Simple Solution
March 25, 2004
|
Posted by Aubrey Turner
I’ve become a skeptic of late concerning the most recent drunk-driving laws. I originally supported MADD in most of its efforts, but I think they’ve outlived their usefulness and are starting to go off the deep end. As an example, the 0.08 laws seem designed simply to ensnare people who have had one or two drinks and don’t actually pose a risk to other drivers. The real problem drivers are the chronic drunks who get stinking drunk and drive regardless of penalties.
Given all this, I’m not sure what to think of a new law that recently went into effect in Ohio.
A new state law in Ohio requires judges to brand convicted drunk drivers with special “scarlet letter” license plates—with red numbers on a yellow background so other motorists will know exactly what they’ve done.
I’m always wary of laws like this that attempt to alert the community to someone’s actions. I think that if a person is that much of a risk, then the original punishment should be severe enough to get that person out of circulation until they are no longer a risk (which is why I oppose sex offender registration; if they’re so dangerous then they should have gotten life and shouldn’t be out and about).
Anyhow, don’t think I have any sympathy for real drunk drivers (i.e. ones who were at 0.10 or higher) who cause real danger to others. That’s why I’m not particularly moved by this complaint.
And of course, not everyone likes the red-and-yellow plates. Those who get slapped with them say they’re humiliating—not only to them but to others in their families who get hit with the drunk-driving stigma when they take the car out for a spin.
There’s a very simple solution to this problem. Don’t get in the damn car if you’ve had too much to drink.
Categories: Miscellaneous
I can’t wait until the first driver from New Mexico makes his way through Ohio. (NM has red-on-yellow plates)
Seems like a limitation on personal responsibility for your actions where the State takes over nanny-duties and has you standing in the public corner. So you are suspect even when driving sober – exactly how is this better than enforcing the laws that already exist for drunk driving? You are always an instant suspect – profiled – for a crime you committed long ago and paid your debt to society for. Why don’t those law makers apply all that brain power to paying for services by reducing their own bloated salaries?
Foxnews.com is down, or I’d know the answer to this question: Just how long do you have to keep that tag? Besides, as a response to an earlier comment, who should you be more leery of on the open road? Someone like me who almost never drinks (I think I’ve had four or five beers in the past year) or someone with a proven history of drunken driving? Profiling can be a good thing, when properly used.
No, I’m not saying you should be cursed to keep that tag for the rest of your life. If a drunk driver learns from the experience and stays clean for a time, he should be able to lose the tag.
As someone who was raised and educated Roman Catholic, I have to say I like the idea. Shame is a wonderful deterrent, both to the perpetrator and to anybody else who sees the punishment. You don’t want that tag on your car, don’t drive drunk.
I think perhaps it’s the idea of state-sanctioned shame that bugs me about this, although I’m not really too upset. I hate drunk drivers, so I’m not terribly sympathetic to them.
I managed to get back to FoxNews and it says the license plate applies to anyone who is driving under a restricted license. I would suppose that the license plate could be changed when the restriction is lifted.
Interesting…
There is a state (Montana? can’t remember which one) which has just *raised* its legal limit to .12. It loses some federal matching funds by doing this, but as I recall the state already had its road construction funding well under control.
Then there’s this wackiness: http://www.gizmo.com.au/public/News/news.asp?articleid=2716