Reply With Quote
If you truly believe drunk driving is a problem and you're serious about finding a solution, there may actually be some personal sacrifice that goes along with it.
why not tack on more expenses, right?
If you truly believe drunk driving is a problem and you're serious about finding a solution, there may actually be some personal sacrifice that goes along with it.
like not drinking and driving? going to jail if I do? paying fines? getting my license revoked? these all seem like sacrifices to me.
Then you seem to be satisfied with the current system, so I'm not really addressing you.
Well Manny, is probation an elimination of due process? The plates don't automatically convict anyone of anything. The idea behind the plates is not to just randomly search anyone at any time. It is not that different than checking up on a parolee and making sure they are holding a job. If you've driven under the influence and get caught you should face the consequences. It's house arrest on wheels. I don't blame people that have been busted for DUI not wanting to have a special plate and risk being hasseled by the cops. But guess what? That's their own fault that got them into that situation. Maybe the plates can be only a temporary thing.
What purpose does it serve other than to alert the cops that they need to pull the driver over?
Making sure a parolee has a job is part of rehabilitating the parolee and getting them to be a productive member of society. The license plate idea has no purpose other than the embarrassment and harassment of the offender.
So reporting to employers that you're a con is not the same thing? Or how about having to report to a parole officer all the time? Maybe the plates are a just another form of guiding someone away from driving while intoxicated? DUI is a crime which has a lot of unique cir stances which make standard punishments inneffective.
Employers are not the government. What's at issue is how much can the government intrude into our lives. The point of law is to embarass DUI drivers and to make it easier for cops to cir vent notions of due process and criminal procedure. It's anti-american.
Spurm, I doubt the breathilizers would be effective and keeping people from committing DUI. People would bypass them, every car would have to be retro fitted, and it still doesn't guaranty that the person behind the wheel is sober. I think the plates don't really cover first timers either, but may serve as a deterent to habitual offenders. Part of the problem is that there is no shame in drinking while driving. It's all cool, everyone does it, I can handle it. Those are all the common things people say and convince themselves of all the time. There should be shame in risking other peoples lives. That's the bottom line.
being arrested, booked, convicted, force to pay fines or do time is plenty shameful. What's next? bringing back the pillory
I don't get your argument. If the government is the police, and police have probable cause to pull over a person with a pink licsence plate because they have been convicted of DUI in the past, then how is this not similar to a parole officer checking up on a parolee to make sure they are employed and living at the address stated at their release? How is different than notifying an employer that a worker is an ex con?
This is not an issue of just randomly searching everyone for drugs or DUI. This is making it possible for cops to search those who have already been CONVICTED of DUI.
Does any of that stop people from driving drunk again and again? No. More measures need to be examined then. The only person who's right's could possibly be infringed upon are those who committed the crime.
Do you even know what it is to be pilloried? There are many pnuishments worse than the pillory.
They still have rights though. Just because you are convicted of a crime doesn't mean that the government can trample on your rights.
past convictions alone do not equal (or give rise to) probable cause. please tell me you're not a cop.
The punishments become more severe the more times a person is convicted of DUI.
You have to tell me if you are or it's entrapment.
I thought the undercover cop was a pros ute, your Honor.
Sorry, criminals lose certain rights....or has that whole thing about incarcerated persons not being able to vote changed? What about ankle monitors and house arrest? Are their rights being violated?
NO. They are under probation. When under probation you lose certain rights because you ed up and need to show that you have/are rehabilitated. Having a pink plate would allow a spot-check, so to speak....like drug offenders can be subjected to random drug tests while on probation/parole. If they were to do anything like that, the only way it would make sense would be to be used only during a temporary probationary period.
Yes, criminals do lose certain rights, but the right to due process is not one of them.
Also, these "spot checks" are very dangerous. What happens if someone else is driving the offender's car and is pulled over for a spot check, which reveals that they are carrying an ounce of marijuana? Now what? At least the drug tests are individualized, these "spot checks" could be performed on anyone unfortunate enough to drive the offender's car.
If someone is stupid enough to drive a car with pink plates carrying an OZ, then they are just stupid and deserve what they get.
If someone borrows a car with a breathalyzer attached, they'd have to blow in it, too, for it to start. *shrugs*
I understand your point, though. There are too many flaws for that kind of *system* to work.
all of those things go thru the probation/parole department. Convicts on parole/probation are subject to the intrusions you listed in lieu of prison time. If they up parole/probation they are sent to prison based on the underlying conviction and not the new activity that led to the revocation. Also, the parole/probation period is limited in time generally, and once it's over the government cannot intrude into the convict's personal life without good reason to do so.
Police stops with out probable cause are different because they would lead possibly to new convictions for new crimes without adequate procedural safeguards.
I guess you have never heard of double secret probation.
We can throw all sorts of creative punishments out there, but the fundamental problem is that punishment comes after the fact. We can increase punishment, but then we risk over-punishment.
To truly curb Drunk Drivers, we're going to have to seriously look at options for either stopping drunks from driving in the first place or keeping people from getting that drunk in the first place.
My personal opinion on DD is that there may not really be anything we can or should do about it. People who drive drunk and get in fatal accidents, more often than not, didn't just do so because they were intoxicated. It's because they're intoxicated and they're stupid/careless drivers. Frankly, if they weren't driving drunk they'd probably find some other way to accidentally kill someone.
I'd like a law that gives me permission to run stupid drivers off the road.
Right...as a colored plate system should as well. Offenders who commit ANY crime while on parole will get sent back to prison...not just one similar to their original offense. So if someone gets randomly pulled over with pink plates, wasn't drunk but had a big smoking hooka pipe riding shot gun, I'm assuming the same rules would apply.all of those things go thru the probation/parole department
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
