If Drunk Drivers Were Treated like Sex Offenders…

Nobody likes sex offenders. People aren’t very fond of drunk drivers, either. In fact persons convicted of DUI, DWI are thousands of times more likely to be involved in the same type of crime again, and kill or injure far more people including children and young adults each year than previously convicted sex offenders. But no matter how egregious the crime, both groups are entitled to the same rights under our Constitution. In particular, after they complete their punishment, they should be DONE and able to start over. If they offend again, then the punishment should be swift and more harsh. Their families, especially their children, should not be harassed and ostracize simply for living with a former offender. This is what we, as Americans, expect from our legal system and from each other. This satirical analogy is intended to show just how far from those expectations our government’s treatment of sex offenders has become. Hopefully you will agree that this “fake history” is absurd, unconstitutional, and would cause much more harm than good. Unfortunately, it has direct parallels to what has really been happening to sex offenders and their families.
 
If Drunk Drivers Were Treated like Sex Offenders…
2010
You are caught running a red light. The policeman who pulls you over discovers you’ve been drinking, and arrests you for drunk driving. The judge sentences you to a $1000 fine and 60 days in jail. Recognizing your drinking problem, you participate in a treatment program, join
AA, and never drink again , let alone drink and drive.
 
2012
Drunk driving tragedies have been in the news a lot recently, and the public wants to toughen up on drunk drivers. A law is passed requiring anyone convicted of drunk driving after the year 2008 to be put on a non-public registry for five years from the date of their conviction. The registry exists so if there are any hit-and-run accidents, the police
know who to check out as suspects first. You are now required to report to the police station once a year to give them your address, driver’s license number, license plate numbers, and
vehicle descriptions. You must report any changes in information within five days. If you fail to report, you can expect two years of incarceration on a felony charge. Reporting was demoralizing and embarrassing. Thank goodness you only have to do this for one year!
 
2013
As a reaction to an especially messy drunk driving incident that got many people up in arms, everyone convicted of drunk driving after the year 2008 is restricted from living within 1000 feet of the nearest bar or store which sells alcoholic beverages. Your state legislature also
decides that its RDDs (registered drunk drivers) will need to be on the police registry for ten years from the date of their conviction. This takes a big bite out of the state budget, so RDDs are expected to pay $500 per year to offfset the cost. Your house is within range of two liquor stores. You have to move far out of town, forcing you and your wife to find new jobs. It’s a scramble, and Santa isn’t as generous this year. Your children, who had to change schools mid-year, are not happy. And now you are stuck on that registry until 2020!
 
Early 2014
The national government has imposed a minimum sentence of two years in prison for any drunk-driving charge, and a maximum of ten years if there has been damage to property or personal injury. Failure to register now carries a stiffer penalty of five years in prison, with no
parole in either situation. RDDs originally convicted of personal injury incidents must now re-register four times a year, at a cost of $250 per visit. Failure to register carries the same penalty as a new offense. Your family celebrates the fact that this time, the changes do not affect you. But it is cold comfort. You live in a small town, and people sometimes harrass you when you are out with the family.
 
Mid-2015
Thanks to politicians who all want to show they are tough on Drunk Drivers, living restrictions are expanded to include any place where people congregate to drink. All RDD-owned vehicles must have pink license plates so others will know that a drunk driver might be behind
the wheel. Another federal law forbids any current RDD from owning certain types of vehicles. No studies have actually confirmed this, but it is believed that people who own these vehicles are more likely to drive while intoxicated. You own one of these restricted vehicles. You are allowed a month to sell it or face a felony charge and two years’ incarceration. You lose a
lot of money in the process, and can only afford to buy a clunker. You also have to move again, because there is a Kiwanis Club just over the hill. The only place that qualifies is a run-down trailer park filled with other RDDs. Your kids and wife are frequently harassed by schoolmates and neighbors whenever they drive anywhere, and the car is often
vandalized. The kids are regularly getting into fights at school, and your oldest shows signs of serious depression.
 
