Pajamas Media

61 Comments

1. guydreaux:

Problem is the zero tolerance mindset- that any driving and drinking is bad and everything above 0.08 is equally bad. Anyone north of 0.15 should get a 5 year ban and above 0.20 a 10 year ban. But hook them up to blood monitors and every alcohol-free year gets them a year off their ban.

Jun 4, 2008 - 12:06 pm 2. Larry:

Umm….shouldn’t we wait until they’re convicted before punishing them? I can see this being challanged on those grounds.

Jun 4, 2008 - 12:57 pm 3. Kirk:

Nothing will deter real alcohol addicts from drinking and driving. As their health slides away, relationships evaporate, families fail and disintigrate, and finally their livers swell, get fatty and start shutting down, they will drink drink drink to the end. What is a ticket or a minor humiliation to someone who is already losing everything that really matters? It’s a teacup of water on a drowning mans head, that’s what. Sure it might shape up the social drinkers making a one time mistake, but people driving drunk anymore are the people deep in the abyss. It’s not the 60’s or 70’s anymore where everyone is doing it and it’s excused. I think the first DUI should force a mandatory in-facility dryout and education. More than that should incur some kind of monitoring similar to parole. The education that includes more than the 12 step politically correct formula and include Rational Recovery and other methods.

Jun 4, 2008 - 1:15 pm 4. Chip:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/265799.php

Jun 4, 2008 - 1:21 pm 5. michele:

Kirk, I agree with you. I need to see if there are stats on how many DWI offenders are people with actual alcohol abuse problems. Hanging a photo on the wall is not going to get an alcoholic to stop drinking and driving, simply because that means he would have to stop driving, period.

Jun 4, 2008 - 1:32 pm 6. mvargus:

As long as we allow people to drive cars and drink beer, there are going to be people who drive drunk.

Shaming won’t work in today’s society where public icons like Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton shame themselves daily and make money doing it.

Higher penalties won’t stop the alcoholics as they will still have the desperate need to drink, and aren’t going to worry about being caught, as long as they can get drunk in the first place.

Kirk suggests mandatory dryout and education, which sounds nice, but no one is going to stay sober until they realize that its important to themselves. Loved ones can’t force someone to be sober, what makes anyone believe the government will do any better?

I don’t know if there is any real solution. Honor and responsiblity are gone from the culture, and without those, its very hard to get people to want to be on the straight and narrow. Prohibition would be a disaster, and you can’t keep a drunk from a drink when they are determined.

so unless you want to put every DUI on permanent welfare where they are forced to sit in a bar and live the rest of their lives drunk. I don’t see any solution that will be better than the current disaster. The culture just doesn’t support any system which would stop drunks from doing what they do.

Jun 4, 2008 - 2:52 pm 7. michele:

For the record, I was agreeing with Kirk that nothing will deter alcoholics from drinking and driving. As far as in facility monitoring of first time offenders – I think that’s a bit much. Needs to be done on a case by case basis.

mvargus, well said.

Jun 4, 2008 - 3:02 pm 8. A Bouts:

Nobody could get me to quit until I decided that I had had enough. Fines, Jail, Ignition Interlock. I pissed on all of the deterrents set in my way. Family and friends walked away, so I just got some new ones who would drink with me.

Jun 4, 2008 - 3:08 pm 9. Dave in Texas:

Suozzi and the county may have very well overstepped their bounds by allowing these photos to be posted before anyone was convicted

bingo

Another thing to think about is the legality of allowing elected officials to add more punishment to a crime.

bingo bingo name-o

Jun 4, 2008 - 4:25 pm 10. lutonmoore:

I feel like, yeah pound ‘em AFTER they’re convicted. I got one myself many years ago. In South Jersey of all places. But here’s the dirty secret nobody will talk about-speeding kills lots more people than drunks, who are bad enough. I’m from NC and have to drive to DC occasionally for a week or so. Jaysus, the speed limit’s 70mph, we’re all going 80+, and peope are still passing us! Plus how much gas is that wasting? Sheesh. Anyway, most weeks of the year I have a four mile commute through farm land where my biggest hassle is a tractor or a school bus. Y’all have a good evening. -lm

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:17 pm 11. JD Sherman:

I wonder if a county employee or politician or the family either would end up on the wall.

