?

No one ever said it couldn't end at some point. However, I don't think it should. But the length of time you have it is not a critical piece of the puzzle.

Not all drunks have been caught and convicted before either, so this license idea won't help with them.

So anything you try must be 100% effective, it must catch everyone every time. If anyone gets away, it is a dismal failure. I see.

It's also an invitation for cops to harass people - "Oh no, cops don't do that!" you say. "We can trust them to use their authority wisely!"

I don't say that at all. I think people with multiple DUIs deserve harassment. I think they've forfeited their right to privacy by repeatedly endagering the lives of everyone around them.

Constitutional guarantees aren't absolute under all circumstances. We couldn't have prisons if that was the case.

Horsecrap; it's a pretty lousy tool, which won't do much to prevent people from driving drunk in the future.

4th time now, no one is claiming it has anything to do with prevention.

[Big Phil]

Not all drunks have been caught and convicted before either, so this license idea won't help with them. It's also an invitation for cops to harass people - "Oh no, cops don't do that!" you say. "We can trust them to use their authority wisely!" Horsecrap; it's a pretty lousy tool, which won't do much to prevent people from driving drunk in the future.

So because not everyone gets caught, and cops -might- harass them, they shouldn't be marked as a potential threat due to having a history of DUIs? You'll excuse me for not feeling any sympathy for a known alcoholic whose had a record for being singled out.

Good god man, you don't get it do you?

The license plate is a stupid idea because, after multiple DUI convictions, people ARE STILL ALLOWED TO DRIVE. It's being touted as a preventative measure and as a law enforcement tool, but it's nothing of the sort. People with 3 or more DUI convictions SHOULDN'T BE DRIVING! They've lost the privilege, at least temporarily, and should not have a license.

If they are judged safe to drive and have their licenses, they should be left alone. If they're not safe to drive, giving them their license is just stupid.

[Sean Howard]

Not all drunks have been caught and convicted before either, so this license idea won't help with them. It's also an invitation for cops to harass people - "Oh no, cops don't do that!" you say. "We can trust them to use their authority wisely!" Horsecrap; it's a pretty lousy tool, which won't do much to prevent people from driving drunk in the future.

So because not everyone gets caught, and cops -might- harass them, they shouldn't be marked as a potential threat due to having a history of DUIs? You'll excuse me for not feeling any sympathy for a known alcoholic whose had a record for being singled out.

Good god man, you don't get it do you?

The license plate is a stupid idea because, after multiple DUI convictions, people ARE STILL ALLOWED TO DRIVE. It's being touted as a preventative measure and as a law enforcement tool, but it's nothing of the sort. People with 3 or more DUI convictions SHOULDN'T BE DRIVING! They've lost the privilege, at least temporarily, and should not have a license.

If they are judged safe to drive and have their licenses, they should be left alone. If they're not safe to drive, giving them their license is just stupid.

I agree that they shouldn't be driving. The problem is, thats a more extreme measure that is going to be harder to get implemented.

I'd love 3 DUIs=license revoked forever. That would be awesome. The license plate thing is much easier to get pushed through the legislature.

I still don't see anyone touting it as a preventative measure.

[Big Phil]

Probation and paroles end, dumbass. Did you miss that part? They are also part of the punishment for the crime. Once you're off parole or probation, you're done. Period.

This is part of the punishment too, or have I not explicitly spelled that out the requisite 14 times it takes you to pick up on something?

No one ever said it couldn't end at some point. However, I don't think it should. But the length of time you have it is not a critical piece of the puzzle.

Not all drunks have been caught and convicted before either, so this license idea won't help with them.

So anything you try must be 100% effective, it must catch everyone every time. If anyone gets away, it is a dismal failure. I see.

It's also an invitation for cops to harass people - "Oh no, cops don't do that!" you say. "We can trust them to use their authority wisely!"

I don't say that at all. I think people with multiple DUIs deserve harassment. I think they've forfeited their right to privacy by repeatedly endagering the lives of everyone around them.

Constitutional guarantees aren't absolute under all circumstances. We couldn't have prisons if that was the case.

Horsecrap; it's a pretty lousy tool, which won't do much to prevent people from driving drunk in the future.

4th time now, no one is claiming it has anything to do with prevention.

Actually, buddy boy, the goal of the program IS prevention.

http://dwidata.org/state_prof/ohio.pdf

I'm also not sure why you want to harass people who have served their time for crimes they've committed. Either you're just an asshole, or there's more to the story than meets the eye.

[Big Phil]

I agree that they shouldn't be driving. The problem is, thats a more extreme measure that is going to be harder to get implemented.

I'd love 3 DUIs=license revoked forever. That would be awesome. The license plate thing is much easier to get pushed through the legislature.

I still don't see anyone touting it as a preventative measure.

You all should have actually gone and researched the proposed law. This licensing is clearly portrayed as a preventative measure, what they call and "innovative tactic" to prevent drunken driving.

Ohio laws, as described in the PDF I linked to, are actually pretty good. However, it says in the document itself that "When drunk driving offenses are plea-bargained to non-alcohol related offenses, it makes it difficult to identify hardcore drunk driving offenders." This suggests that the problem is one of enforcing the law appropriately, not that the police need help identifying drunks on the road.

[Darth Wong]

Personally, I think that repeat drunk drivers should not only have special license plates, but they should also be branded on the forehead.

Personnaly, I think repeat drunk drivers should have their driving license torn apart before them by police officers.

As long as there's a red-hot branding iron involved.

[Big Phil]

Personally, I think that repeat drunk drivers should not only have special license plates, but they should also be branded on the forehead.

Personnaly, I think repeat drunk drivers should have their driving license torn apart before them by police officers.

As long as there's a red-hot branding iron involved.

I hope I'm being clear, I have no problem with more severe punishments for drunk drivers (although branding may be pushing it), but the colored license plate idea is just stupid and a time/money waster. I'd suggest ten lashes in a public square, with witnesses, but here in the US that would count as cruel and unusual punishment.

[Sean Howard]

Actually, buddy boy, the goal of the program IS prevention.

http://dwidata.org/state_prof/ohio.pdf

It says nothing of the sort. The only place in that document where it even mentions the plates is this one bullet point:

Special license plates are used to identify hardcore drunk drivers at the discretion of the court. See Innovative Tactics section.

Then the Innovative Tactics section says:

Family Plates: Upon arrest for DUI, hardcore drunk drivers will have their license plates impounded. Special bright, orange-yellow license
plates may be issued so that the vehicle can be operated by a family member with a valid drivers license or by offenders who have modified
driving privileges during the time that the plates are impounded.

So it would seem that we *all* have the Ohio statute wrong. Its not there for the drunks... its there so their wife can still get to work while the drunk isn't supposed to be driving. Interesting.

I'm also not sure why you want to harass people who have served their time for crimes they've committed.

Because the crime is so severe, the danger they pose so great. Additionally, they have demonstrated that they don't intend to stop committing it.

Either you're just an asshole, or there's more to the story than meets the eye.

Yes I'm part of the Illuminati. I'm Black Helicopter Operative #46166.