Early 2016
Two studies have shown Drunk Driving accounted for nearly __ child deaths last year, and __ serious child injuries. In a rapid response, federal government passes the Cindy Sweet Act, named after a child who became a paraplegic after one such incident, which mandates
that all states create a public, web-based registry listing ANYONE who has had ANY type of alcohol-related conviction and made it retroactive to include all people convicted of those offenses, no matter how long ago.  This registry includes the RDD’s home and work addresses, his/her photograph, description of his/her vehicle and of course the vehicle license plate number. RDD’s that have been convicted of personal injury charges must install breathalyzers, at their cost, into each vehicle they drive, that send radio reports back to their local police station for monitoring. A positive breathalyzer is grounds for immediate arrest. You lose your job because your employer refuses to be listed on the registry, and nobody else will hire you in spite of your excellent employment history. The road to the trailer park is lined with signs like “Baby Killers Ahead” and “Beware! Child Murderers!” Others are much cruder. Your eldest tries to commit suicide, and is placed in a treatment center. Unable to take any more of this, your spouse packs up the younger kids and moves out, with your blessing. You move into a two- bedroom trailer with five other RDDs, to conserve what little money you all manage to earn from odd jobs. Interestingly, not one of your trailor-mates have ever even driven drunk. But they all get the same treatment.
 
2017
Penalties for new offenses, and for failing to register, have doubled. RDDs are no longer allowed to drive on the interstate, for public safety reasons. The breathalyzer and license plate requirements are expanded to include any vehicles owned by family members, because the RDD might have access to them. Also, all these vehicles must have a GPS installed for law enforcement to track whether it is safely parked in your driveway or parking lot between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m., since those are the hours most bars are open. The new requirements have caused you and most of your trailer-mates to lose what little income you make, because you had night jobs. In desperation, everyone chips in to buy two bottles of good rum – the
first drink any of you have had since your convictions. Passing around the bottles, you all get roaring drunk, climb into your breathalyzer- enhanced vehicles, turn on the engines, and wait. Within minutes, police arrive and take all of you into custody. You are guaranteed to be
in prison for five years or more. But at least you are warm, and dry, and have steady job.
 
If you think this can’t happen. Take a look at the history of the registry that is built on lies, myths and misconceptions. if you don’t stand up for the disfavored groups rights then be prepared to lose your own.

18 comments for “If Drunk Drivers Were Treated like Sex Offenders…

  1. TJ64
    May 31, 2017 at 1:12 am

    Thank you! This is a great presentation of just what can happen when you screw around with the Constitution regarding a class of persons you don’t like. We need to STOP letting the government have this kind of power over the people. People you need to wake-up. This is dangerous times and our government is out of control. The Court system is not helping much either. They continue to side with big government issues. We all have a very serious problem facing this country right now.

  2. Scott
    May 31, 2017 at 3:14 am

    I always asked why not put a mark on their license so they cannot purchase beer at any store or drinking establishment. Make it a federal law that all servers and cashiers ask for a persons ID.

    Doing this would also curb under age drinking or sale to minors. the strong arm of the law is always as strong as it should be where it is most needed.

    Opioides are now a big deal because they refused to correct it and now it has gotten so bad, now they want to provide safe shoot up stations in communities where it’s the worst for drug addictions.

  3. May 31, 2017 at 7:52 am

    Very well done Will. Please let articles like this be your voice. Share!

  4. Todd
    May 31, 2017 at 7:54 am

    I would really like the opportunity to express that I have had the same thoughts on this. Why are s.o.’s treated so much more harshly them someone with a dwi. Are drunk drivers forced to take polygraphs to prove they aren’t reoffending? This goes for any crime. An s.o. must take polygraphs sometimes every six months and if he/she fails may be revoked.

    • Linda Ball
      May 31, 2017 at 5:10 pm

      They also don’t have the basic rights other citizens take for granted. My fiancé got taken back to prison because someone lied to his parole officer about having porn. We have proof it was a malicious lie, but they don’t care. He is 78 years old and not a threat to anyone.