I think we all know the answer to that and that’s why it’s a bad idea.

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:19 pm 12. dre:

Let’s bring back Prohibition because no one died of drunk driving back then. They died from guns and bad alcohol. We’ll let’s ban guns then too.
Let’s just have a police state and get rid this liberty nonsense.
/freakin’ sarc off

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:22 pm 13. Zendago:

You should be able to drive as drunk as you wish, with the stipulation that if you are apprehended for drunken driving it’s a life sentence. If you kill someone in an accident you would be subject to capital punishment.

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:35 pm 14. Jonathan:

There’s certainly nothing wrong with shaming drunk drivers as a formality. If it works, it works, and if it doesn’t, it’s cheap. There’s no down side, and a willingness to experiment with such penalties says nothing about the effectiveness of other laws.

The best all-purpose solution to drunk driving is to never again license first-time offenders to drive anything larger than small-displacement crotch rockets–anything that puts their head at the point of impact. I’d also think twice about letting them wear helmets. So long as they’re bearing nearly the entire cost of their decisions, I have no problem with them being on the road, except for the risk to other motorcyclists.

Darwin almost always wants to help, if we let him.

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:35 pm 15. John M:

The facts are that anyone caught being drunk should face jail time of
no less than 5yrs surely by then they will be sober.if they kill someone while drunk they should be put to death by hanging.Too many light of this situation unless you have suffered at the hands of these fools who know better and should suffer harshly, we are too kind to law breakers.If I am ever on a jury concerning this kind of
behavior I’ll try to have the book throwed at them.People are just
self centered and don’t want to pay the price for anything.

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:39 pm 16. Chuck Simmins:

Michelle, you’re right to be concerned. Shaming is not part of the American judicial system.

In an effort to “protect” society from criminals that well-meaning folks think are a special danger, the rights of us all are being trampled. Civil forfeiture in criminal cases, the sex offender registry, and this sort of program are all right on the edge of costing us more in freedom than they provide in protection.

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:54 pm 17. Chuck Simmins:

And, I am so very sorry I spelled your name wrong, Michele. After you head slapped me in 2002 and everything.

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:55 pm 18. Jon:

This approach to drunk driving is asinine and unnecessarily punitive. Our present drunk driving laws do *nothing* to prevent people who have had too much to drink from getting behind the wheel. The focus of these laws should be on getting intoxicated people off the road right away, *before* they have the chance to do harm, not on punishing them after the fact. Harm reduction works. Cite them for a moving violation, send them home in a taxi at their expense, and impound the car overnight; pay for extra enforcement with the money saved by avoiding incarceration.

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:58 pm 19. ZEITGEIST:

[...] MICHELE CATALANO: “A new ‘Wall of Shame’ policy in Long Island makes one ask: are our drunk driving laws so ineffective that we have to resort to humilation as punishment and deterrent?” I suspect that the humiliation is an end, not a means. [...]

Jun 4, 2008 - 6:59 pm 20. John M.:

“In 2006 (in the U.S.), there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. That’s almost 14,000 people who would be alive today if it were not for the selfishness of someone who got behind the wheel after drinking alcohol.”

That is pure poppycock!
You’re equating the mystifying term “alcohol related” deaths with drivers being legally drunk. The true figure is around 3,000 per year.
Alcohol related deaths include a designated driver T-Boned by Grandma Jones and he and his three buddies (who have been drinking) are killed.
I implore you to read Radley Balko’s rather definitive deconstruction of the NTSB and associated MADD hysteria.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-501es.html

Jun 4, 2008 - 7:17 pm 21. Waller:

Why pick on drunk drivers? Why stop at sex offenders? Personally, I’d like to know if my neighbor is a thief or convicted felon of any kind. Let’s post every criminal’s picture.

