It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: NY Plans 'DWI' Plates for Repeat Offenders

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Lawmakers in New York State are considering a Bill that would require special license plates for repeat DWI offenders. The bill's sponsors said the DWI plates would help police and would allow them to stop the car without further cause. Critics Say the special DWI plates would carry a stigma, but supporters counter that's the whole point. The proposal would mandate the DWI plates for anyone convicted of drunken driving three times in five years.
 



www.auburnpub.com
ALBANY, - The automobiles of repeat drunk drivers would carry special license plate numbers under a bill introduced Thursday.

The license numbers or letters -the specific code hasn't been determined - would allow police to quickly identify motorists convicted of driving while intoxicated. Police could then stop the cars without further cause, said the bill's sponsors, Republican senators Thomas Libous of Binghamton and Nicholas Spano of Westchester. The license plates are part of their package of proposals to toughen penalties for drunken driving.

The New York proposal is less drastic than some other states including Ohio, where convicted drivers must have bright orange plates on their cars; and in Iowa, where in 1991 special plates were adopted that allowed police to stop the cars without further cause. The sponsors said the letter or number coding would be less of a "scarlet letter" easily identified by the general public and would have a better chance of passing the Democrat-led Assembly.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While I can see their reasoning behind the bill, personally I am not too fond of it. If passed this Bill would allow police to stop any car carrying the special plates several times a day, as well as stop the car even when the convicted drunken driver isn't behind the wheel; which in effect takes away the rights of some innocent bystanders.

Stay tuned to your local channel, next week big brother will take some more of our rights away.


Related News Links:
news10now.com
www.thejournalnews.com

[edit on 6/17/2005 by shots]

[edit on 6/17/2005 by shots]




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
What rights are you refering to? The right to drive drunk? Im all for this. They should also have "pedophile" plates and "rapist" plates. The above mentioned rights are only for those who FOLLOW the law. Drunks dont belong on the road, let alone those who have numerous convictions.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I have to agree with the story author. This allows a police officer to pull someone over without any evidence or reason what so ever. Complete disagreement to the basic principles of the USA and freedom. Everyone is assumed innocent.

This could start a precedence.

Next would be speeders, then parking ticket offenders. Where would it end? Special plates for smokers, left handers, elderly, new drivers.

Just because someone has convictions for DWI, does not mean they are drunk EVERY time behind the wheel. I have no problems with an officer pulling someone over who shows signs of DWI. But to do it any time they want to???

This needs to be stopped.

[edit on 6/17/05 by Qwas]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Just wait untill a drunk kills someone close to you, and they walk away from it...I hope it never happens to ya....

This is proposed for after the 3rd conviction...At that point, they can shoot em for all I care. The world is a better place with one less drunk around.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I think this is a good idea. We have a huge DWI problem here in New Mexico. It's so bad that a couple of years ago the Legislature seriously considered making interlock devices mandatory for all cars operating in the state. Fortunately, that did not pass.

www.pntonline.com...

[Edit] Wow! I just noticed that article is from today. I can't believe that bill is still bouncing around. Personally, I'd move if I had to install one of those things or even have one in my car, if I bought it new. I haven't had a drink in nearly fifteen years and having to blow into a tube everytime I start my car would just be too much of a pain for my tastes.[/Edit]

We can look up our friends here:

traffic.nmcourts.com...


[edit on 05/6/17 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Awesome post Grady! I like that idea to. Anything to shame a criminal is fine with me. If you dont want the fame, dont do the crime. Im so sick of society worring about the guilty parties rights. Screw them. Everyone screws up once. But when your talkin repeat offenders, I say do whatever you want with them.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
In my opinion first time offenders should lose there driving privleges.
Had an old high school friend that had somewhere around 8 dui's. He hired a good lawer for every court date and was able to legaly retain the right to drive to and from work each time. Well after about the 8th dui he finally killed someone while intoxicated with his truck. He hired a good lawer and is allowed to drive to and from work.

What a shame. A #up that was allowed to kill someone and ruin someone elses family because he did not have the determination to quit drinking. But hey the law did not punish him so why should he quit drinking? As far as the license plates idea I say go gor it. If the courts are not gong to protect the people that drive sober and get these people of the road then let the cops harras them so that they might sober up and quit killing innocent people.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Here's an interesting case:




The state has refused to take custody of a San Juan County man sentenced to prison, saying he needs expensive heart transplant surgery and the prison can't provide adequate care.

Derek Kramme, 32, was sentenced to the maximum three years' in prison after pleading guilty to his sixth drunken-driving offense.

He was to turn himself in last month, but the Department of Corrections cited his medical condition.