  5. Ranger11bv
    May 31, 2017 at 8:23 am

    Eric Rolston And guess what?? Mary Kay Letourneau is a LEVEL 1 in Washington state!!!! WTF!?!?! I was in my 20’s and did a touchy feely on a 16 y/o ABOVE clothing, NO sex, and im STILL a level 3! What the hell????

  6. Peggy Green
    May 31, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    My husband was entering puberty the day I was born…he’s 14 years older than me. Granted, I was 21 when we got married however, I already had 2 children. The first son was born when I was 16 years old. My 2nd was born when I was 20. I was sexually active at age 14, as we’re most girls my age, where I’m from. I’m not trying to condemn or condone any behaviors whatsoever, I just would like to know how it came to be, in the land of the free, that what was once accepted as proper family dynamic, the husband in his late 20’s or early 30’s taking his child bride & reproducing large families, is now considered a criminal act. I personally know if 4 men, convicted of child sex crimes & their status with the criminal justice system is totally off the rails on a crazy train. First man, kisses his 12 year old on the mouth once, walked in on her showering “many times while wearing only underwear but quickly left when realizing the restroom was occupied.” & his ex wife accused him of raping the 12 year old however, she never testified against her father, certain documents are sealed but as her friend for 20 years, I am certain that her father made her prepubescent self feel uncomfortable at most. He was given a jury trial in our small town & plead not guilty. He received a guilty verdict with a sentence of life without. Next guy, fondled & molested his 16 year old daughter from age 11-16 when she confided in an aunt & asked for help before he went too far. She was & is terrified of him & her mother & is mentally maladjusted as a result of the entire ordeal. Her mother had a relative with political influence, they had him in jail less than 24 hours. He did not go to trial, instead his lawyer worked out a probation plea deal privately & he was allowed to enter a plea via his attorney, while on a camping trip with his family..including the daughter, bc she had no place to go..mentally mind fucked by everyone around her, even the people she trusted to help her. Her dad did 10 years on UNsupervised probation. He has to follow the registry & housing laws but his life is cake compared to life wo guy. Third guy, was a married man, had 3 young children, 2 boys & 1 girl, all under age 8 at the time his wife found out he was having an affair with a coworker. She confronted him, he denied it. She stalked him & the co-worker & had his phone & vehicle tapped. She got her evidence. He was a lying, cheating bastard. Instead of arming herself with this evidence & taking his ass to the cleaner…she went home & planted seeds of mistrust & terror in the minds of her small children. She told them their dad was molesting them in their sleep. She planned carefully for 6 months & molded the minds to get liking before she went to the prosecutor & told him her children were being molested by their dad. He had been afraid of her doing something like this if she found out he was having the affair & broke it off within 2 weeks of it’s takeoff…not much of an affair but still an affair…multiple text messages between him, the coworker, his mom & dad & a brother detailed how afraid of his wife he really was. He caught her putting rat poison in his food, antifreeze in his Gatorade, his brake lines were bled in the parking lot of his job, and he even suggested that he thought he was being framed for a serious crime. Long story short, the children are documented as stating along the lines of, “mommy says daddy touches us in our sleep” but they couldn’t give any specific details of any specific event. He plead not guilty, was held in jail without bond & given a trial date. His attorney approached him 7 times with plea offers & he rejected on the grounds he thought the court would sway in favor of an innocent man. The week before trial, his attorney met the prosecutor privately & hashed out an agreement for 35 years, out in 10, guaranteed to have his life for a guilty plea…no trial…for if he were to go to trial, they “guaranteed” him life without. Pressured into a guilty plea for something he did not do. His kids are now 18, 16 & 15 & have been for the last 6 years trying to get his conviction overturned. They admit their dad is innocent. Mom made them say things by threatening kidnappers from the government coming to steal them from their beds at night if they didn’t go along with her. Dad can’t make parole bc he must admit guilt, show remorse, make ammends…how can he try to prove his innocence & meet parole board guidelines at the same time? The 4th man is a man with severe learning disabilities & a speech impediment. He’s very tiny in stature & meek in his mannerisms. He is in his late 40’s & was so at the time of his alleged offense. He was dating a woman with a preteen daughter who was & is known as a pathological liar & a spoiled brat. Her mom & grandma are “religious” & follow a Pentecostal like doctrine..except for the fact that mom also does meth & is known to trade sex for dope. Her kids have really been through & seen terrible things in life. Anyway..as you may have guessed, daughter accused mom’s last 3 boyfriends of molesting her. All three are in prison. This man was just a gullible, ignorantan in her sights. She accused him of rape. He plead not guilty. His public defender graciously worked to get him the best possible plea deal…25 years. He served 5. Paroled out to his sister & her husband. He wears an ankle monitor. Is not allowed a driver’s license, a cell phone with a camera, they can not have computers in their home nor can any of their 3 adult children being grandkids to visit their grandparents while the uncle is at home. Which he is required to be home from 3pm until 8:45am every single day. He couldn’t get a job under those conditions of he was able. He pays a probation fee & fines from his court proceedings out of his monthly disability check. He can’t go to church, shopping in any stores, etc. He was given 500 fliers with his information & links to his criminal record & sex offender registry & an officer in our county drove him to every single house in 4 towns to pass out those fliers. He’s dehumanized. Innocent. Robbed. Raped. Demoralizing for not only him but his sister & her husband have faced major hardship with health & finances…one daughter is not speaking to them bc she feels like her mom chose her brother instead of her grandchildren. ..Her mom feels like she never had a choice. The girl has since made public comments & posts on social media about getting payback & revenge on her mom by telling lies on her boyfriends. Nothing is being done. Poor family with no means or energy to fight a demon beast that they already know can crush them with one small thump of the finger..the finger of justice points at whoever it so chooses & deals according to their mood & case status, whether or not there is an election coming up, how involved in the community your family is..how likely it is that you will put up a fight & they crucify people in the press with false statements & little or no evidence of any crimes…how quickly the general public will fall for their scams of they see it in the news. It’s the news, right? Must be true.
    The entire judicial system is a complete ducking lie. I pray they all get what they deserve.

