The scarlet plate

New bill demands humiliation over punishment

Enacting stricter laws against drunk driving would appear to be a foolproof move for Gov. John Engler as election day draws closer. Last year, 544 people were killed in Michigan because of drunk driving accidents. Fighting this problem is a cause nearly everyone can support. It is an issue that should not divide Republicans and Democrats nor should it create controversy among voters or lawmakers. And yet last week, after the State Legislature approved a bill-package to reform current drunk driving laws, certain proposals remained suspect at best.

Engler has expressed his unconditional support for the entire 20-bill package. This doesn't sit well with some Democrats in the state House who feel the bills contain many specifics that are simply counter-productive. Among the most startling of these was a proposed drunk driving penalty so infused with grim symbolism as to border on the absurd. The original legislative package included a ghastly law - proposed by Engler himself - that would make Nathaniel Hawthorne turn over in his grave: the issuing of scarlet-colored license plates to convicted drunk drivers. This bizarre proposal was quickly dropped from the final package, but its spirit lives on in other parts of the bills.

Under the new laws, which would take effect on Oct. 1, 1999, repeat offenders - those convicted of drunken driving a second or third time - would have their cars booted outside of their homes for 24 days and 6 months, respectively. Measures such as these seem to be aimed more at social stigmatization than at saving lives. The goal of these laws should be to keep dangerous drivers off the roads, not to humiliate them into compliance. For one thing, it may not work. There is no guarantee that someone whose car is booted outside of their home will be shamed into never drinking and driving again. It does not even guarantee that the person will not simply drive another vehicle within that time period. Instead of giving a person the option to be embarrassed or not, it should be the job of lawmakers to simply get that person off the road.

This confusion of purpose is further emphasized by the bills' comparative leniency on first-time offenders. Those convicted for the first time will not be subject to suspension of driving privileges nor to the temporary loss of their vehicles. It seems that the state is more interested in riling up neighborhoods against drunk drivers by publically displaying their immobility than they are in creating serious legislation that would keep drunk drivers off the road. Engler and the state Legislature are treating drunk driving more as a social disease than as a physical threat to many innocent people. Such measures, as have been outlined in the new bills, are more punitive than preventative. While it is essential to punish people who drive while intoxicated, it is more important to make sure that there are fewer drunk drivers on the roads.

But there are proposals in the bill package that indicate drunk driving laws are moving, albeit slowly, in the right direction. One provision requires that those convicted a second time submit to drug and alcohol treatment. While a few Alcoholics Anonymous meetings will not solve the problem of drunk driving, at least laws such as these focus on preventing destructive behavior before it results in catastrophe. The Legislature's package also allows for the suspension of driver's licenses without court orders. These latter proposals attempt to minimize the number of people who are driving under the influence at any given time. It is this kind of legislation that will save lives; embarrassing lawn ornaments, scarlet letters or public stonings will not.

09-30-98