A Permanent Scarlet Letter?

[DawnCt1]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not know anyone personally with a DUI conviction nor do I know anyone who was killed by drunk driver.

I have a friend who works at the Ct. DMV. He said that they are trying to get law passed to have anyone who has ever been convicted of a DUI to have a permanent red license plate. The purpose, so he says, is to permanently stigmatize an individual and to alert police that this particular individual has been arrested before for DUI. This would apply to first time offenders as well.
I would guess that there are plenty of DUI convicts who have been arrested and convicted, been punished and have learned their lesson and do not offend again. On the other hand, we have all heard about the guy with multiple convictions but I think that after so many, license suspension is permanent. While DUI's are certainly a menace to the rest of the driving public, I think that it is unreasonable to mark someone for life. I could understand the license plate if they are allowed "to work and home" driving privileges while on probation but after someone has "done their time" or "paid their debt" to society, they need to be able to put it behind them. I don't think it falls into the same catagory as sexual offenders and the registery requirement because those people seem to be permanently impaired. But, even they don't have to walk around with a scarlet letter applied to their car or clothing. Any thoughts?

 

[Mimi Q]

My first cousin was killed by a drunk driver when she was a teenager, so I'm biased. She was getting out of the car in front of her house after returning home from a date. The drunk driver struck the parked car as she was getting out of it and killed her. I don't have a problem with convicted drunk drivers having a special license plate.

 

[Sparx]

I don't think this should be for a first offence. But for a second. If you do something once it is an accident. People make mistakes. Sure, it was a dangerous one but still. Who hasn't done something without thinking? I know I have. Everyone deserves a second change. But if they blow their second chance, then yes. I think this is a wonderful idea.

 

[DebbieB]

I agree, I don't think it's right for a first offense. Maybe for a limited time period, but not for life.

 

[poohandwendy]

I think that is a little bit harsh for a first offense, but not for a second offense.

 

[Randi]

What would happen in the case of a 1 car family? Would the other spouse or driver like having the special plate?
Another thing that bothers me about the penalties for drunk driving is the license restriction. How does taking away a license prevent a person from driving? Sure they can get caught, but if they aren't responsible enough to not drive after drinking what makes the court think they wouldn't drive without a license in their pocket?
There has to be a better way to get them off the streets and roads.

 

[DawnCt1]

My first cousin was killed by a drunk driver when she was a teenager, so I'm biased. She was getting out of the car in front of her house after returning home from a date. The drunk driver struck the parked car as she was getting out of it and killed her. I don't have a problem with convicted drunk drivers having a special license plate.

The offender who killed your cousin however was convicted of more than a DUI, he probably was convicted of negligent homocide. I am talking about the guy or girl who has one too many, drives away and gets stopped.

 

[sweet angel]

I don't think it should be for a first offense. Like Sparx said, everyone makes mistakes.

However, even if it was to become a law, there's always a way around it. The person could have their vehicle registered in a family member's name. I'm sure drunk driving attorneys would make out like bandits because there would be more people wanting to fight the charges.

Sex offenders have to be part of a registry, but not everyone knows how to check that registry. Should they be forced to have red mailboxes or front doors or signs on their lawns?

 

[ChrisnSteph]

It seems like a good idea in theory, but it wouldn't work and would just be a waste of taxpayer money. Any drunk driver can get into a different car without a red plate. Not to mention, what if the car is driven by more than one family member? I think this falls under the stupid category along with the one that had sex offenders leaving their porch lights on at Halloween. Dumb.

 

[Shutterbug]

We have this already in Ohio. EVERY car in that persons name has to have a yellow license plates with red letters, even if the car is for another family member.

 

[DawnCt1]

What would happen in the case of a 1 car family? Would the other spouse or driver like having the special plate?
Another thing that bothers me about the penalties for drunk driving is the license restriction. How does taking away a license prevent a person from driving? Sure they can get caught, but if they aren't responsible enough to not drive after drinking what makes the court think they wouldn't drive without a license in their pocket?
There has to be a better way to get them off the streets and roads.