    • Lori
      June 1, 2017 at 2:47 am

      Amazing post Peggy!!! Thank you!!! My sentiments EXACTLY!!!

    • Ranger11bv
      June 4, 2017 at 6:36 am

      And how do you know all this VERY personal info on each person?????

    • Tim L
      June 10, 2017 at 10:25 am

      We have become a nation of victims! We will blame ” the Russians” when it all collapses.

      Anthem

      Oh say can you see
      By the LED light
      Not so proudly we hailed
      At the twilights last gleaming.

      Whose broad stripes and bright stars
      Through the perilous fright
      O’vr the TVs we watched
      Were so cowardly screaming

      And the sirens will blare
      The bullets flying in air
      Gave proof through the plight
      That no liberty was there.

      Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave
      O’re the land of the regulated and
      scared shirtless of the
      Sex offender.

      Are we not proud!

    • Tim L
      June 10, 2017 at 10:50 am

      The power of the “databases” was soon realized by the deepstate(DS). Not only did the devices afford the DS the ability to muster and instruct their members and allies in minutes; it also permitted them to identify their adversaries and take them out one by one. This is as a matter of fact, was the most useful tool in maintaining their hold on the levers of power. More importantly, it kept the citizenry paying up for protection willingly.

  7. Kay T
    June 1, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    Peggy, I wish that everyone everywhere could read your post, I hope that you keep finding ways to put the truth out there and keep telling it like it really is!

    I know that most people don’t know, and don’t care unless it touches their life but if ONE person’s point of view is changed;
    One attitude changed, one life changed…who knows how far that might go!

  8. kind of living
    June 1, 2017 at 6:30 pm

    good article , and good comments , thank you everyone for posting ,

  9. June 7, 2017 at 8:35 pm

    Great article Will. An eye opening parallel!

  10. mike r
    June 9, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    I talked to the law librarians and actually went to the federal court clerk with a copy of the cover sheet and form to proceed forma pauperis and was told all is in acceptable form to file my motion. I am considering going to San Jose legal help center since we don’t have one here for review of my motion and to get any kind of feedback to it. I want to include the Bill of Attainder so I am calling on help from anyone who can make a solid argument with case law and anything else to strengthen their argument.

