advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: karsen
Date: February 23, 2006 11:05AM
Maryland wants to put the letters 'DUI' in big bold letters on the license plates of repeat offenders. Police will then be allowed to stop and search without probable cause. Police will also have a heads up at an accident to give an immediate breathalizer if they see an involved vehicle has the DUI plate.

I think it's a good idea and I hope the Civil Rights people don't fight it.

[www.nbc4.tv]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: bangman
Date: February 23, 2006 11:21AM
Welcome to the Soviet Union.



---------
3GHz - The clock is STILL ticking Steve.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Marc Anthony
Date: February 23, 2006 11:21AM
I'm not really comfortable with creating another class of criminal - one of the perpetual (and advertised) variety. Once you serve your sentence, you should be free of punishment. If the current punishment isn't severe or of long enough term, then, IMHO, the problem needs to be addressed in the sentencing phase.



Le poète doit vivre beaucoup, vivre dans tous les sens. - Verlaine
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: February 23, 2006 11:22AM
Sure. Always a good idea to assume guilt without probable cause.

It'll make accident investigations easier. Just assume the guy with the special license plate was at fault.

Soon enough, we'll have special parking spaces for them at the back of the lot where they belong.

Eventually, maybe we can skip the whole process and just put them and their families in special camps where nobody will ever have to look at them at all. To keep them out of trouble.

I think KB&R is building the facilities right this moment.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: karsen
Date: February 23, 2006 11:31AM
Look, if you can't stop getting DUI's after being caught two or three times then you have an obvious habitual problem that society should be made aware of.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: February 23, 2006 11:36AM
police can already stop and search without probable cause.

probable cause can be vague accusations
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: February 23, 2006 11:38AM
University of Utah determined cell phone with or without phone to ear driving is as or more dangerous than .08. MADD continues to fuel hatred of something many of you have been guilty of. .08 is three glasses of wine or beer.

[www.healingsearch.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: February 23, 2006 11:38AM
Turn this on its head here- because we're talking about people who HAVE a proven track record of getting drunk and taking control of a deadly weapon (Automobile).

Would you folks be so vocal about the 'civil liberties' if we were talking about requiring anyone who has a concealed carry permit to wear a jacket that says "I HAVE GUN" on it , and allow the cops to watch them ?

Uh uh. Thought so.

Your alternative is to lock these idiots up for attempted murder (because that is what drunk driving is). Do you want to do that ?

uh huh, yep, ok.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: February 23, 2006 11:41AM
karsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, if you can't stop getting DUI's after being
> caught two or three times then you have an obvious
> habitual problem that society should be made aware
> of.


I don't think that anyone is arguing against the need to punish incorrigible drunk drivers.

I don't think they should have special license plates. But that's because I don't think they should be on the friggin' road.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: February 23, 2006 11:41AM
> Look, if you can't stop getting DUI's after being caught two
> or three times then you have an obvious habitual problem
> that society should be made aware of.

Like the three strikes laws that put people in jail for life for such trivial things as stealing a slice of pizza or kissing a woman who decided to call it a sexual assault, these labeling laws offer no discretion for borderline cases.

For example, on Long Island, certain towns call it a DUI offense if a person is standing near a car with an open alcoholic beverage. A person caught twice like that would be branded a repeat offender and labeled a drunk for life under your pet law.

If the law was a discretionary sentencing option for judges, I'd feel a little better about it. Even then, though, the idea of advertising a person as a criminal just doesn't sit right with me -- it doesn't encourage reform. It simply punishes and continues to punish.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: February 23, 2006 11:46AM
cbelt3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Turn this on its head here- because we're talking
> about people who HAVE a proven track record of
> getting drunk and taking control of a deadly
> weapon (Automobile).
>
> Would you folks be so vocal about the 'civil
> liberties' if we were talking about requiring
> anyone who has a concealed carry permit to wear a
> jacket that says "I HAVE GUN" on it , and allow
> the cops to watch them ?
>
> Uh uh. Thought so.
>
> Your alternative is to lock these idiots up for
> attempted murder (because that is what drunk
> driving is). Do you want to do that ?
>
> uh huh, yep, ok.

Do you always give everybody's answer to your questions for them?

That's what I thought.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: February 23, 2006 11:46AM
Just keep yakking on your cell phones.




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: February 23, 2006 11:50AM
Why give them a license (plate) AT ALL?

