"Whiskey Plates"

[brandonb]

My roommate and I were discussing "Whiskey Plates" the other day.

I don't know if everybody is familiar with the concept, but in the state of Minnesota, once you have 2 DWI/DUI's, you get a special license plate on your car, that indicates you are at a greater risk of committing a DWI/DUI.

If you have one of these plates which is usually a different style from all others on the road that start with the letter "W", and you are driving around in the evening/late at night, its very likely you will be pulled over by every cop in town as you drive around town. Trying to bust you for DWI/DUI.

Is this in violation of civil rights? How about the right of privacy? Not much different than a sex offender notice going up. Should it be allowed, disallowed? What happened to police "probable cause"? The probable cause driving around late at night with a Whiskey Plate is "I seen him/her take a wide turn back there."

http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/newdwilawsin2002/

My opinion is they are violation of constitutional rights and should not be allowed.

<---- Has no DUI/DWIs

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I've always said that something like this should be done.

Driving is not a right. You do not have a right to operate a vehicle. The state gets to determine the parameters of what you're allowed to do behind the wheel. They are also in charge of vehicle registration and licensing. Having DUI plates makes sense. I don't see how it is a violation of the constitution so long as it is not applied retroactively.

 

[techs]

No, they are not in violation of your constitutional rights giving you a special plate.
Yes, the police are violating your constitutional rights if they stop you when you have done nothing wrong.

 

[bamacre]

If one were pulled over by the police for no other reason, that, IMO, would be a violation of civil rights.

 

[StageLeft]

YOU DO? I had heard about this. I didn't know anywhere yet did it. I think it's a FANTASTIC idea. My only clause would be maybe it's after the first one. I can see with two, though, that you didn't learn your lesson, so it's reasonable.

Since "driving is a privilge" (it's not really, but people say it is), then it shouldn't be a violation of civil rights. I find that being T-boned by a drunk behind the wheel is a violation of my ability to live, so I don't give a flying crap about a drunk feeling bad about having whiskey plates.

Excellent, support it 100%.

Driving drunk by habitual offenders is a chronic problem. Alcohol is involved in a massive percentage of auto accidents and I know many people who drive drunk regularly. If you have not learned after the first ticket that it is bad, then get your shame-on-you plates and I hope the cops do harrass them.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I've always said that something like this should be done.

Driving is not a right. You do not have a right to operate a vehicle. The state gets to determine the parameters of what you're allowed to do behind the wheel. They are also in charge of vehicle registration and licensing. Having DUI plates makes sense. I don't see how it is a violation of the constitution so long as it is not applied retroactively.

This is true, but the car could be driven by someone other than the owner of the vehicle.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Isn't a DWI/DUI conviction a matter of public record? If so, how is the right to privacy being violated? Besides, driving is not a right, it's a priviledge.

Additionally, shouldn't the rights of others to be safe and secure from drunk motorists, particularly those with repeat offenses, supercede any potential privacy right in this instance?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I've always said that something like this should be done.

Driving is not a right. You do not have a right to operate a vehicle. The state gets to determine the parameters of what you're allowed to do behind the wheel. They are also in charge of vehicle registration and licensing. Having DUI plates makes sense. I don't see how it is a violation of the constitution so long as it is not applied retroactively.

This is true, but the car could be driven by someone other than the owner of the vehicle.

Who cares? Share the shame. I have not come across a single effective way to curb the rampant repeat-offender situation of DUI besides this. I wonder how well it works--does anybody have stats on it?

 

[bamacre]

So, let's say a family cosisting of a husband, wife, and a 17yo sibling, all of which must use the family's one car due to financial reasons (they cannot afford more than one vehicle). If the husband has had two DUI's, should the wife and the 17yo sibling have to suffer these consequences, driving around with the special license plate, just because the husband has had two DUI's?

 

[homercles337]

Why dont they spend money on a "whiskey bus" rather than public humiliation and harassment? How about a "Sleepy Plate"? If you doze off a couple times while driving you get a "Sleepy Plate."

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I've always said that something like this should be done.

Driving is not a right. You do not have a right to operate a vehicle. The state gets to determine the parameters of what you're allowed to do behind the wheel. They are also in charge of vehicle registration and licensing. Having DUI plates makes sense. I don't see how it is a violation of the constitution so long as it is not applied retroactively.

This is true, but the car could be driven by someone other than the owner of the vehicle.

Who cares? Share the shame. I have not come across a single effective way to curb the rampant repeat-offender situation of DUI besides this. I wonder how well it works--does anybody have stats on it?

They care. It certainly is not fair to them. Why punish them for someone else's wrong-doing?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: bamacre
So, let's say a family cosisting of a husband, wife, and a 17yo sibling, all of which must use the family's one car due to financial reasons (they cannot afford more than one vehicle). If the husband has had two DUI's, should the wife and the 17yo sibling have to suffer these consequences, driving around with the special license plate, just because the husband has had two DUI's?