  11. mike r
    June 10, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    Well I hope I dont screw this up for everyone else but I WILL be filing my motion next week I really could use a good involuntary servitude argument.the following is all that I have for my Ex Post Facto claim I really would like your help((((((( Mr. Bassler))))))))to help strengthen this argument and to help me strengthen the Ex Post Facto claim because this isn’t no joke. I am tire of waiting for something to happen. I repeat I WILL be filing my motion next week. Pull together and lets get er done……..

  12. mike r
    June 10, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    SEVENTH CLAIM
    (Ex Post Facto)
    1. The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits laws “that change the punishment, and inflict a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.” Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798). “[T]he ex post facto effect of a law cannot be evaded by giving a civil form to that which is essentially criminal.” Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U.S. 381, 385 (1878). Thus, when putatively “civil” restraints are imposed retroactively based on past convictions for sex offenses, the dispositive question is whether those restraints constitute punishment. Courts universally answer that question by applying the “intent-effects” test of Smith.
    2. That test assesses first whether the legislature intended to impose punishment. If not, the test weighs the factors set forth in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963), to determine whether the statutory scheme is “so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State’s] intention to deem it civil.” Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 (1997) (quoting United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1980)). Smith made clear that the Mendoza-Martinez factors must be applied to the statute as a whole, or as this Court repeatedly said, to “the statutory scheme,” “the regulatory scheme,” or “the Act.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 92, 94, 96-97, 99, 104-05. Smith held that courts must ask whether “the regulatory scheme: has been regarded in our history and traditions as a punishment; imposes an affirmative disability or restraint; promotes the traditional aims of punishment; has a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose; or is excessive with respect to this purpose.” 538 U.S. at 97 (emphasis added).
    3. The fact that a single provision standing alone may not be punitive, hardly means that the statute, when considered in its entirety, is not punitive. Based on an extensive record, the courts have found that the cumulative effects of SORA on all aspects of plaintiffs’ life make this statute punitive.
    4. I can’t find a single notable cite to any case in which a courts upheld as nonpunitive a statute whose cumulative burdens include: lifetime restrictions on where registrants can live, work, and spend time with their children; advance reporting for travel; criminalization of unreported internet use; ongoing, in-person and immediate reporting requirements for a vast array of personal information; and stigmatization as the most dangerous offenders, without any assessment of actual risk and in some instances without even a conviction for a sexual offense.
    5. Unlike in Smith, the burdens here are not “minor and indirect.” Pet. App. 22a-23a (quoting Smith, 538 U.S. at 100). Under the Alaska statute, registrants were “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision,” there was “no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages,” and “the record contains no indication that an in-person appearance requirement has been imposed.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 100-101.
    6. By contrast, many courts outlined in this motion have found that many of the Plaintiffs have had trouble finding a home in which they can legally live or a job where they can legally work”; that plaintiffs with children or grandchildren have been barred “from watching them participate in school plays or on school sports teams, and … from visiting public playgrounds with their children for fear of ‘loitering’”; and that plaintiffs face “the frequent inconvenience of reporting to law enforcement in person whenever they change residences, change employment, enroll (or unenroll) as a student, change their name, register a new email address or other ‘internet identifier,’ wish to travel for more than seven days, or buy or begin to use a vehicle (or cease to own or use a vehicle).”

  13. mike r
    June 10, 2017 at 11:21 pm

    Vicky Henry, Will Bassler, Robert Wolf, I really don’t know where I should post this or how to stress how important this is to our community so I am posting a link for the last time before I go and file this motion this week for anyone to see and comment on since it very well may effect each and every one of you.
    I’ve also posted on ACSOL to Janice and Chance and anyone else interested in this project. I am filing this next week so hopefully you will have some feedback before it goes in front of a judge, if not, Oh well, I’m on my own but it’s happening……..

    http://mllkeys20112011.wixsite.com/mysite

Comments are closed.