When the department told state District Judge Thomas Hynes that Kramme's medical problems prevented the state from taking him, "I told them to send me something in writing or I'm going to ship him.''


www.abqjournal.com...

[Empahsis mine]



[edit on 05/6/17 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
They already have something like that here in Ohio...they're yellow with red numbers.

I think they're for people who are only allowed to drive to work and back...I'm not sure.

Thing of it is, alcoholism is a problem, and I would think that if you're caught drunk driving once, there's a good chance you'll do it again. That's just my observation.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
What rights are you refering to? The right to drive drunk? Im all for this. They should also have "pedophile" plates and "rapist" plates. The above mentioned rights are only for those who FOLLOW the law. Drunks dont belong on the road, let alone those who have numerous convictions.


Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I too am all for it. What bothers me is they can pull over anyone driving the car, that is what bothers me.

What I think would be better then the plates is a mandatory device that would prevent a repeat offender from drinking when intoxicated.




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Actually it's rarely ever alcoholics or people who have a drinking problem who are caught drunk driving. 1/8 th i believe. This stat is just from my Highway safety alcohol class which I got for WALKING after having a few (and by BAC was only a .09). The majority are what are termed as social drinkers who have a drink now and then.

This reminds me of when I went out to California a couple years ago. I bought a Bumper sticker in a little town called Weed. The sticker said "I love Weed, California". My friend put it on his car. Within 48 hours he was pulled over and had his car searched


Plus all you would have to do is take the car out of that persons name. Pow the plate doesn't matter anymore. Or what if it's someones kid driving thier parents car...



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
They already have something like that here in Ohio...they're yellow with red numbers.

I think they're for people who are only allowed to drive to work and back...I'm not sure.

Thing of it is, alcoholism is a problem, and I would think that if you're caught drunk driving once, there's a good chance you'll do it again. That's just my observation.


Actually the statistic i was given is that half who are caught, will be caught within 8 a second time.but like i said in a previous post that is from my class and have to find an online source to back it up.

The thing is it's not alcholism thats the problem in this sense really. Alcholics only make up a very small porportion of those caught drinking and driving.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
They're actually announcing on the news (KASA-TV) now that in New Mexico starting tomorrow, everyone convicted of DWI, even once, must use an ignition interlock device forever. I can't find a link for the story.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I think a person convicted of DWI/DUI once should be made to install an ignition interlock switch on their car for 1 year at their cost where they have to blow into the device every 15 minutes the way it is now here.

If the person gets convicted again for DWI THEN the plates would be a good thing along with 6 months in jail. If they do six months then that should make them think twice next time.

I can see a person getting a DWI and being falsely convicted once because the law isn't perfect, but getting convicted twice for a DWI makes that person look like someone who will continue to drink or use drugs and drive no matter what the law says based on their past history. If that happens, the person convicted should be forced to have the people around him driving down the road know of that persons drinking/drug problem to allow the innocent person in the other car a better chance to avoid a possible bad day or worse.

A third DWI, 2 to 5 years in jail and no more license for 5 to 10 years.

A forth DWI, 5 to 10 years in jail and no more license ever. At that point the plates would be a non issue.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
This is great, and do I say about time for NY. In MN people convicted of DWI have special plates, usually a two letter combo and 4 numbers. I have yet to see a police officer pull a car over with these plates on, just because they can. The PD will only pull a car over with cause.

And as far as being a stigma, good maybe people will think before they drink.

Cheers



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
Awesome post Grady! I like that idea to. Anything to shame a criminal is fine with me. If you dont want the fame, dont do the crime. Im so sick of society worring about the guilty parties rights. Screw them. Everyone screws up once. But when your talkin repeat offenders, I say do whatever you want with them.


You are a criminal, you smoke cannabis. Have you installed your "I smoke pot" plates yet?

At least then the police will stop you everytime they see you and run blood tests on you. We sure as hell don't need more druggies on the road, you are a danger with your clouded judgement.


Im so sick of society worring about the guilty parties rights. Screw them


Same applies to you,you are a criminal after all.

I suggest you get those plates right away so everyone knows what you are.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I would think that if someone has been convicted 3 times for DUI, they shouldn't be driving at all. Operating a dangerous weapon, like a large vehicle, is a privilage, not a right. Screw up, and lose that privilage. I can understand being given a second chance, but not a third or fourth. As far as I'm concerned, on the second DUI conviction the drivers licence should be revoked permantly. If one DUI doesn't teach you, the second or third one isn't going to either.


You are a criminal, you smoke cannabis. Have you installed your "I smoke pot" plates yet?


