…So there I was this morning, minding my own business, checking the headlines on the web when I ran into the following AP story: New Year Brings New Laws, State to State. “Oh,” I thought, “this might be interesting or entertaining.” And so I started reading about states with new laws against identity theft, a Florida law limiting gifts lobbyists can give legislators, yada-yada, and then I hit this gem:
Legislatures sought ways to improve safety on the highways, demanding seat belt use in taxis and shuttle vans in Oregon, requiring motorists hogging the left lane to move to the right in Florida, and trying to discourage drunk driving in Tennessee by requiring that offenders help clean up state highways while wearing vests emblazoned with the phrase “I am a Drunk Driver” in 4-inch lettering. (emphasis mine)
…And I said to myself, “WTF!?!”
What’s next? The return of the Scarlet Letter for prostitutes?
And so I ask our legal minds out there – is this one of those “showpiece” bills that will quickly go down in flames when challenged in court and that’s only passed so the legislature can feel good about itself; sending out fliers to the electorate showing they’re tough on crime? What does this say about the legislature and people of Tennessee? (I’m sooo embarrassed, as you can imagine!)
Do y’all know of other examples of laws requiring public humiliation in our great republic? </snark> How have they stood up against legal challenge? This just floors me. (as I guess you can tell) If someone told me about this in the workplace, I’d have dismissed it as a bad joke or urban legend (which it may yet be, I hope I hope?).
But then, this is the state where it’s legal to collect and eat road kill:
Roadkill Law
TCA Section 70-4-115 allows that, except for non-game and federally protected wildlife species, wild game animals accidentally killed by a motor vehicle may be possessed for personal use and consumption. However, possession of a deer killed by a motor vehicle is permitted only if the person notifies the TWRA [Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency – KP] or any law enforcement officer and supplies his/her name within 48 hours. A bear killed by a motor vehicle may be possessed only upon the issuance of a kill tag by a TWRA enforcement officer.
(I might as well put it in here, `cause I know someone will bring it up in the comments…)
Checking out the other diaries, the thought just hit me:
I am so behind the curve.
A Scarlet Letter is merciful and civilized compared to the alternative.
9-11 really did change everything.
Now I understand.
As a comparison, that diary reflects the need to obtain a confession from a DUI suspect who refused the sobriety test.
with anyone who’d drive drunk being out along the highway with a vest saying they drove drunk. Why don’t you like it?
To me, it’s like kids, the punishment should be related. How is this worse than jail? Society gets some junk cleaned, hopefully they get embarassed. The lose is where?
Secondly, what on earth is wrong with allowing people to eat road kill? Otherwise it goes to waste. Otherwise, perhaps some poor people would be hungrier than with the road kill.
The road kill argument might come down to a matter of integrity. It could be that some think it’s only honoarble to eat a (previously) living creature only after the life has been deliberately taken from it.
The problem I have with shame as punishment is that we don’t have 100% confidence in the guilt of all convictions. As a matter of choice in sentencing agreement it might be different.
If society wants to sentence drunk drivers to pick up litter I think that’s grand. Good exercise, and far better than sitting bored in a cell. And if the crime were one where prison time resulted, wearing an orange jumpsuit is fine, to identify the person as an offender so they can’t hitch a ride and try to escape.
I have two problems with the TN law, one ethical, one practical. I’ll start with the ethical one, but it will lead directly into the practical one:
The problem with having them wear their offence labeled across their clothing is that it crosses the line between punishment and public humiliation. The criminal justice system is about providing justice, not revenge, not shame. By putting a label on an offender like that you open him up to passers-by (who perhaps lost a loved one to a drunk driver) throwing insults or objects or buckshot his way. And that is not supposed to be part of the sentence in a civilized society. It is not the job of the criminal justice system to shame a person and ruin his reputation – what happens after the sentence is served, and the person’s good name has been besmirched? What if he were falsely or erroneously convicted? How is he supposed to get a job or conduct other aspects of day-to-day life? Remember, even if guilty his sentence has been served, which means the debt to society has been paid. People have long memories, though, and the more the criminal justice system reduces a person to a characture the harder it is for that person to get on with their life, increasing the oods that they will end up becoming a burden on society as a criminal, a down-in-the gutter-drunk, on welfare, etc.
Where do you draw the line? We already do this to sex offenders, because psychologists say there is a high probability of recidivism. But doesn’t that in effect mean we’re punishing people in advance for crimes they have yet to commit? There is a difference between probability and certainty. If there is a certainty, they need to be put in a mental institution until safe to release.
As a supposedly Christian nation, I thought we were supposed to be open to the possibility of redemption, of second chances, of people realizing the error of their ways and turning their lives around.
Are we going to put signs on people who have committed crimes due to mental illness because of a condition that requires medication or symptoms will recur (Something like schizophrenia for example)? After all, they might stop taking their medications and become dangerous again – better put a warning label on them.
Are we going to put tatoos on all abusive spouses?
There is no clear cut off; it’s a very slippery slope and soon you are literally back at “The Scarlet Letter” again. Now, I haven’t read the book since high school, but from what I remember, it seems that part of the whole point was that a label objectifies a complex person into a simple label, obscuring their good points, denying the possiblity of accepting readmission into society. Also that no one is perfect; the person casting aspersions towards the drunk driver by the side of the road might be an embezzler, cheat on his wife, distribute kiddie porn, and cause massive fish kills by not installing proper pollution controls on his factory. Does everyone get a label? What about when they come for the liberal subversive elements disrupting the happy operation of society, breeding discontent? Will you be happy with your tattoo? Why not send problem folks off for a more “permanent solution?”
Our founders realized that it is better for several guilt persons to go free than for an innocent man to be punished. Labels and public scorn fly in the face of that, as they deny the possibilty of reform. Or as a wise man once put it: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
I end with my opening thought – it’s about justice, not revenge, not about shame. We send people to the “penitentiary” because we want them to do “penance.” To feel remore for their act and change their lives for the better. Public humilation will breed dark thoughts of revenge, not spur one to reform.
You say they’re like children, and need a good shaming. I don’t want the government to be my father. I am an adult. If I break a rule I want to be objectively judged based on evidence, and sentenced accordingly. It’s not about the government trying to break my ornery will to the majority’s opinion. Down that path lies the tyranny of the masses, as our founders knew well.
That was a perfect explanation, in my opinion. Thanks for writing and sharing that.
Aw, shucks! (blush)