Better yet, let’s make them wear a scarlet “C” for “criminal” or put them in stocks on the public square so I can ridicule them in person and throw rotten fruit at them.

The problem is we have let groups like MADD dictate how we prosecute the fight against drinking and driving. Note: the fight started out against DRUNKEN DRIVING. Most fatalities involve BALs far above .08. The lowering of the standard from .10 to .08 only marginally increased public safety but has made criminals out of a much bigger segment of the population. The only ones who really benefited from the lower BAL were lawyers and government coffers.

Guydreaux is absolutely right. There needs to be a differentiation between the penalties and the amount of impairment. Unfortunately, groups like MADD, who have huge influence in this kind of legislation, stonewall every effort in this direction.

Jun 4, 2008 - 7:34 pm 22. Southern Boy:

If you can’t drink, don’t drive!

Jun 4, 2008 - 7:36 pm 23. John M.:

PS: 40,000 US citizens die from the common recurring Flu each year. Stop the Drunk driving fantacism is baloney.
Raise the limit to .10, lower the drinking age to 19. Standardize the cute little machines that measure ‘Breath’ alcohol and insist the manufacturers produce their software code (they don’t make it available unless court ordered). Let’s have some transparency.
Proving you’re not drunk is rather like proving a negative. Cops says yes you were, inaccurate machines confirm… I’d demand two blood tests, one for the cops to prosecute and one for me.
Drunk driving hysteria is the predecesor to the Global Warming baloney. A new secular religion based not on science, but elite emotion.

Jun 4, 2008 - 7:48 pm 24. Waller:

For more info on MADD check this out.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm

Jun 4, 2008 - 7:56 pm 25. Waller:

Sorry, the direct link will not work as posted. Use this link.

http://www.activistcash.com/

Click on “Activist Groups” then click on “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” from the drop down menu.

Jun 4, 2008 - 8:08 pm 26. Long Islander:

“A new “Wall of Shame” policy in Long Island makes one ask: are our drunk driving laws so ineffective that we have to resort to humilation as punishment and deterrent?”

A minor point… It’s “ON” Long Island, not “IN” Long Island…(and Queens and Brooklyn aren’t on Long Island even though it might look that way on a map)

I don’t get the fuss. People aren’t arrested in secret in this country. Do you want to be arrested secretly, no one knows but you? You’re locked up and if I come looking for you they say they never heard of you? I don’t think so.

The names, addresses, mug shots etc. of everyone arrested are available to the press, or anyone, including Newsday, for the asking. They just don’t feel like doing the work to get most of them. Unless it’s a news worthy story. Now they get them on a disc.

Jun 4, 2008 - 8:21 pm 27. John Samford:

“Umm….shouldn’t we wait until they’re convicted before punishing them? I can see this being challanged on those grounds.”

Yes, then there is that cruel and unusual thingie.
The Constitution matters to conservatives, to liberals it’s just another tool to keep the peons in hand. We are lucky MADD doesn’t lobby for roadside executions.

Jun 4, 2008 - 9:15 pm 28. bob a:

Shame,humilation,social stigma used to be more effective than the law in maintaining social control. Now we have a drug shattered society turning faster and faster with pieces flying everywhere. The result is an exponetial increase in victims and casualities. As long as we are willing to spend billions and billions and billions on incarceration,social welfare, drug rehab,unwed mothers,STD’s,HIV, etc. the clinkity,clankity show stumbles on.

Jun 4, 2008 - 9:49 pm 29. Tman:

“are our drunk driving laws so ineffective that we have to resort to humiliation as punishment and deterrent?”

Have you ever been to any type of major sporting event in the US where the crowd is 15K or above? The ones with the parking garage connected/right next to the arena/stadium?

Ineffective is not an adequate description.