Well, if pot were responsible for as many trafic accidents, wife beatings, and child abuse incendences as alcohol, you might have a point. In truth, the slight paranoia factor causes most experienced smokers to actually be more careful while driving (key word: experienced). Responsible users will know better than to drive at all while stoned. So bring on your "Pot smoker" plates. Only those who don't understand the difference between abuse and responsible use will have to worry.

Heh. I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point anyway. There is no comparison at all between how much death and tragedy alcohol causes as opposed to cannabis.

Unless you are willing to make alcohol illegal, with all due respect, STFU about cannabis, especially if you have little or no personal experience with it.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
What rights are you refering to? The right to drive drunk? Im all for this. They should also have "pedophile" plates and "rapist" plates. The above mentioned rights are only for those who FOLLOW the law. Drunks dont belong on the road, let alone those who have numerous convictions.


You're absolutely right!

I think everyone that is ever convicted of a crime, whether or not they are socially repentant and willing to never commit said crime, or any subsequent crime again should have a kick me sign permanently attached to their back.

Please understand that the vast majority of people who are sent to prison are never convicted of committing similar crimes for which they were initially convicted, and seldom convicted of other crimes.

Or, you can tag us all like cattle, for the sins we've committed against our fellow man, like you suggest. But what of the crimes of which we are all guilty in our own right, but for which we have never been caught? What if we all were to wear tags on us that would label us as minor imbezzers, exploiters, passive aggressives? What about deadbeats, panhandlers, and squatters? What about abusive alcoholic husbands (or wives) and fathers (or mothers)? What about those who promulgate disease and drug use silently throughout the community, whose activity doesn't warrant the expenditure of those departments responsible for their abatement? And those who just give up, throw up their hands in despair with regard to the world they have no choice but to live in? Some of whom, in my opinion and observation are correct in their actions based on principle alone, disregarding any materiel value of life itself.

I am a gun owner. I am a gun shooter. I carry a handgun just about everywhere I go. I am willing and able to use my handgun in any situation which legally and morally warrants its use.

Here's an idea. Put a t-shirt on every person that the above statement accurately describes, and you will immediately see less drunk driving, less violent crime, less non-violent crime, and less of any other crime you can describe with arbitrary values.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4

Originally posted by spliff4020
Awesome post Grady! I like that idea to. Anything to shame a criminal is fine with me. If you dont want the fame, dont do the crime. Im so sick of society worring about the guilty parties rights. Screw them. Everyone screws up once. But when your talkin repeat offenders, I say do whatever you want with them.


You are a criminal, you smoke cannabis. Have you installed your "I smoke pot" plates yet?

At least then the police will stop you everytime they see you and run blood tests on you. We sure as hell don't need more druggies on the road, you are a danger with your clouded judgement.


Im so sick of society worring about the guilty parties rights. Screw them


Same applies to you,you are a criminal after all.

I suggest you get those plates right away so everyone knows what you are.




Ha-Ha! Nice try! I havent ever been convicted of ANYTHING!.. I have never been found guilty of endangering anyone on the road. And, if I WAS convicted two or three times of possesion, I would be IN JAIL!!! The fact that these people were stupid enough to get caught, means they belong to the state now!

Do what you want in the privacy of your own home. When you bring it to the public, you better watch out. My 30-some odd years have taught me that.

Ask a cop, theyll tell ya. They arent that worried about someone smokin a little in their own homes. They dont care if you sit around YOUR HOUSE and get drunk as hell. Its when it gets out in public that it is a problem. Its when people start DIEING as a result of your drinking, that the problem escalates.

Your arguement is weak.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   


You are a criminal, you smoke cannabis. Have you installed your "I smoke pot" plates yet?

There is a difference ya know. How many people have died due to pot-smokers behind the wheel? Too few to count...if any.

Jerry Mcguire says "Show me the money!!!"
Well, I say "Show me the STATS!!!" on pot-smokers killing people behind the wheel.



Do what you want in the privacy of your own home.

You nailed it!! If you are rich and able to afford your own PRIVATE driving course then go ahead....drink and drive on your course where there are no others for you to harm except for yourself.

Im all for labeling repeat offenders. Chesters, Drunk drivers, theives..etc..etc..

How many times do people drunk driving get caught?
They probably drink and drive more often then they get caught.
Then they go home and say "Man that was close...I made it home"

Well with the plates cops and citizens alike will be able watch out for them.
This does not mean they get puleld over 24/7......they just get watched more often.

Kriz_4, would you rather redeat drunk drivers lose thier license?
I would...but that's not my decision.



[edit on 18/6/2005 by SportyMB]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join