County Attorney in Arizona Brings Back the "Stocks"

Andrew Thomas, the Republican Maricopa County Attorney in Arizona has launched a campaign to shame people convicted of DUI offenses.

Now I'm all for there being laws protecting us from drivers abusing alcohol but apparently this "gentleman" has now decided that he is entitled to go beyond the penalties assigned by the legislature and can add on public humiliation while he receives a little free campaign marketing.

This Arizona Republic article gives the details of Thomas' program.  Here's an excerpt:

This new campaign, which includes the Web site, billboards and public-service announcements on television and radio, will cost about $750,000.

Most of the money comes from assets seized from criminals in other crimes. The rest comes from the state's DUI Abatement Fund.

"We need to try new and innovative ways to tackle (DUI)," Thomas said.

Most of the information on convictions comes from the municipal courts where the DUI cases are usually decided.To date, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria, Scottsdale and Tempe forward information from DUI convictions to the County Attorney's Office for inclusion on the Web site.

Phoenix does not. A spokesman for City Attorney Gary Verburg said it was decided a year ago that the city did not have the resources to send information from the nearly 7,000 DUI convictions it processes each year.

The city is now reconsidering its position.

Now for those of you unfamiliar with Andrew Thomas, a little background.  Thomas is a Republican bulldog who has aligned himself with and obviously learned the fine art of self-promotion from the Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio.  I recently posted a diary about the abuses these two recently concocted against the New Times, a weekly publication in the Phoenix valley.

Thomas seems to continually flaunt the power of his office using bullying tactics against political opponents as illustrated in this article found at JonGarrido.com that details how he is using a bogus investigation into the state Attorney General who just so happens to be his primary opponent in his quest to be governor.

Putting DUI offenders on billboards just seems odd to me unless that humiliation is in lieu of the typical punishment.  I'm just not sure that a prosecutor can decide on his own to publicly shame offenders when they already have been punished as the law requires.  It seems others including the ACLU not only agree with that assessment I've come to but also there are experts that seem to believe it has no deterrent effect.

Found in the Arizona Republic article:

Not everybody agrees that shame, or the threat of shame, is a good idea to encourage better behavior.

Dan Markel, a criminal-law professor at Florida State University College of Law, thinks the tactic reflects poorly on society.

"The very goal of shaming," Markel wrote in the New Republic, "is the dehumanization of another person before, and with the participation of, the public. Before we permit democratic institutions to subject an offender to ridicule, scorn and humiliation, we have to ask whether this kind of punishment comports with evolving standards of decency and the dignity of humankind. The answer is clearly no."

In an interview, Markel also questioned whether the campaign will make a person less likely to drive drunk.

"The problem is that when people drink, they are probably not in the mode of thinking about what the possible punishment is," Markel said. "And if they did, then they probably wouldn't be driving."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is concerned that posting people's names and mug shots will serve as additional punishment. It also questions how effective the deterrent will be.

"It is not going to make the roads safer," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the local ACLU. "Shame will not stop these people. We are talking about addictions."

Now I'm not so sure that there aren't crimes where public humiliation might not be an effective response and penalty but, if it is to be used, it should be part of the rule of law and not administered for political gain.  It seems obvious to me that Andrew Thomas has only his own fortune in mind when he creates Arpaio-like stunts like this as illustrated by his name plastered in huge letters across the bottom.  

The true test will be when some Republican Arizona legislator gets convicted of DUI.  Somehow I have the feeling that shot won't show up on the billboard or that will be the last day this charade goes on.

•  Tipsy Tips

  If you don't tip you may find yourself on one of my billboards.

  by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:57:26 PM PDT

•  How much more punishment do these people

  want? The fines alone are enough to send people to the poor house. What good does it do to shame them in public? Then their more likely to loose their jobs to boot. That has an affect on the whole family structure.

  by Owllwoman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    and of course the punishment isn't meted out fairly because the wealthy can of course afford the high priced lawyers.  

    I have such mixed emotions about the criminalization of drunk driving.  Obviously we want to let people know the terrible consequences of it but we end up turning ordinary people that make a judgment in error, at a time their judgment isn't completely sound, into felons.