Jun 4, 2008 - 9:53 pm 30. LifeTrek:

It has to do with our treating driving as a casual affair, as if you were sitting on the couch flipping channels instead of piloting a two ton piece of metal.

When states even have to consider passing laws making texting-driving illegal there is a problem with how we are conditioned about driving.

About 40,000 people are killed every year in auto accidents! Where are the protests, where are the people up in arms that around 200,000 people have died since the Iraqi invasion.

It is a silent killer — drinking and driving is one symptom and if the wall works great. Is there a celebrity alive who hasn’t been busted? Yet they aren’t deterred and they can afford drivers.
DKK

Jun 4, 2008 - 10:38 pm 31. Bubba:

Like the old saying goes: No shame,no gain, or you wanna play,you gotta pay.And since when is truth a punishment?

Jun 5, 2008 - 12:16 am 32. Mike:

I’m sorry, but this whole drunk driving McCarthyism has gotten out of hand. The drunks who are dangerous are the guys who have a .200 BAL at ten in the morning. Hard core alcoholics… and those folks are completely immune to this form of social control.

I have never gotten a DUI, but I have certainly driven while legally drunk. At the same time, where’s the evidence that some arbitrary BAL, like 0.8 or 1.0, is prima facie evidence that someone cannot operate a vehicle? I’ll take a 21 yo with a BAL of 0.8 over a stone sober 80 yo! How many 20 year olds with a couple of beers in ‘em have run their cars through an open air market lately?

I like Germany’s system. The BAL is irrelevant. What matters are the coordination/performance tests that the cops put you through. If you can pass those, you’re functional enough to drive. Isn’t that what matters, rather than some arbitrary lab test?

Our DUI laws are going to slowly turn into a new form of Prohibition, mark my words. We’re dealing with people who have no sense of proportion. If 0.8 is good, why isn’t 0.6 better?

Jun 5, 2008 - 2:13 am 33. michele:

John M – had I known those numbers were MADD generated, I would have looked elsewhere. Don’t even get me started on MADD – having worked for them one summer long ago I learned more than I wanted to know about that organization and my disdain for them has just grown.

See this article at Reason for their latest idiocy.

Jun 5, 2008 - 2:28 am 34. Shaykh Rattle 'n' Roll:

It is simply shocking that we as a society continue to accept the consumption and abuse of alcohol. The consequences for the individual, their family and the community are dire.

By way of example, I know of a probation officer who has a form to complete for each newly released prisoner, where the form begins with three check-boxes

Alcohol
drugs
other

See the following link on our blog about nature of alcohol abuse in Britain:
http://islamicpolitik.com/2008/06/life-without-alcohol.html

Jun 5, 2008 - 2:58 am 35. rgaye:

Hmmmm…. I think a wall of shame might be more of an incentive for the occasional ‘have a few drinks and get behind the wheel’ offender than legal gyrations alone. For those who drink and drive regularly nothing much stops them including the legal ramifications.

As to the ineffectiveness of our current laws, in this state a 2nd offense DUI within 10 years can be charged as a felony. You want mandatory minimum sentencing? Lock ‘em up and throw away the key? Exactly how stiff do you want laws to be?

Reasons vary and maybe the employer just didn’t want a drunk working in an area where he could hurt or kill himself or others. Damage a lot of expensive equipment or customers property. After all the person who doesn’t have enough sense not to get behind the wheel after drinking might not exercise much sense about working and drinking. Mechanics generally have to be able to test drive vehicles, drop off and pick up vehicles. Can’t do that without a license.

That should be the employer’s right to protect his customers and their property in his care, other employees and his business assets from damage or liability awards and that his or her employees should be expected to fulfill their job duties.

Another reason the guy lost his job may well have been the inability to insure him on the business owners policy.

When we had a business, one of the very specific items that all employees signed off on when we hired them was they had to have and maintain a valid license, had to be insurable on our liability and comprehensive insurance and they had to keep their driving record clean, including traffic violations, to be employed with us. Failure to do so was grounds for termination. No exceptions.

