Osler's Razor

My biggest fear as a driver would be that the reaction to and avoidance of these drivers would probably pose more of a traffic hazard than the actual drunk drivers themselves.
 

Side note: When I see the phrase "turn of the century," I still think 1900. It took me a second to realize that you meant 2000 (or more accurately, 2001).

Prof., how do you feel about the sex offender registration database? While its intended purpose isn't necessarily shame punishment, one might argue that that's one of the side effects. Several years ago a registered sex offender moved into my neighborhood. Some neighbors launched a campaign to inform the entire neighborhood (I expected them to break out the pitchforks and torches). I was a little stunned at the reaction, since the offenses were over 20 years ago. But it turned out the guy had lied to his new wife, then lied when she confronted him about it, so she kicked him out. I had a whole principled argument thing going until that happened... Now the fact that it "worked" just disturbs me.
 

On that sign, would it be more effective to have a photo of the drunk driver who killed the girl rather than the victim?
 

Pope, how did it "work"?
 

I've made a drunk driver stand with a sandwich board on a busy corner as part of a pre-trial diversion contract. With people that aren't actually criminals, psychologically, public shaming can act as an effective deterrent.

The problem isn't with otherwise reasonable people that would be deterred by such measures, but rather with sociopaths that just do not care about the law, or any punishment, if it would interfere with their goals. Case in point, my youngest cousin's fiancee was killed when her car was struck head-on by a drunk driver three weeks ago. It would have been his fourth DWI had he survived the accident, and even after her death, the maximum punishment for his crime would be up to 20 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Here's the kicker: all this wonderful deterrent technology (like ignition interlock devices or alcohol monitoring bracelets) only works if it's not circumvented, and one of the first things I saw in my misdemeanor practice with ignition interlocks and SCRAM bracelets was that people learned how to circumvent them with ordinary household items. An air mattress pump that will both inflate and deflate will operate an interlock. Liquid bandages under the sensors on a bracelet will prevent it from taking accurate readings.

We cannot, as much as we would like to, take away the free will of people to commit crimes. Those that are determined to break the law (or those who simply do not care, as society's conventions are seen as nothing more than inconvenient restrictions on their attainment of selfish goals) will do so no matter what obstacles we put in their way, or what punishments we might conceivable mete out.

On the other hand, deterrence was always a bad rationale for punishment, the same as retribution. If a convict cannot be rehabilitated, then punishment serves only the purpose of insulating society from his behavior, for a time, and of negating the originial violation of right that was the crime (see Hegel's "Philosophy of Right" on this matter).
 

But, Lane, in those cases incapacitation DOES work.
 

Some current examples of this in practice:

Minnesota: Special plates may be issued if family member of the offender has a valid license. The plates would bear a special series of numbers. (Minnesota Statutes §§168.041 & 168.042)
(Also referred to as Whiskey Plates)

Ohio: Plates on vehicles impounded for drunk driving are different from regular state plates, in red and yellow colors. Use of the plates became mandatory in 2004. (Ohio statutes §§4507.02(F)(2) and 4503.231)
 

I wasn't clear: incapacitation is a losing battle, and would only provide temporary protection (except in certain cases; chemical castration for sexual offenders does seem to be effective, if rather extreme). An interlock device works only until someone figures out how to get around it, and unfortunately, that information is easier to obtain now thanks to the internet.

For me, the better choice will always be: (1) see if we can change the psychology/behavior through rehabilitative processes; (2) failing that, incarcerate the offender away from civilized society; and finally (3) find some way of preventing future misconduct.

(3) is the extreme sanction for me, like chemical castration. (2) is more palatable, but denying a person freedom for prolonged periods only sits well with me for major crimes. (1) has the greatest potential, but it would require rethinking much of our justice system and how we treat all "criminals" the same, regardless of their actual crimes.
 

I've been installing SCRAM bracelets as a part-time job for the past year and a half, and had not heard of the liquid bandage work around--which probably doesn't mean a whole lot.

Changing the subject, as a parent of 2 toddlers-aged boys, I highly value deterrence as a rationale for punishment. I do, however, agree that what actually causes deterrence is a difficult question and I don't think many people argue that it doesn't work well on sociopaths. I think shame is a less effective deterrent in our society today because people live such anonymous lives.

To curb traffic tragedies, I think we need more innovation regarding transportation in general. Criminalizing drunk drivers/texters/bad driving doesn't seem to solve the problem.