| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/2/2006 2:55:55 PM | Tennessee Shame: 'I Am a Drunk Driver'
A new Tennessee law is enlisting the power of shame to discourage drunken driving - even though law enforcement, the governor and various experts are calling it an expensive and bad idea.
Starting Jan. 1, convicted drunken drivers are required to do 24 hours of roadside cleanup while wearing orange vests emblazoned with the phrase "I am a Drunk Driver."
The new law is aimed at first-time offenders, says one of its sponsors, state Rep. Charles Curtiss.
"You cause them to go out and pick up trash in front of their friends and neighbors, the embarrassment is going to be such that they're never going to want to go through that again," Curtiss said. "Hopefully you can turn them around to never become a second-time offender."
But shaming offenders without more meaningful treatment programs could have the opposite effect, said Jacqueline Helfgott, chairwoman of the criminal justice department at Seattle University.
"If I'm forced to wear a sign saying that I'm a drunk driver, then I'm going to feel worse and worse about myself and I may drink more and more because I feel shunned," she said.
Jeanne Mejeur, a research manager at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver, said Tennessee's law "is pretty much a unique program nationally."
Ohio requires yellow license plates with red letters for some convicted drunken drivers, and other states use less obvious coding on tags to alert police about DUI convictions. But those measures, like sex offender registries, are targeted more at public safety than shaming the individual, Mejeur said. One Arizona county attorney posts the names and faces of drunken drivers on a Web site, but that isn't mandated by state law.
Tennessee offenders will have to spend at least one day in jail, followed by three eight-hour cleanup shifts. The previous minimum sentence for driving under the influence was 48 hours in jail.
The bill becomes law Sunday without Gov. Phil Bredesen's signature.
"Although I am generally supportive of innovative forms of punishment to address this issue, I am concerned about the possibility of reduced jail time for DUI offenders," Bredesen wrote in a letter to legislative leaders.
That sentiment is echoed by the state chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"The best deterrent to drunk driving is jail time, not community service," said Laura Dial, Tennessee's MADD director.
The Tennessee Sheriffs' Association is concerned that the law will increase counties' costs and create record-keeping headaches.
"It basically dumps everything on the county, and there's no funding for it whatsoever," said Dyer County Sheriff Jeff Holt, chairman of the association's legislative committee.
Sheriffs are required to schedule the offenders' three shifts within 30 days, and at times that won't prevent them from being at their jobs. "Meaning it's probably going to be on weekends, which means overtime for us," Holt said.
Lawmakers felt that having offenders pick up trash would save the cost of keeping them behind bars, Curtiss said.
But Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall, whose agency runs the 690-inmate Metro Jail in Nashville, said annual costs could reach $200,000 for his county and $2 million statewide under the new law.
Hall also disagrees with the idea of trying to shame offenders into not driving drunk again, instead of treating them.
"At the end of the weekend we're going to have a person who has picked up a lot of litter, but is still addicted to alcohol," he said.
Personally I like the idea. I think It will work plus it cuts down the cost of cleaning the highways . As to the critics I don't think it is the courts responsibility to provide rehab. It is the courts responsibility to punish the offender. The offender should seek rehab on his own if he cannot afford it the he should seek charitable help. | |
|
| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/2/2006 6:12:30 PM | | He isn't an offender. He is an addict. He needs help, not some 400 year old punishment that only addresses the worst kind of childish revenge and does no good at all to reduce the problem. The reason people drink that way is because they have a genetic predisposition to addiction to alcohol. The only way to help them that works, so far, is a 12-step program, and support and encouragement. You can beat them senseless and they will still drink and drive afterwards, unless they are helped to manage their addiction. I wish the enlightenment fairy would get here and wave that wand. | |
|
| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/2/2006 6:45:47 PM | | Or maybe they drink because they like it and don't really care what happens to others as a result ? I wish the enlightenment fairy would go over there and wave the wand for you too. | |
|
| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/2/2006 8:19:18 PM | | Alcoholisim is an addiction that needs treatment. Drinking and driveing is a crime that needs punishment. | |
|
| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/2/2006 8:40:20 PM | | The punishment will only have limited effects. It'll be really great when those "I'm a drunk driver" shirts start showing up in thrift stores. | |
|
| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/2/2006 9:21:06 PM | | Looking at the system as a whole, you have a problem of people driving drunk causing harm. Stiff legal penalties provide the court with leverage to steer offenders into treatment programs. It is good to have a strong incentive for people to go to treatment. But without treatment, it is often simply not possible for an alcoholic to stop drinking. Drunk, they drive. So the approach taken now is to apply stiff penalties and maximize the likliehood people will undergo treatment. Remember that treatment requires a voluntary effort. If all you do is punish people, you don't get as much treatment success and don't reduce drunk drving as much. In many places previously, before MADD, drunk driving was let slide until someone was killed as the result. By then of course it was too late. Taking a purely vindictive attitude may feel good, but it doesn't work as well to reduce deaths and injuries caused by driving drunk. I go for whatever works best, and don't get anything personally out of making sure someone pays. If fear of prison keeps people from drinking and driving, great, that is part of it. Most of it though is about addiction and the inability to think straight. | |
|
| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/2/2006 9:37:59 PM | It is not the governments responsibility to pay for someones misbehavior. Where as I feel for their problem it is just that their problem. But when they take it to the road and endanger lives then it becomes a crime. Personally I think they should be charged on the second offence with attempted murder. If someone has a drinking problem they should seek help and it is out there but the government has NO bussiness paying for it. | |
|
| |
| All this and a free T shirt
Posted: 1/3/2006 11:01:12 AM | It really irritates me when news reports speak of drunk driving "accidents". BULLSH*T!!! Any incident involving a drunk driver is no accident. A drunk driver injuring or killing someone is like firing a shotgun into a crowded room and "accidentally" hitting someone.
First offence should be minimum 30 days in jail plus a one-year driving ban.
Second offence; 5 years in jail; loss of vehicle (to be auctioned off to pay for legal costs and education) plus a lifetime driving ban.
If the jerk is stupid enough to commit a third offence; Life in prison. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