Our insurance would cancel our business in a heart beat if we kept employed someone who lost their license for any reason or had more than 2 minor traffic violations within any 2 year period. If they were under 25 more than 1 minor violation like speeding would do it. A major violation like a DUI was grounds for automatic termination of the policy if we kept the employee on. Our insurance company ran each employee’s license (including the owners) every year.

We really didn’t have a choice, not that we wouldn’t have terminated employment for these reasons anyway. This was consistent across insurance companies for our type of business and insurance needs.

I am not sure if this is accurate but I read a story a number of years ago indicating that countries which don’t have high drinking and driving numbers (like Japan) utilize shame as a big incentive to not get behind the wheel. However in many Asian countries shame is a big cultural motivator. It might not be a significant factor here.

I’m not sure it’s the job of the County Supervisor to do this though. Seems like the legal system should be involved some where but it could depend on how county government is set up in that state. The Supervisor being at the top. And it could depend on what the state legislature has made law as well.

Jun 5, 2008 - 3:04 am 36. dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » shame and punishment:

[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/you-cant-sh…; [...]

Jun 5, 2008 - 5:01 am 37. paul a'barge:

They look like drunks to me.

Jun 5, 2008 - 5:54 am 38. Dan:

I have spoken with people who have been caught behind the wheel DUI/DWI. They don’t mean to drive drunk – it just happens. You can lambast them for making a poor decision, but it won’t stop the problem. A friend suggested a simple solution – if you get a DUI/DWI you get a breathalizer attached to your car as an ignition cutoff. That way you are blocked from using the vehicle in a state of inibriation. Fines, suspensions and even jail time can’t stop people (esp w/ alcohol problems) driving – this can.

Jun 5, 2008 - 6:54 am 39. plutosdad:

Some of them were charged with driving while “Impaired” which in many states means below .08 but the police decided to give at ticket anyway. Usually they’re stopped for some other completely different reason. And most police I know just use boilerplate language in their reports that will stand up in court.

So many studies show that it’s only high alcohol levels around .15 that cause the most accidents, and other studies show talking on a cell phone is just as bad, even if it’s hands off.

If they really had good intentions and weren’t just being jerks because they knew they could be, they’d put up pictures of people talking on their cell phones too to shame them.

Seems like a pretty clear abuse of power to me.

Jun 5, 2008 - 10:12 am 40. danceswithgoats:

The only way to get drunks to quit driving is vehicle forfeiture. If I stood on an overpass and fired random shots into traffic my weapon would be seized. If I drive drunk I get my car back. I would say 30 days for first offense, 90 for a second and total forfeiture for any other offense. It wouldn’t matter whose car it was. If you were foolish enough to loan your car to a known drunk driver then you are an enabler.

Jun 5, 2008 - 11:55 am 41. danceswithgoats:

Also, as a Hispanic, I was amazed at the number of Hispanics that were busted! I didn’t see a single person of East Asian appearance.

Jun 5, 2008 - 11:57 am 42. Snarky Bastards » Blog Archive » Shouldn’t there be a trial first?:

[...] intoxicated.  I don’t have a problem with humiliating drunk drivers—unlike the guy at Pajamas media—but shouldn’t these people have the trial [...]

Jun 5, 2008 - 3:07 pm 43. Richard Wallace:

Having been arrested 3 times for DWI, I had no shame. It has been 12 years since I had a license, I got it back less than two weeks ago. I can say with complete certainty that if I had not completely stopped drinking 9 years ago I would be getting my fourth DWI any day now; active alcoholics don’t care about your rules, your photos, nothing other than alcohol. I’m not saying anyone that proclaims they are an alcoholic, or worse yet; that the court decides is an alcoholic – shouldn’t be allowed to drive; but breathalyzer ignition locks should be mandatory upon the first conviction.