Good point Randi and that could adversely impact the career of the working spouse and stigmatize them. Taking away a license doesn't do a thing to scofflaws. They drive anyway and without insurance.

 

[DawnCt1]

We have this already in Ohio. EVERY car in that persons name has to have a yellow license plates with red letters, even if the car is for another family member.

Is the license plate forever and and for first time offenders? Has this been challenged in the courts?

 

[Shutterbug]

Is the license plate forever and and for first time offenders? Has this been challenged in the courts?

This was at first up to the discretion of the judges to do this but in 2004 it became mandatory. Last time I heard this does include first time offenders.
Its not forever though just the length of license suspension but with driving privileges.

 

[kristen821]

Iguess it would be ok for repeat offenders, but like another poster said there is a way around it. They could make it so the lincense states they can't drive a car without the red plates I guess. I don't think it is right for a first offense. you can commit murder or rape somebody and nobody will know, but if you have a dui conviction the world has to know. That just doesn't seem right to me. Also, when they can't get a job because of the plates who is going to have to support them. Our taxes will have to got toward that too.

 

[Shutterbug]

Plus what if the spouse is going for a job interview and the family has one car and the spouse shows up for the interview with the DUI plates. Bet it will make the employer think twice about hiring that person.

 

[Planogirl]

This is a bad idea IMO. Spouses and kids might also end up stigmatized plus it's way too harsh for first time offenders.

 

[barkley]

i don't know about other states, but in california your first dui "conviction" is generaly at least the second or third time you've actualy been caught for it (a flood of high cost attnys. are very good at preventing first time offenders from getting a conviction for this).

i've had a couple of friends killed by drunk drivers, i also have a friend who is a repeat drunk driver. when his lic. was taken away it did not stop him from driving, and although noone would allow him to use their car he simply went out and bought one. he ended up wreaking that one during another dui (after 2 convictions-many non convictions due to a "good" attny.) he FINALY did jail time.

i think the lic. plate idea is a good one, if nothing else it would warn other drivers about the potential of a dangerous driver in their midst. there could be a provision wherein a stiff penalty is imposed if the dui driver is stopped for any offense and is driving a vehical that does not have this plate indicator on the vehical under their operation. as for other family members who may use the car, while i feel sympathetic to their plight i can only think of the family members of those who have been killed or maimed by the drunk driver and how their lives will be forever stigmatized.

as a side note regarding sex offenders-our neighboring town had a very high profile serial rapist (with a professed obsession for the young, no remorse about his crimes, and public statements that he would likely strike again if the "urge" hit him) paroled into a "family neighborhood". it resulted in the closing of a long established daycare center (the owners just would not take a chance of endangering their staff or children). as far as "marking" the individuals whereabouts? the neighboring houses took care of that-the 2 houses that were next door to the offender's new home put up large signs (arrows) pointing to the house marked "danger stay away, registered sex offender within. for more information go to website xxxxxxxxxxxxx"). the community was highly supportive of their efforts to protect the residents.

 

[drakethib]

I think they should have to have one for the duration of their probation. On thier second offense, I think it should be for the life.

DUI's are a serious threat.

When I was younger, I was stupid enough to drive drunk on more then one occasion.

BY the grace of God I neve hurt anyone.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think they should have to have one for the duration of their probation. On thier second offense, I think it should be for the life.

DUI's are a serious threat.

When I was younger, I was stupid enough to drive drunk on more then one occasion.

BY the grace of God I neve hurt anyone.

I really have a problem with the "for life". One can commit an armed robbery, do their time, get out and not have it on their license plate. Certainly someone who commits armed robbery is more dangerous than someone who makes a mistake.

 

[KAMLEM]

I really have a problem with the "for life". One can commit an armed robbery, do their time, get out and not have it on their license plate. Certainly someone who commits armed robbery is more dangerous than someone who makes a mistake.

I don't agree with that. Someone driving a car while intoxicated is as dangerous as a person commiting an armed robbery. I don't know for sure but I would guess that more people are killed each year by drunk drivers than by people committing armed robberies.