I am all for prohibition, too.

I have not been guilty of drinking and driving - you have to do BOTH things at least once in your life to be able to even possibly do BOTH at one time. I drive everyday.



******************************

******************************
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: February 23, 2006 11:53AM


If this involves Demi Moore getting nekkid, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, I really don't see what problems it solves.
A person driving drunk is already obviously driving erratically or not. A different license plate isn't going to help.
By the time they've caused an accident, then what difference does the plate make?

Habitual DUIers should not have licences, period.
But my opinion is that licences in this country are all too easy to obtain as it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: February 23, 2006 11:55AM
karsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, if you can't stop getting DUI's after being
> caught two or three times then you have an obvious
> habitual problem that society should be made aware
> of.

No. Society has the problem, and that problem is that they continue to let habitual drunk drivers get behind the wheel. Our culture views driving as an unalienable right instead of a priviledge.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: February 23, 2006 11:55AM
spearmint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just keep yakking on your cell phones.
>
>

Can you hear me now?
CRASSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH!

That, I heard.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Paul F.
Date: February 23, 2006 11:56AM
If driving were a RIGHT, I would agree that "special" labeling would be unconstitutional, and wrong.

Driving is a PRIVILEDGE.
If you want to continue to excercise that priviledge, your state may decide that if you have been CONVICTED of driving while intoxicated THREE TIMES, that other drivers should be alerted to your habitual law breaking.

I would PREFER that instead of a sticker, the driver in question be serving 15 years... but that's just me... a girl I went to elementary school with was decapitated by a drunk driver, and he was not only a repeat offender, but got probation for killing Audrey.
I'm not real forgiving on this score.






Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.

--

--

--
Eureka, CA
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: billb
Date: February 23, 2006 11:56AM
Why do repeat offenders have a license ?

They can drive anyone's car beyond their own.

What's next ?


A great target for a madman with a gun.


Probable cause by itself can mean anything.
- including driving too carefully.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2006 11:59AM by billb.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: February 23, 2006 11:57AM
Seacrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you always give everybody's answer to your questions for them?


He's Donald Rumsfeld.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2006 11:58AM by Lux Interior.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: karsen
Date: February 23, 2006 11:59AM
cbelt3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Turn this on its head here- because we're talking
> about people who HAVE a proven track record of
> getting drunk and taking control of a deadly
> weapon (Automobile).
>
> Would you folks be so vocal about the 'civil
> liberties' if we were talking about requiring
> anyone who has a concealed carry permit to wear a
> jacket that says "I HAVE GUN" on it , and allow
> the cops to watch them ?
>
> Uh uh. Thought so.
>
> Your alternative is to lock these idiots up for
> attempted murder (because that is what drunk
> driving is). Do you want to do that ?
>
> uh huh, yep, ok.

What are you talking about?

Owning a gun doesn't make you a murderer no more than owning a vehicle does. No you shouldn't have to wear a jacket that says "I Have a gun" If you have one. That'd be like everyone having a shirt that says "I Have a car".

Makes no sense to me, maybe rephrase the question and then reanswer it for me.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: February 23, 2006 12:00PM
actually, If more people were outwardly visible to be carrying a gun, MANY people would be very surprised at the numbers.



******************************

******************************
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: karsen
Date: February 23, 2006 12:01PM
So are you guys who are against this ALSO against making the names of sexual offenders public?

I'm curious to know how many people that are against making the names public have kids, I'm willing to bet a small percentage.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: February 23, 2006 12:04PM
karsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So are you guys who are against this ALSO against
> making the names of sexual offenders public?
>

Yes.
There would be no need to release their names if their genitals were removed like they should be.
That's assuming I would ever release them from prison.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: February 23, 2006 12:06PM
yes, karsen, the irrational fear of parenting knows no bounds. now what does that have to do with DUI?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: February 23, 2006 12:15PM
karsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So are you guys who are against this ALSO against
> making the names of sexual offenders public?
>
> I'm curious to know how many people that are
> against making the names public have kids, I'm
> willing to bet a small percentage.


There's a differtence between having your name in a registry and having "PEDOPHILE" tatooed on your forehead.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: karsen
Date: February 23, 2006 12:17PM
mattkime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes, karsen, the irrational fear of parenting
> knows no bounds. now what does that have to do
> with DUI?

The point is that in both of these examples the government is making information available to the public that has the potential to make them safer.

