The AP reports that DUI offenders in Escambia County Florida are being branded with a scarlet letter, and subjected to an "operation tips" style of public monitoring. Previously, drivers convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol had their cars badged with "Convicted DUI". The public shaming apparently wasn't enough to stem the tide of DUI offenses, (big surprise) so now the powers that be are tagging offenders for monitoring by stool pigeon neighbors.

Some convicted drunken drivers in the Florida Panhandle have been ordered to put bumper stickers on their cars asking, "How's my driving? ... The judge wants to know!!!"

Escambia County Judge William White said he hopes the bumper stickers, which include an identification number for each driver and a toll-free phone number, will reduce repeat offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Won't it be fun to have the last laugh and report that jerk that cuts you off in traffic, drunk or not? Nothing like some cruel and unusual punishment to fix him up good.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I realize that drunken driving is indeed dangerous, but then again, so is speeding, aggressive driving, and any other number of traffic violations. Driving erratically, or while distracted or impaired should be punished, but the punishment should fit the crime. People who drive under the influence but do not actually do harm to anyone else should be treated on equal footing as all the other reckless or aggressive drivers out there.

I'm not advocating going soft on drunk drivers, but I am tired of the government taking punishments too far, and taking measures that don't actually have any affect on safety. For instance, lowering the minimum levels from 0.10 to 0.08 probably does little to make our roads safer. The people driving in that narrow range are not usually the problem, and should probably be treated like people that drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Sure, they may cause an accident, but how much of a danger are they really?

If you read most accident reports in the newspaper, people accused of DUI are usually 0.20 and above. A level of 0.15 would probably be sufficient for holiday checkpoints, and the lower levels should only come into question if there is an accident or a report of erratic driving. The lower levels should be used only to measure impairment during an accident investigation. After all, alcohol affects different people differently, and some people would probably be impaired at much lower levels than 0.08 while others would not.

Setting the science of blood alcohol levels aside, there are some localities that practice instant punishment and double jeopardy. New York City for instance started impounding vehicles at mere accusation, regardless of a conviction. Even if defendants won in court, they still didn't necessarily get their car back. Facing punishment without a trial, and then facing a second punishment later isn't a practice just isolated to New York. In many other localities you can lose your drivers license on the spot. Licenses are considered "privileges" and some states don't think twice about yanking them at any time without proving their case in a court of law. (And some people wonder why we don't want gun registration.)

Unfortunately such unreasonable government powers are often tolerated due to the stigmatizing of people caught driving under the influence. Proponents scream that it "saves lives", and that we should do it "for the children", which the excuse most often heard when freedoms are being removed.

I'll admit that views like mine are usually met with hostility, and irrelevant horror stories by people who's lives were tragically altered by drunk drivers. I say irrelevant, because you can find similar stories of people being killed by speeders and red light runners. Nobody wants to see innocent people killed, but violating the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights should not be acceptable no matter what the benefit. Deterrence should, instead, come from the harsh punishments meted out to those that actually do deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

UPDATE: Kate has more, including a graphic of the sticker.