Should they? Ideally, no. Would they with this? Yes, and too damn bad. If the husband rams into another family should that family be buried because of it? Perhaps his wife should have chastized his drinking before she ended up getting whiskey plates and all the neighbors started gossiping.

Again, somebody must have stats on this. If they don't support the idea (I think they probably do help), then it's a waste of time.

Why dont they spend money on a "whiskey bus" rather than public humiliation and harassment?

Public humiliation is a positive thing and I think we need more of it these days. People need to be ashamed of bad behavior like a child is upset with a disappointed parent.

They care. It certainly is not fair to them. Why punish them for someone else's wrong-doing?

Do you think that the embarrassed wife cares as much as the family that's now burying their 8 year old because he was run over by a guy who's got multiple DUIs on his record and never cared enough to do anything about it?

 

[dyna]

This reminds me of the Scarlet Letter.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: bamacre
So, let's say a family cosisting of a husband, wife, and a 17yo sibling, all of which must use the family's one car due to financial reasons (they cannot afford more than one vehicle). If the husband has had two DUI's, should the wife and the 17yo sibling have to suffer these consequences, driving around with the special license plate, just because the husband has had two DUI's?

Should they? Ideally, no. Would they with this? Yes, and too damn bad. If the husband rams into another family should that family be buried because of it? Perhaps his wife should have chastized his drinking before she ended up getting whiskey plates and all the neighbors started gossiping.

Again, somebody must have stats on this. If they don't support the idea (I think they probably do help), then it's a waste of time.

Why dont they spend money on a "whiskey bus" rather than public humiliation and harassment?

Public humiliation is a positive thing and I think we need more of it these days. People need to be ashamed of bad behavior like a child is upset with a disappointed parent.

They care. It certainly is not fair to them. Why punish them for someone else's wrong-doing?

Do you think that the embarrassed wife cares as much as the family that's now burying their 8 year old because he was run over by a guy who's got multiple DUIs on his record and never cared enough to do anything about it?

You are still blaming and punishing people who have done no wrong.

If your stance is this tough for DUI offenders, then you should support the removal of their licenses all together, rather than punishing the entire family and/or other drivers of the same car.

I'm sorry, but otherwise, your stance is just plain cruel. There is NO logical reason for punishing family members who would be driving the same car.

Using your same logic, we should jail the parents of people who commit murder.

And just FYI, there have never been DUI's issued to anyone in my, at least, immediate family.

 

[BrownTown]

At first I was gonna agree that this is kinda silly, but then I started think and if a dude has 2 DUIs then maybe I WANT him being pulled over all the time. DUI seems like not that big a deal until someone ends up DEAD because of it. So I support this practice although it should only be for a limited amount of time, so if you don't commit any crimes for like 2 years then you get a normal plate or something. I am all for punishing people, but I also believe people can grow up and mature and if someone does then obviously they shouldn't be shamed for something that happened 10 years ago.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
At first I was gonna agree that this is kinda silly, but then I started think and if a dude has 2 DUIs then maybe I WANT him being pulled over all the time. DUI seems like not that big a deal until someone ends up DEAD because of it. So I support this practice although it should only be for a limited amount of time, so if you don't commit any crimes for like 2 years then you get a normal plate or something. I am all for punishing people, but I also believe people can grow up and mature and if someone does then obviously they shouldn't be shamed for something that happened 10 years ago.

I offer you the same comment I made to Skoorb.

Your stance maybe should also be that the offender has no license to drive at all, rather than punishing the other drivers of the car.

The state wants to do it this way, instead, because they would rather appear to be tough on DUI offenders, while at the same time, keeping them on the street. DUI offenses bring in a lot of money, for the states, cities, and for the lawyers.

 

[CycloWizard]

I have a serious problem with it and with the "sex offender" label. If the criminal (at this point, they have been convicted) is still a risk to society to repeat the offense, then obviously he has not been adequately rehabilitated to the point where he should be released to society. I think this points to the real problem with our justice system: punishment is preferred to true rehabilitation. Instead of doing something that will actually better these people, we seek vengeance. We lock them up because that is the easiest thing to do. We demontrate that we hate them, then are surprised when they can act with disregard for our own well-being. In cases where rehabilitation is not possible (at least, with currently understood techniques), then why are people being released at all? Because some legislator set an arbitrary punishment period? That is not justice for anyone - it's just bookkeeping.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I have a serious problem with it and with the "sex offender" label. If the criminal (at this point, they have been convicted) is still a risk to society to repeat the offense, then obviously he has not been adequately rehabilitated to the point where he should be released to society. I think this points to the real problem with our justice system: punishment is preferred to true rehabilitation. Instead of doing something that will actually better these people, we seek vengeance. We lock them up because that is the easiest thing to do. We demontrate that we hate them, then are surprised when they can act with disregard for our own well-being. In cases where rehabilitation is not possible (at least, with currently understood techniques), then why are people being released at all? Because some legislator set an arbitrary punishment period? That is not justice for anyone - it's just bookkeeping.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dyna
This reminds me of the Scarlet Letter.