    It's why we have courts, juries, and judges and give them the ability to treat each case individually.  When the crime used for political gain one wonders where the criminality truly lies.

    by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:09:03 PM PDT

  •  So, do you think it's having their picture on

    a billboard is what will destroy their family structure, or will it be the drunk driving?

    by nupstateny on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:36:13 PM PDT

    •  3000 arrests fron Thanksgiving to

      New Years in AZ.  You tell me.

      by Desert Rose on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM PDT

      •  3000 drunk drivers on the road

        from Thanksgiving to New Years tells me that there is a major drinking problem in AZ.  I'm grateful that I didn't have to be on the roads in AZ during that time.

        by nupstateny on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:21:13 AM PDT

        •  I'm certain

          the percentage of drunk drivers on the road in Arizona is no different than any other state.  The number nailed is purely a function of enforcement style.  Arrests don't equal convictions and many of those people stopped will be exonerated.  

          Drinking and driving is a nationwide problem and I doubt if anyone replying to this diary wants there to be no penalty for the choice if caught.  

          It just amazes me though to hear liberal, progressive voices turning issues into black and white, good and evil.  The truth is always somewhere in the middle of the divergent viewpoints.

          by artmartin on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM PDT

          •  Perhaps I'm just too intuned to

            people who abuse alcohol.  I have drawn my conclusions and judgements from watching and seeing first hand what alcohol can do to families.  Couple that with those abusers who after all of these years of knowing what can happen if you drink and drive, do so anyway and sometimes not only destroy their own lives and those of their families, but the lives of innocent victims.

            Drunk drivers are criminals and they need to be removed from the roads.

            by nupstateny on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM PDT

•  Sounds like Rep. Poe (R-TX)

  Prior to his bigot-baiting campaign to unseat Nick Lampson, Rep. Poe was a Houston area district judge infamous for handing down some very unusual sentences.

  As elected officials, state judges know that few things please the public as much as hoisting a wretch in public. One Texas state judge, Ted Poe, was known as "The King of Shame" for his signature use of punishments like shoveling manure. Poe said that he liked to humiliate people because "[t]he people I see have too good a self-esteem." Poe was so popular for what he called "Poe-tic Justice" that he literally shamed himself right into Congress and is now serving as a member of the House of Representatives.

  WaPo 9/18/05 link below

  Other examples...

  · In Kentucky, Judge Michael Caperton recently allowed drug and alcohol offenders to skip drug counseling if they agreed to go to 10 church services. A pastor, like a divinely ordained probation officer, signs off on the completion of this obligation.

  · In Texas in 2003, Judge Buddie Hahn gave an abusive father a choice between spending 30 nights in jail or 30 nights sleeping in the doghouse where prosecutors alleged the man had forced his 11-year-old stepson to sleep.

  · In Georgia last year, Judge Sidney Nation suspended almost all of Brenton Jay Raffensperger's seven-year sentence for cocaine possession and driving under the influence in exchange for his promise to buy a casket and keep it in his home to remind him of the costs of drug addiction.

  · In Ohio, a municipal judge, Michael Cicconetti, cut a 120-day jail sentence down to 45 days for two teens who, on Christmas Eve 2002, had defaced a statue of Jesus they stole from a church's nativity scene. In exchange, the pair had to deliver a new statue to the church and march through town with a donkey and a sign reading "Sorry for the Jackass Offense."

  · In North Carolina in 2002, Judge James Honeycutt ordered four young offenders who broke into a school and did $60,000 in damage to wear signs around their necks in public that read "I AM A JUVENILE CRIMINAL." One, a 14-year-old girl, appealed and Honeycutt was reversed.

  In a newspaper interview last year, Georgia Judge Rusty Carlisle said he often imposes shaming punishments when defendants seem insufficiently chastened. He cited an early case: a person accused of littering whom Carlisle felt was "kind of cocky." So the judge gave him a cup and a butter knife and told him to scrape the gum off the bottoms of the court benches as the judge and others watched.

  There's no evidence that creative sentences work better at deterring crime than other punishments. Yet public punishments can be harshest on the most commonly targeted and vulnerable group -- young people.

  The recent penchant for customized punishments also undermines efforts to make criminal sentencing more uniform. Creative punishments often reflect the cultural character of a state. While an abusive father was given the choice of sleeping in a doghouse in Texas, domestic abusers were forced to attend meditation classes with herbal teas and scented candles in Santa Fe, N.M.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  by Ericwmr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:06:53 PM PDT

  •  wow

    stunning examples.  You know, even though I'm an atheist I am an ordained minister through an internet site (surprisingly enough that allows me to marry people in Arizona).

    I wonder if I could talk some judge into sending non-violent offenders my way to do community service for my "church"?

    by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:15:42 PM PDT

    •  ULC?

      ...Heh, might even get the ACLU to back you up if they said no.  First step is finding a nutty local judge.

      by Ericwmr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:32:30 PM PDT

      •  ULC. You bet.

        You can just call me Rev.

        by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:45:26 PM PDT

•  Thomas is a scum bag...

