This Wisconsin opinion piece makes a good argument:
Consider for a moment how the government treats sex offenders. Sex offenders are viewed as a great danger to children since the crimes they commit ruin children’s lives. The potential for recidivism being high, the laws governing sex offenders heavily regulate the lives of these criminals after they have served their sentences. They are not let out into the community without a lot of protections in place for the people, particularly children….the protection afforded the community by the sex offender laws is not found in Wisconsin’s drunken driving laws.
Aside from the inaccurate statement about high recidivism rates for sex offenders (we know the recidivism rate to be among the lowest of any criminal offense) and that sex offenders ruin childrens’ lives (not all victims are children and not all sex offenders have direct victims), the questions implied by the article is a good one; why don’t they impose similar protection that sex offender laws do?
According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving; in 2011, 226 children were killed in drunk driving crashes, teen alcohol use kills about 4,700 people each year and about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders.
One-Third?!?!?! that’s 33%!!! TEN TIMES the re-offense rate of sex offenders. 226 children killed!?!?! How many children are killed each year by sex offenders? Won’t be more than that!
So why don’t we apply rules to the greater threat? Why don’t DUI offenders have a registry? Why are they not prohibited from living or working within 2500 feet from a bar, liquor store, or places where alcohol is served? Why are their drivers licenses not stamped with a large “DRUNK DRIVER”? Why are they not strapped with a GPS and breathalyzer for the rest of their lives? It would seem logical, right? DUI offenders are a greater public safety threat than sex offenders, so why are we not going after the greater evil?
This is proof that the offender registry is a bill of attainder,and quite un-constitutional. If, as the supreme court ruled, the registry is merely a civil obligation (not punishment), but a reasonable step to assure the safety of society at large, then DUI convictions would most certainly qualify for the same onerous, civil obligations in order to protect the community at large. if this were brought before the supreme court as an argument that the registry is a bill of attainder, they would have a hard time explaining why a group that kills hundreds of innocent men, women and children every year (DUI Offenders) are not required to notify the public via a registry, and suffer the same public humiliation that sex-offenders suffer under. Our pant-peeing politicians are quite adept at dodging their own efforts to protect their constituents are they not? It seems they have a supreme court that doesn’t mind catering to them. I find it tragic that this nation has disregarded its constitution to appease fears with a false sense of security at the expense of equality under the law.
The reason there is not a DUI Hit list is due to the fact that many politicians, their family and friends, lawyers, etc… would be on the list. it is Sad that the parents of little Johnny & Sally does not know that there child’s friend parents have been arrested 3 times in the last 7 years for DUI before allowing Johnny & Sally ride with there friends Kenny’s parents to the beach