Yeah, my first thought too. (And that movie was just on this weekend )

What's the stated objective of making such a driver have this plate?

If it's to embarrass them, I can't agree with it. Do thieves & murders get a "T" & "M"?

I don't see how it can constitute legitimate probrable cause, allowing the police to pull you over when ever they see the plate.

I don't see how it can reasonable warn other drivers, who looks a plates that much etc?

I think it's just over-the-top kinda stuff resulting from MADD etc.

It used to be OK to drink & drive, as long as you weren't drunk. When I was young individual alchoholic beverages (mixed drinks etc) were sold in drive-throughs by the liqour stores, just like hamburgers & frys. Yes, even for drivers. Florida had a lot of trouble back in the day getting a law passed against drinking a beer & driving. It was that ingrained in the culture.

Fern

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: bamacre
So, let's say a family cosisting of a husband, wife, and a 17yo sibling, all of which must use the family's one car due to financial reasons (they cannot afford more than one vehicle). If the husband has had two DUI's, should the wife and the 17yo sibling have to suffer these consequences, driving around with the special license plate, just because the husband has had two DUI's?

Reading comprehension FTW! Did you even read the link?

"Under current DWI laws, if a person receives more than two DWI violations within ten years (also known as a ten year look back period), the driver's license plates may be revoked and replaced with what are commonly known as whiskey plates."

More than 2 means at least 3. So basically this means you can get a DUI roughly about every 5.5 years and still not end up with one of these plates, assuming you still have a drivers license at all at that point.

I don't have a problem with something like this as long as it is not permanent. Once a person has paid their debt to society they deserve to be able to go back to a normal life just like anyone else. If a judge were to order these plates as part of a habitual drunkards DWI / DUI sentence, then fine. But they should not have to suffer it the rest of their lives.

As for it affecting the spouse or kids of the alcoholic (yes if you have 3 DUI's chances are pretty good you are one), well that is just another example of how the decision to drink affects people other than one's self. Assuming the wife and kids don't leave the drunk, it should be an example to him/her of how their actions hurt loved ones and hopefully spur them to want to rectify their behavior and get treatment for their illness.

However, if you believe in the disease theory view of alcoholism, then this kind of public humiliation is VERY unfair to the alcoholic. We go to great lengths to protect our personal medical / mental health records from public scrutiny. There are privacy laws that protect it. You don't see people with AIDS being forced to wear big signs around their necks whenever they go out in public do you? Though if you were to have unprotected sex with somebody with AIDS there's a good chance you could contract it. So should we be giving out "scarlet letters" to people with possibly communicable diseases before we allow them out in public because there's a chance that if they act irresponsibly they could infect others? For anybody who thinks that sounds ludicrous, then I would also expect that person would think these "whiskey tags" are along that same vein. It's just yet another one of the many many double standards that exist in our society. But, like I said, that's only if you believe in the "disease" aspect of alcoholism. But despite much clinical research into the subject showing much support for the disease theory, the views of society remain split. Some think alcohol abuse/alcoholism is a disease, and some just think it's a behavioral problem. Personally I believe it's a little bit of both. Though the courts often tend to lean more towards the view that it is a character/behavior defect when considering sentences. Humiliation can be a very good behavior modifier indeed. But for somebody who is a true alcoholic, public humiliation just exacerbates their problem and will force them deeper into seclusion as they attempt to eschew that humiliation while still being able to feed their habit. In short, if you have 3 DUI's inside 10 years, you have a problem that some humiliating license plate is not gonna correct.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: homercles337
If you doze off a couple times while driving you get a "Sleepy Plate."

Is that what you call a coffin these days? :laugh:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm for zero tolerance, no license back ever and a minimum of five years in prison.

There is NO excuse what so ever for drunk driving.

 

[dmcowen674]

Rookies have a large yellow stripe on the back of the car so veterans can beware of any possible inexperienced moves on the part of the rookie.

The public should be aware of habitual DUI driver as a precaution as well.

It is a well deserved scarlet letter on the part of the DUI offender.

 

[yllus]

I really despise this sort of "scarlet letter" sentencing. Ideally: Do the crime, do the time, and then it's over.

Ugh. Well, at least some people in here agree with me.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I'm for zero tolerance, no license back ever and a minimum of five years in prison.

There is NO excuse what so ever for drunk driving.

What if you are stopped at a DUI checkpoint and you were under the legal limit (be it 0.050 or 0.07)?

Should a driver be sent to detox and get a reckless driving charge? Even if they were not impaired and probably drove just as well as they would have been sober (and on a cell phone)?

(I did!)

Should I get whiskey plates because of it and be pulled over every single day I get off work at a late hour? It was my fault for doing it so zero tolerance.

I also agree with the others, once you do the time, and pay the fine, you should be able to go on your way. If the person is still a risk to society (isnt that the point of having jail) then they should be sent back.