  This local blog has a Thomas Watch series and it is pretty good.  Although, they did not write about this...

  http://ademlament.blogspot.com/...

  by hhesse on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:08:01 PM PDT

  •  and yet

    despite outrageous behavior befitting a Hollywood villain, the man probably stands a good chance of reelection and a good shot at governor.  I got the red state blues.

    by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:13:07 PM PDT

    •  He has drawn a good opponent...

      But I am afraid that in a presidential year the race may get lost in the shuffle.

      by hhesse on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM PDT

•  Arizona!

  Rotten Tomato!

  by Salo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM PDT

  •  parts of it yes

    but it's also my home state and there's pockets of sanity.  We actually have a female Democratic governor that's in all likelihood gay so there's this creep towards progress.

    Our biggest challenge is that we're a dumping ground for senior citizens with all the retirement communities and they really skew the voting.

    by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM PDT

•  I agree with the public humiliation

  Perhaps it will convince others not to drive drunk.

  by oceanstar17 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:31:43 PM PDT

  •  .08 is not drunk

    by Desert Rose on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM PDT

    •  It can be in some people.

      In others it's barely a buzz.  Ultimately we need to penalize the out of control driving and not the drinking in my opinion.  

      I happen to be one of those people with above average athletic skills.  I was lucky to be born with extremely fast reflexes, keen vision, and great hand-eye coordination.  I've avoided some collisions that I know average drivers would have not been able to.  I seem to have tolerance for alcohol to where it takes more to impair me than most of my friends.  

      If I'm on the road sober I'm probably in the top 1 or 2 percent of the drivers as far as athletic ability to control my vehicle and spot potential problems.  I take driving extremely seriously.  When I've had a few drinks to the point where I'm a bit buzzed and inevitably my skills are somewhat diminished, I'm still probably in the top 5 - 10% of the drivers on the road.  I don't weave.  My speed is under control and I'm aware of all cars around me.

      My friends know this and I've often been called on to be the designated driver when everyone else with me has had a similar amount of alcohol.  Generally we try to avoid that but sometimes you just get caught in that situation where you didn't plan adequately.  I know in those times that I stand the risk of being pulled over and tested and that I may be at or near the legal limit but I also know that I am the safest option for the group I'm with.  

      A policeman truly concerned with the safety on the road would feel relief if he knew the dynamics of the occupants of my vehicle and how we arrived at our decision but the law will not allow that officer that discretion.  I must be arrested, booked, and convicted of DUI if my blood alcohol content exceeds the .08 amount.  I would be a candidate for that billboard.

      Now this admission is a bizarre one for me because I know the human emotions involved in this especially when debaters have some personal stake such as a loved one killed by a drunk driver.  My outlook would probably change as well if I had that link.  My answer to that is that we're in this part of the evolution of our society where we believe that all we need is a tougher sheriff in town to rid our worlds of risk and history has simply proven that concept wrong.  The logic of this step is driven by emotion and our need to wrap up complex issues into these black and white boxes.  

      It's interesting that the same group of folks here on Kos that are embracing change and progressive values in political candidates jump away from nuance when their fear gets the best of them.

      A good friend of mine from Italy tells me how drinking and driving is handled in his home country.  There are strict laws but the policemen are given the discretion on whether to detain the person or send them home by escort.  That's where the decision needs to be made and not by some grandstanding county attorney.

      by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:17:07 PM PDT

  •  The times in my life

    (and I'm going all the way back to my teens when everyone drove drunk) when I've driven so blasted that I should never have operated a vehicle, I had no recollection the next day of even making the decision.  If anyone should've been prosecuted it was the others around me that didn't steal my keys from me.

    No law or public humiliation would have changed the act of getting behind the wheel at that time since I was incapable of rational thought.  That doesn't excuse the seriousness of it but it does illustrate why the cure needs to be education as much as penalties.

    And, as I said it's not the humiliation I disagree with in this case.  It's that it's not part of the prescribed penalty by law and it's being used only for political grandstanding.

    by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:52:05 PM PDT

•  Is that a CBS eye that's on

  the bottom of that billboard?  

  by nupstateny on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:31:48 PM PDT

  •  yeah, isn't that bizarre?

    by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:42:13 PM PDT

•  He's hooked up with Arpaio

  and this whole DUI thing is a scam.  Since Thanksgiving, there have been almost 3000 arrests statewide.  If there are that many impaired drivers on the road, you'd think the state would take some sort of preventative action.  The fact is, that .08 is a phony impairment level, pushed on the populace by MADD, which has become a prohibitionist group.  Two drinks gives you a .08 level, and I don't know anybody who is impaired with 2 drinks.
  BTW, Arpaio posts pictures on his website of those booked into his infamous tent city.
  This whole DUI thing in AZ is a money grabbing scam.

  by Desert Rose on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM PDT

  •  The problem isn't necessarily 0.08

    it's that the metabolism and enzymes necessary to process the alcohol vary widely for several reasons; most notably gender, size, and age.