If you look online and see that your new neighbor has sexually assaulted 2 children I think that's useful information to know to protect your family. I wouldn't call wanting to protect your family from known pedophiles irrational at all.

The same holds true, to a lesser extent, with habitual DUI offenders. If I am driving down the road at night and see DUI (or a bright pink plate here in FL) I am instantly alerted to keep my distance from that vehicle as it poses a potentially greater threat than other vehicles on the road. If this person has been unable to clean up his act after being caught repeatedly chances are he is possibly drunk again.

I agree with Paul F., driving is a PRIVILEDGE. I am all for revoking the license of habitual DUI offenders. It doesn't happen nearly as much as it should. Branding offenders with a special license plate is a nice alternative for some cases in my opinion. If they don't like it they can choose not to drive at all.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: karsen
Date: February 23, 2006 12:20PM
Lux Interior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a differtence between having your name in
> a registry and having "PEDOPHILE" tatooed on your
> forehead.

You're right. And that's a damn good idea. I wish the government would start doing that too.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Paul F.
Date: February 23, 2006 12:26PM
karsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lux Interior Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's a differtence between having your
> name in
> > a registry and having "PEDOPHILE" tatooed on
> your
> > forehead.
>
> You're right. And that's a damn good idea. I wish
> the government would start doing that too.


A bullet in the head right after that conviction for pedophillia is a lot cheaper....






Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.

--

--

--
Eureka, CA
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: February 23, 2006 12:35PM
Would you folks be so vocal about the 'civil liberties' if we were talking about requiring anyone who has a concealed carry permit to wear a jacket that says "I HAVE GUN" on it , and allow the cops to watch them ?

Bad analogy.

I don't think that public shame is very helpful. We could go back to the stocks and pillary, if it were.

I *do* like the idea of special plates that prohibit driving at night, or on a freeway, or with passengers.

Without going into all the details, in these circumstances it would be obvious whether or not the driver was violating the restriction.

I'd be all for a DUI plate if it could be shown (by somebody other that UofU) that public shaming was fairly effective.

But DUI needs to be more actively addressed in the court systems. The recitvism rate is typically high. If it wasn't for MADD, DUI would still be considered a "he/she's not a criminal, just a drunk" mentality.

That is, by everybody who hasn't experienced the carnage or the loss of a loved one by a drunk driver.






I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: February 23, 2006 12:40PM
I guess that I don't necessarily have a problem with either program if some way is provided to be removed.

i just don't see how society benifits from denying someone the chance to improve their lot. even if they've done bad things.

of course, nobody is spouting about how they'd like to see offenders recieve proper treatment even though it can go be very successful
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: February 23, 2006 01:03PM
Paul F. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A bullet in the head right after that conviction
> for pedophillia is a lot cheaper....

Reduces overcrowding in jails, too.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: The UnDoug
Date: February 23, 2006 01:38PM
It could be a problem, though, if someone else (spouse, kids, etc) is driving the repeat offender's car. Then anyone behind the wheel is subject to being stopped, etc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: karsen
Date: February 23, 2006 01:50PM
The UnDoug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It could be a problem, though, if someone else
> (spouse, kids, etc) is driving the repeat
> offender's car. Then anyone behind the wheel is
> subject to being stopped, etc.


I don't see that as a problem. I think it's a consequence that drunk people need to consider before getting behind the wheel of a car.

"Man if I get caught, it affects a lot of people. Maybe I should be responsible and call a cab. Wow, look there's a number right here by the pay phone that gives free cab rides to intoxicated people. I think I'll call that and get home safely."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: February 23, 2006 01:58PM
karsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't see that as a problem. I think it's a
> consequence that drunk people need to consider
> before getting behind the wheel of a car.
>
> "Man if I get caught, it affects a lot of people.
> Maybe I should be responsible and call a cab. Wow,
> look there's a number right here by the pay phone
> that gives free cab rides to intoxicated people. I
> think I'll call that and get home safely."


Yeah, because you know, the threat of losing life and limb, drivers license, and a ton of money and jailtime are not quite deterrent enough.

Do you really think drunk people are thinking anything near rationally at the point they decide to take the wheel?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: The UnDoug
Date: February 23, 2006 02:16PM
Seacrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you really think drunk people are thinking
> anything near rationally at the point they decide
> to take the wheel?