Jun 5, 2008 - 3:45 pm 44. Waller:

One of my pet peeves is these “police video” shows that show a car careening all over the road. The voice-over and tape audio indicate they think they are chasing an extremely drunk individual. After plowing through the ditch the car hits a tree and stops.

Then they find out he wasn’t drunk. Just someone who forgot to take his meds. Immediately, person goes from being demon to victim. The narrator is relieved, RELIEVED! that the driver wasn’t drunk.

Well thank God! Had my child been hit and killed by that individual, I certainly would feel much better knowing that he wasn’t drunk.

A person can do the stupidest, most irresponsible thing on the road, but if they aren’t drunk then nobody cares. Same action drunk, they’re a monster.

Jun 5, 2008 - 5:15 pm 45. Mary in LA:

A Bouts and Richard Wallace, congratulations on getting clean and sober and staying that way. That takes bravery and real guts.

My late father was a psychiatrist. While working in his office, I saw people struggling with addictions of all sorts. I have only admiration for them, because even as a teenager I could see how hard they had to fight themselves to save themselves (hope that makes sense).

Jun 5, 2008 - 5:20 pm 46. Charlie on the PA Turnpike:

20 years ago I was one of those bar hopping college kids on the L.I. highways (Smitty’s, RumRunners, etc.) and more than a few times (ahem) I was clearly over the limit.

In the end, I grew up and stopped drinking and driving. Would a photo on a billboard reined me in sooner? Certainly, but so would the shame of an arrest in the first place.

But the point of the plastering is that it is punishment without conviction, and that is wrong. If the point of the publicity is humiliation, then it isn’t right to do so if the person is innocent.

We can argue the differences between innocent and not guilty but that is an obvious thread, which we all know the ending. However, it is still the basis of the criminal justice system, and cannot be ignored.

Once convicted? Sure, show the photos on public access cable, for all I care.

Jun 5, 2008 - 7:22 pm 47. Mr. G:

I live in Brooklyn but I keep wondering what those high Long Island taxes actually buy. The fire department for instance is a volunteer and not a full time professional fire dept. This just seems another way for an expensive LI government to find a solution for something on the cheap.

Jun 5, 2008 - 7:45 pm 48. michele:

Mr. G, I wonder the same thing myself every day. Those taxes are the main reason I’ve made plans to move.

Richard Wallace – thanks for sharing that and driving home the point I was making about the power of alcohol – getting drunk drivers off the road is an impossible task if the authorities never recognize that drunk driving isn’t going to be “cured” by holiday weekend sweeps where they arrest the occasional party drinker.

Jun 6, 2008 - 2:20 am 49. Venomous Kate:

The roadside breathalyzer tests aren’t admissible evidence in court, so they shouldn’t be sufficient evidence to justify putting up a person’s picture in a public location and calling them a drunk, either.

Thanks to MADD, though, little legalities like “innocent until proven guilty” just don’t seem important anymore.

Jun 6, 2008 - 7:15 am 50. Chuck Bartleson:

Nothing in the way of fines or jail time really stops the habitual drunk driver. They may look like you and me but they are committing suicide.
Effective controls such as committment to Alchohol Rehab Centeres,Extended Probation, Limited Driving Priviledges,License revocation, Jail Time are all being used in CA…with very mixed and disappointing results.
These criminals should be institutionally committed as dangerous to life and limb,not just to themselves but to innocent others.
Penalties need to be even more severe and publicized.

Jun 8, 2008 - 4:23 am 51. Hangtown:

People are not getting arrested for drunk driving, but for simply having alcohol in their system. This is a scam. Government statistics of drunk driving deaths are a lie, just like their lies on inflation numbers. If you get pulled over for drinking and driving, you are better off to start running and wait till your’re sober to turn yourself in, same with an accident as you will get in far less trouble. By the way, it is perfectly legal in America to kill people with your car if you are sober, if you have alcohol in your system, you will go to jail.

Jun 8, 2008 - 7:26 am 52. SFC Cheryl McElroy US ARMY (RET):

I’m going to join “DAMM”: Drunks Against MADD Mothers.

