Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Stigmatising drink-drivers

Here's a new idea, to me anyway. Various states of America require first time drink drivers to display what are called 'whiskey-plates' on their vehicles. This marks them for the police to pay special attention to and identifies them for the purposes of public reprobation I suppose. I can empathise with the arguments both for and against;


Washington has become the latest state to see a push for a so-called whiskey-plate law to combat drunk driving, a move defense lawyers and civil libertarians say can unfairly stigmatize offenders, and sometimes their families as well, reports the Wall Street Journal.

* The law would require first-time drunk drivers to replace their license plates with easy-to-spot tags that end with the uppercase letter "Z," a signal to police to pay close attention to the car.
* Minnesota, an early adopter of such a law, uses the letter "W" -- hence the term "whiskey plate" -- on a plain white background.
* Offenders in Washington would be required to display the special plates for three years after their driving privileges are restored.

Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said whiskey plates were part of a "trend of overcriminalization" in the United States. "These sorts of laws just create obstacles to offenders getting fresh starts and moving forward with their lives," she said.

A handful of other states have adopted similar laws.

* In Minnesota, certain drunk-driving offenders are required to attach special plates to their car for a year after their driving privileges are restored.
* An earlier version of the Minnesota law was enacted in 1988.
* Drunk-driving-related fatalities have fallen steadily since.

7 comments:

Blair said...

In NZ there is already a huge stigma attached to drunk driving. I don't know what it is like in Washington State, but in Texas the stigma is non-existent. It is done regularly by many people I know, and not helped by the heavy regulation of taxis, and the "public drunkenness" laws that mean it is practically illegal to walk anywhere while under the influence.

The plates are an excellent idea for that reason.

Kiwiwit said...

I think the word "overcriminalisation" captures exactly the issue I have with this sort of policy. It's akin to the "scarlet letter" used in Puritan communities. American is the most criminalised society in the world but this is not due to Americans being any more likely to commit crime that other countries but their obsessive prosecution and conviction of people for what in many cases are victimless crimes.

Anonymous said...

The solution is simple. after the second conviction for drink driving its a lifetime driving ban and prison.

All trhis crap about 2nd 3rd chances is bullshit.

Dirk.

Anonymous said...

'All this crap about 2nd 3rd chances is bullshit'

A guy in Northland who killed someone had SEVENTEEN drink-driving convictions!

Redbaiter said...

I don't see how stigmatizing someone for merely breaking an arbitrarily arrived at limit on blood alcohol content could be something a libertarian could subscribe to.

Laws should only be applied when someone is harmed, and the way to enforce drink driving laws is, after an offence that results in damage to property or injury to person, to apply penalties that dissuade people from committing the crime.

In a civil state, these options are limited. You can fine them or jail them.

Allowing the state to subject them to ridicule is something I could not agree with. A drunk driver who kills someone should be subject to the same penalties as a murderer.

I'm for the death penalty actually, and would apply it if jailing did not work, but in principle, it is a step too far to allow ridicule to be used by the state.

The whole problem with drink driving is that the authorities will not do what is necessary and apply the harshest of penalties. This relates to the fact that they know their enforcement of an arbitrary limit is wrong in principle.

Do away with breath testing until after an event. Once a few people have been jailed for twenty years or hung, for a real crime committed as a result of intoxication, you'll find the problem will shrink to a manageable level.

baxter said...

I think it is an excellent idea. It does stigmatize but why should that be unfair. It is a deterrent and it penalizes an offender and not everyone who drinks moderately as the shrill whines of left wing lobby groups would do by increasing prices for all.

Joseph P. said...

Imposing this laws may help authorities to determined the status of each drivers under the influence of alcohol. Strict compliance is required to had orderly imposing laws on drunk driving. For more information and advise ask help from DUI lawyers.






Joseph @ drink driving interlock