Which is why, I don't think even taking their licenses really makes that much of a difference--at least not with the worst offenders. They get drunk to the point of not knowing (nor remembering afterward) what they're doing. If they don't have a license, it will not stop them from getting behind the wheel. If they don't have a car, they'll find one.

I realize this example is the extreme, but it's certainly the case some of the time.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: decocritter
Date: February 23, 2006 02:17PM
DUI offenders don't care about hurting people. All they care about is getting drunk and driving if they feel like it. They really don't have "remorse" - they are criminals.

They also don't care if they have a legal license, tag or insurance. They drive anyway.

They don't care if they spend time in jail over these offenses. They don't care if they drive safely. They are drunks. Have you dealt with a drunk on any issue?

They drive anyway.

They rarely "learn a lesson, or are rehabilitated."

If you doubt what I say - just go sit in traffic court for 1 day. You will be sick of it.

When someone you know is hurt or maimed by one of these criminals, you will feel
different.

They are allowed to keep their "privelege" of driving, while endangering, often killing others, taking away society's privelege of life and safe driving conditions.

Policing these illegal drivers is a full time job. I think license tags for all sorts of offenses would be appropriate. No insurance, DUI, No license, etc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: rz
Date: February 23, 2006 02:18PM
mattkime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i just don't see how society benifits from denying
> someone the chance to improve their lot. even if
> they've done bad things.
>
How does allowing someone who has been CONVICTED mutliple times for DUI, but is still being allowed to operate a motor vehicle "denying them the chance to improve their lot?"

They shouldn't be driving. Period. But we're willing to allow them the PRIVILEGE of driving, as long as they are aware that they are going to be monitored much more closely. I'm sure if someone in this situation were really trying to improve their lot, they'd rather have the pink plate than to not be allowed to drive at all.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: wurm
Date: February 23, 2006 02:23PM
Here's an even better idea.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: kurtzie
Date: February 23, 2006 03:47PM
I believe Minnesota already does this, but they don't use "DUI" they use some less obvious 3 letter tip off on your plates.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: Mike Johnson
Date: February 23, 2006 04:32PM
I'm bothered by minty's assumption that other people are comfortable getting behind the wheel after "three glasses of wine or beer." I won't drive after having a single beer or glass of wine. Minty, if you've had three beers, don't drive in my community, okay?

I like the DUI license plate. Let it work like this: a repeat offender goes before a judge, who has the option to revoke his license. If the criminal is able to prove that he needs his car to keep his job or whatever, let him get the special plates.

In some places, they use this sort of process to require repeat offenders to have the car breathalyzer/ignition interlock wurm pointed out. Just a couple months ago I saw a woman blowing into one.

As for inherent questions of fairness, as karsen pointed out, we moved past that with sexual offenders a while ago. You have people who were convicted of a sex crime, went to prison, got out, and years later, a state passes a law requiring they register every year. Public safety trumps ex post facto sea-lawyering.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: February 23, 2006 07:04PM
I don't know about elsewhere, but it wasn't expost facto in CA.

And again the recidivism rate is higher in many sex crimes than in many other violent crimes, and many non-violent felonies.

I still don't buy the assertion that using a cellphone is the equivalent of being .08, which is the presumed DUI minimum in CA. For one thing, even if true, hanging up the phone means near instant sobriety and lack of impairment. Try doing that on three glasses of wine or "twoooo breeerrshs!"

Just a couple months ago I saw a woman blowing into one.

Um, Mike... Are you sure she wasn't... Uh, nevermind.


Like the three strikes laws that put people in jail for life for such trivial things as stealing a slice of pizza...

I love that law! Yes it's a little flawed, and can use some tweaking, but those who decide on a criminal life need to spend that life outside of society. I have no problem with that.

For me, the third strike isn't a matter of degree, it's a matter of predilection.

In CA, a subsequent arrest for theft after a prior conviction for same is charged as a felony. Ooops, sorry, you lose, go directly to jail, etc. Already a thief, be it pizza, bicycles, or diamonds knows that they're on thin ice.

Better education, after school activities, etc can help prevent crime. But we still need jails, and cops to put people in them. Oooops, it's the people who do that to themselves.

And we need the three strikes law.






I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why didn't I think of this?
Posted by: blooz
Date: February 23, 2006 10:05PM
I'm glad some of you figured out how to spell "privilege".





And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Western Massachusetts
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 86
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020