In the classic novel "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Hester Prynne is forced to wear a large red "A" on her dress as punishment for being an adulteress. Such forms of punishment, along with stocks and pillories, were declared to be cruel and unusual punishments and their use was prohibited by the US Constitution. But now, it seems, that various forms of the scarlet letter are being resurrected under the guise of protecting the public from dangerous criminals. The only problem is is that such protection is merely a mirage, but slick legislators have been able to convince a gullible public that they really are safer with these "get tough on crime" laws in place.

The newest example is the law that went into effect in Ohio with the start of the new year. A law which requires anyone who is convicted of DUI and receives a suspended license with limited driving privileges to have special license plates on any car they own. These license plates would differ from the normal Ohio plates by being a bright red and orange. They would also have to be used for a minimum of six months, even if the suspended license was for less than six months.

Many, upon hearing about such plates, would think they were a good thing. But if they took time to think about it, they'd find out just what a bad idea they are. Consider the following example of what could (and will) happen under this sort of law.

A man gets arrested and convicted of DUI. All the cars for his family are in his name only: his son's car because his son is only 16 and can't legally own a car yet; his wife's car because she doesn't want to be bothered with owning a car, just wants to drive it. So now, both his wife's and his son's cars must also use these special license plates because he owns them. His wife goes to work and becomes the subject of office gossip. Her boss sees the plates on her car and doesn't want to pry (so he doesn't ask if she or her husband is the one convicted), but also doesn't want to promote someone who may be irresponsible enough to drink and drive. He also doesn't want his managers, who use their personal cars for company business, meeting clients with those plates. So she doesn't get the promotion that she's been waiting for for so long. His son goes to school and his teachers see the license plate and start to treat him differently, now considering him a potential trouble maker. His son and his wife, innocent of any crime, are forced to undergo punishment, social and public scorn and embarrassment for something their husband/father did. And if the man is a habitual offender, you can bet that he's not feeling any shame. He's already justified his actions and has placed the blame squarely on someone else's shoulders.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying to not get tough on drunk drivers. They are putting the lives of everyone on the road with them in danger. It is no different than someone walking into a crowded restaurant and brandishing a gun or knife. That individual would be arrested and charged with something akin to assault with a deadly weapon. Drunk drivers should receive the same treatment. The problem is not with the punishment aspect of the law. The legal system is simply not willing to charge someone who is otherwise an upstanding citizen with felony menacing just for having a few drinks after work or while watching a football game at a buddy's house and then driving home. It is this attitude that is the real problem for it is indicative of the unwillingness to call drunk driving what it really is: a life-threatening problem that kills almost as many people as handgun accidents and murders combined do every year. Instead of dealing with the root of the problem (societal attitudes), the various legislatures around the country adopt what they call "get tough" policies by increasing the punishment. The problem is that, like the death penalty, the possible punishment is NOT a deterrent. For habitual offenders, they don't care what the punishment is. They know that most judges don't give jail time for DUI's and that they'll simply have their license suspended. But then it was probably already suspended when they were stopped this last time. For those caught for the first time, the fact that they got away with it so many times before encourages them to believe that they're not going to get caught this time either, so they're not worried about the punishment. And for those who are truly drinking and driving for the first time, they will swear they never intended to drink and drive and so the thought of possible punishment never crossed their mind!

Perhaps the most supported form of a "scarlet letter" law is Megan's law-- the law that requires convicted sex offenders to register with the police in any town they move to and that registry is then open to public scrutiny. This law ignores the fact that 80% of all child sexual abuse is carried out by a family member or close family friend. In such instances, charges are usually never pressed or a plea bargain results in a slap on the wrist. (Too many families don't want to air their dirty laundry in public.) This law also lumps teenagers convicted of statuatory rape for having consentual sex with their teenage (but still minor) partners with adult repeat offenders convicted of pedophila-related crimes in multiple states. It lumps serial rapists and pedophiles in with those who commit date rape when both parties have diminished capacity. Please understand I'm not excusing rape in any way, shape or form. But imagine a drunk college senior whose making out with another drunk college senior and is told "no" but then the one who said "no" starts the kissing again and this happens several times until the next "no" is ignored. This individual finds himself arrested for date rape and maybe even convicted, but this individual is NOT as likely to rape again as a serial rapist. These kinds of individuals are very capable of being treated and of no longer being a threat to society, whereas serial rapists and child molestors have very little chance of successful treatment. But "Megan's law" makes no distinction. Again, it is a misguided effort to protect the public when the truth is that it offers no such protection. Those who are going to follow the law to register are the least likely to reoffend, while those who are most likely to reoffend will not follow the law and simply go on the lam, changing their name so the next time they're caught, no one makes the connection between them and the serial child molestor that was released from prison earlier that year. Once again, it's not the punishment that needs to be changed, it's the charges. Serial rapists and child molesters need to be recognized as mentally ill and sent to a mental health facility where they will not be released into the general population until they can prove they are no longer a threat to society. Because there is no effective treatment for pedophiles or serial rapists, chances are they will never be released and the public would be much better served than Megan's law can ever hope to accomplish.

The three strike law is not really a "scarlet letter" law, but it uses the same inappropriate and misleading justification: increasing public safety. Instead, what it does is put people who have thrice been convicted of felony shoplifting in jail for life with no chance of parole, which means that a twice convicted pedophiles who has served at least half his/her sentence will have to be released to make room for these "third strikers".

Changing the punishment form of the law is treating the symptom, not curing the problem. If it gets to the point of requiring punishment, then the other measures have failed and they need to be reassessed in order to "nip it in the bud". We need look only as far as our own children to see that sometimes, the threat of punishment just doesn't work. There is some deeper, underlying issue that needs to be addressed and when that issue is addressed, then there is no need to apply the punishment because the child obeys the rules! There are many, many underlying issues with respect to the roots of crime in this country: issues that we, as a society, don't want to own up to. And until we do, we will be faced with an ever increasing prison population. Even today, among industrialized nations, the US imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation despite our high degree of personal freedom and much more relaxed laws relative to those in other nations. But perhaps the most telling "clue" is the fact that it's not getting better despite these new "get tough on crime" laws. We're having to build more and more prisons. The crimes that people are committing are getting more and more violent. The criminals are getting younger and younger. And yet we still insist on doing the same things over and over and expect to get different results. According to my therapist, that's the definition of insanity. It's like banging your head against a brick wall and hoping that THIS time, it won't hurt. Eventually, you're going to cause permanent and irreparable damage.

It's painfully obvious that the way we're doing it now (and have done it for time out of mind) is not working. Rather than continuing to pour money into a system that can't be fixed, let's build a new system. Will it work? It has a better chance of working than something we already know doesn't work but we keep hoping that THIS time, maybe it will.

Previous	Home	Index	Next

onespiritproject.com