If they’re going to pull the idiotic crap of posting pics of DUI offenders, they ought to include Ted Kennedy’s fat face, along with his son Patrick’s. What a joke.

Jun 8, 2008 - 12:55 pm 53. Freddie Funky:

Driving while talking on cell phone is as bad as driving at .08. Where is Mothers against group for that? Also – there is no discretion here. Why is a person who coasts through a stop sign at 2am on the way home – and pulled over for a failure to come to a complete stop – treated the same as someone who runs a redlight while drunk at noon. This rule is excessively punative to drivers who are little threat to society. I think if you are drunk in the daytime and pulled over – you should really have the book thrown at you. But cut the working stiffs of the world a little slack – and let them drive home after 3 beers. Get real …

Jun 9, 2008 - 7:29 am 54. Linda F:

I personally know a young man who was arrested for DUI and driving w/o a license. He was apprehended when he drove a car into a tree.

He paid the fine, attended the mandatory classes, and has changed his life. He no longer drinks to excess. For him, it was a wake-up call.

There has to be a reasonable solution, short of permanently banning those convicted from ever driving again (I should say, from getting a license – many of those convicted just drive without a license). Although some will repeat, others will not.

Jun 9, 2008 - 10:42 am 55. steve:

I believe that this would be a good thing. create state wide registries of people convicted of drunk driving. That way bar tenders could look up some of the last-callers and see if they have a history of DUI, and call them a cab before they leave, or better to allow transportation companies to do a quick look up and see if one of the employees had a DUI AFTER they were hired on. Look what it has done for the Sex Offender registries.

The assignment to a registry would not be a punitive damage, it would be for public awareness, thus getting by the cruel and unusual, and expost facto issues. a DUI registry would be the best thing to do to these people seeing that some if not all have killed or will kill at some point when they get behind the wheel drunk.

Jun 13, 2008 - 11:20 am 56. anonymous:

My husband was recently arrested for a DWI. I ve find his actions disgusting, and selfish. I never imagined myself married to a type of man who could get behind the wheel of a car drunk. He says this was a wake up call and would never touch alchohol again. I believe him. It was all very hard to digest. But when I saw my husbands picture on hall of shame I went to my Doctor because I am pregnant and the stress is too much on my fetus. You can bet it was the shame of my husband’s face being published. Why should I and my unborn fetus be punished because of some publicity hungry politician like Souzzi. If I have a miscarraige I will personally blame Souzzi as well as my husband for the death of my child and the humilitian I recieved.

Jul 18, 2008 - 11:21 am 57. Pajamas Media » Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Drink:

[...] myself to be on this issue, perhaps I am more opinionated than I previously thought. Some of my earlier PJM articles touched on teen drinking, and I was called out for having a prurient attitude about [...]

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:51 am 58. johntaylor:

The only way to get drunks to quit driving is vehicle forfeiture. If I stood on an overpass and fired random shots into traffic my weapon would be seized. If I drive drunk I get my car back. I would say 30 days for first offense, 90 for a second and total forfeiture for any other offense. It wouldn’t matter whose car it was. If you were foolish enough to loan your car to a known drunk driver then you are an enabler
================================================
California DUI

Sep 17, 2008 - 2:18 pm 59. Dawnrand:

I just want to know, How come they spend more time and money putting DUI photos in papers than they do with sexual predators. Sexual preditors torture their victims before they kill them, however their identity isn’t shown as easily as the people who have been charged with DUI. Sexual Preditors dont have the option to stop preying on victims. We, on the other hand have a choice to not drive drunk. So who should really be the ones posted on the Wall of shame?!!!!!

Nov 27, 2008 - 11:47 am 60. hotcupojoe:

when ted kennedy gets a dui ill think about slowing down.

Nov 29, 2008 - 8:24 pm 61. biggbossdogg:

put their faces on t.v.. billboards aren’t enough humiliation

Oct 21, 2009 - 5:07 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: