[American Quilter]

I approve of this. A person convicted twice of drunk driving is clearly irresponsible, and his civil rights don't include keeping other drivers ignorant of his potential threat. That, along with being free of without-probable-cause traffic stops, is a privilege he's forfeited by his dangerous behavior. Finally, if he's capable of feeling it, public shame and embarrassment are sometimes useful tools to motivate someone to change his behavior, and (more likely) for those who see him to vow, "I'm never going to put myself in that position."

[jaydubya2]

I agree with this. But I thought this was shot down by the ACLU?

[Cagey]

I'd take it one step further. A person with two DUI convictions should never be issued a driver's license again.

[Cheburashka]

I approve of this. A person convicted twice of drunk driving is clearly irresponsible,...
---
Clearly irresponsible? How about speeding? How about going through red lights? How about making right turn on red when the signs prohibit this? How about every other moving violation?
If he's an unsafe driver, take away his license. If the state will give him a license there's something wrong with the state, and the solution is fixing the state, and this sort of public relations garbage doesn't fix THAT problem.

[Reddy]

My brother is an alcoholic, and from what I know and have experienced, I don't think the plates would have stopped him. I think it is, as one poster said, feel-good legislation.

In my brother's case, he had to hit rock bottom and was faced with prison before he checked himself into rehab. He is now sober and employed at a rehab half-way house for men. Sadly, though, some people are never able to get the monkey off their back, and license plates nor any other intervention will help.

My 2 cents.

[from occupied ga]

I approve of this

Maybe you'd like to see them forced to wear yellow martini shaped patches on their clothes too

[Teacher317]

I approve of this.

You're incredibly foolish to do so.

A person convicted twice of drunk driving is clearly irresponsible,

Wrong. He was clearly irresponsible on two discrete days. In law, it's called the "forbidden inference" to use a few past events to characterize a person's present and future conduct. You seem eager to do so.

and his civil rights don't include keeping other drivers ignorant of his potential threat.

Every human is a potential threat at all times. I'm only moments away from yet another slander of Hillary Clinton, and about 10 minutes away from potentially endangering others as I drive to McDonald's. Using your wonderful brand of "logic", then any human could be treated by the state as a target for public ridicule... and that's the problem. Government takes every possible avenue available to it, and expands it as much as possible. This short-sighted approach started with such Politically Correct hate-targets such as sexual offenders and child molesters. Now we're already moving on to DUI's. This won't be the last classification to be singled out for sanctioned public mistreatment. Orwell's 3-Minute Hates don't seem so far off, now.

That, along with being free of without-probable-cause traffic stops, is a privilege he's forfeited by his dangerous behavior.

You seem like someone who is overly eager to punish others for their misdeeds. I pray the world has fewer of your ilk.

Finally, if he's capable of feeling it, public shame and embarrassment are sometimes useful tools to motivate someone to change his behavior,

I can't wait until it's your children's turn to face this kind of response for whatever mistakes they make in life. (I know that YOU could never make any, of course. And, by the way, no, I have no DUI's in my history. I rarely log over 36 beers in a given year, and nobody in my family has ever had a DUI.)

and (more likely) for those who see him to vow, "I'm never going to put myself in that position."

But again, that's not what will happen. Others will see them as a government-sanctioned target, and vent their emotions at them on the road, in parking lots, and face-to-face. Family members who have lost loved ones will assault innocent spouses and children of those who are forced to wear these scarlet letters. It is an incredibly bad idea, and only enthralls those who love to foment hate. I'm sorry if you have been personally affected by a DUI and are eager to find some outlet for your personal frustration, but that does not excuse opening the door to this kind of moronic, short-sighted, hateful, spiteful, violence-encouraging, prejudice-creating, and liberty-destroying nonsense.

[Teacher317]

That, along with being free of without-probable-cause traffic stops, is a privilege he's forfeited by his dangerous behavior

By the way, those are rights that you are so gleefully giving away here, not privileges.
It's called the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Don't hand them away so carelessly in your sanctimony, thank you very much.