    1. Men have more of certain enzymes that break down alcohol more quickly than women have.  This means women stay drunk longer and drinking has a more pronounced cumulative effect.

    2. Large body size and blood volume reduce the impact versus smaller and lighter framed.  A 1 oz drink for a 240 lb 6' male isn't going to have near the impact it will for a 120 lb 5'2" female.

    3. The presence of the enzymes to process the alcohol disappears with age.  At age 40 a person may have less than half the amount as compared to age 20.

    4. Response to drinking varies.  Some become very quiet, some increasingly silly, others become moody and angry.  All lose caution and inhibition, judgment and perspective.

    Compare AZ laws and enforcement to German laws against drunk driving.  License gone forever, jail, fines, and Germans have a strong social system in place in which a designated driver remains sober and fit to drive, while friends drink.  I think we'd do better with a German approach.  No relativistic questions left about how much is too much over what time for who's metabolilsm...any is too much.

    by antirove on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM PDT

    •   So what is the German method of identifying

      impairment?

      by Desert Rose on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM PDT

    •  Great info

      I'm not sure though if I want to emulate any society that can jail you for any utterings that could be taken as glorifying Nazism or denying the Holocaust.  As repugnant as those types might be that would do that, I prefer our system of pretty much unlimited free speech.

      It's not that I think their system wrong.  It just doesn't seem American to jump so deeply into the lives of citizens.  I applaud any group that has the foresight to setup a designated driver ahead of time but I know that any human system is flawed and people will err.  Europe is designed so a person could go the rest of their lives without driving and still survive.  Our culture has to change significantly before we could say that.

      And, to tell you the truth, my post never really questioned Arizona law.  My guess is it's a bit too conservative but the issue I was bringing up was penalties that were not part of the law and used only for political gain.  

      by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:28:50 PM PDT

•  ahem - Trish Groe (R)

  http://www.aznetroots.com/...

  Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 20:23:18 PM MDT

  State Rep. Trish Groe, R-Lake Havasu City, was recently arrested and charged with aggravated DUI for driving drunk with a canceled license and extreme DUI for having a blood alcohol content exceeding .15.  If she were convicted of aggravated DUI, a felony, she would have to forfeit her seat in the Arizona legislature.

  by HairOnFire on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:55:52 PM PDT

  •  Well she's out of Maricopa County

    in Lake Havasu isn't she?  My guess is, if the Republicans are pushing her conviction, that she's a moderate who they'd like to replace with some fundamentalist candidate.

    by artmartin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM PDT

•  Who wants to be that guy's kids?

  He is punishing the entire family by that crap up on the boards.  What kind of asshole shames entire families for what one person does?  The kids will be teased and treated like crap at school by the other kids, and forget about mom at the PTA, or her job at the office.  No one wants to promote someone who has his face plastered all over town like that.  

  One mistake and you might as well move out of town.  Maybe that is what he is aiming for.

  by lilorphant on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:50:32 PM PDT

•  Is this even legal?

  Is this kind of thing even legal?
  Wouldn't someone have a legal recourse if something bad happened to them because of this?

  by crestmere on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM PDT

  •  That was my immediate thought

    I always believed the legislature set the penalties for a crime not a country attorney.  The CA certainly has the right to call on his staff to prosecute crimes and push for the maximum penalty allowed by law but it sure seems this kind of thing is going above and beyond that.  

    I think it's pretty obvious in this case, especially after knowing this man's history of bullying political behavior, that this has nothing to do with protecting the public but entirely to protecting his own future.

    by artmartin on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:36:51 AM PDT

•  Not the way to tackle this problem

  This new campaign, which includes the Web site, billboards and public-service announcements on television and radio, will cost about $750,000.

  "We need to try new and innovative ways to tackle (DUI)," Thomas said.

  If you're going to spend that much money- just throw them into rehab for a year and after they get out another year mandatory AA meetings or some other alternative.

  by Silent Lurker on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:11:07 AM PDT

  •  our state's bleeding money right now too

    Every governmental entity is reeling from lowered sales tax revenues and are talking about cutting back services to balance budgets.

    by artmartin on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:52:47 AM PDT