Thin Line

I wouldn't be surprized if the writer really was drunk when she wrote it. It sounds like a failed attempt to seem cool. I can't believe anyone would seriously object to drunk drivers being shamed by having their pictures printed in the paper. They deserve a lot worse. They should be thrown in jail for a year for their first offense. "New Mexico's unusual fascination with drunk driving?" Where the hell does she get that? The only thing that bothers me about the drunk driving page is the offenders whose BAL level was below .08. Why were these people prosecuted and humiliated in the paper? This would've made a far more worthwhile column.

Stocks, tar and feathering...these forms of public shaming don't happen in America any more because it's considered unusual punishment. I say this is also unusual. And unfair.

Unfortunatly, abbacaab, I wasn't actually drunk when I wrote this. And glad you can be honest enough to admit that you get satisfaction from viewing people with alcohol issues at their most unfortunate. Kick 'em while they're down, right?

Lowering the legal limit from .10 to .08 was an easy political solution to make the DWI lobbyists less unhappy and give Eyewitness News something positive to talk about, but it was never calculated to address the problem. Instead, the change in legislation and political/media pressure created new criminals from formerly law abiding citizens. And behold. The problem was even worse than we thought. Amazing.

The police have pressure to hunt for impaired drivers as a top priority and they've got no choice but to comply. It's been a very successful brainwashing. "Impaired to the slightest degree," is how it reads, but "he said, she said" is how it often plays out in court, with the deck stacked heavily in the state's favor.

It would have been more responsible for our politicians to take the problem seriously from the start instead of putting on a thoughtless bandaid just to shut some people up. That's the real slap in the face to people who have suffered loss at the hands of impaired drivers. Our law makers didn't care enough to investigate the problem and react accordingly. They just started cutting legs off to make their jobs easier and the TV news media hyped it to sell ads. Then they all just fed on each other and here we are.

Arrest quotas are unconstitutional but seemingly impossible to prove. It seems clear, though, that law enforcement is fishing rather than hunting, and they've been directed to do so from the top. The photos in the Journal are a clear example of the state using taxpayer money to appease DWI lobbyists and a public unwittingly caught up in the frenzy. The journal isn't drunk; they just let the state buy a page.

So, why aren't we publishing pictures of convicted auto thieves? No lobbyists?

I happened to have saved this issue because I know one of the drunk drivers. There are three people listed with BALs of .06, one with .05, one with .07 and one with .03. If they were convicted of driving on drugs, shouldn't it say what drug they were on instead? If someone was just driving erratically and a cop decides this person was intoxicated despite a lack of evidence, do they deserve to have their picture in the paper?

That's nothing. I blow .35 most Tuesdays (we're still talking BAL, right). And I drive just fine. Lightweights.

I, and my entire small town, found out my parents were getting divorced through the legal notices section of the paper. What a great day that was.

Are you actually proud to have offended someone who lost their mother to a drunk driver? Maybe you think this person is just too stupid to get what your point was? Personally, I think her point of view was legit and that your column was pretty insensitive.

The whole "public shaming" approach seems to be concocted by and for people who read The Scarlet Letter less as a warning against hypocrisy and mob-think and more as a "how-to" manual. Thinking that the Journal's tactics are tacky and inappropriate doesn't make you pro-drunk driver, it just makes you anti-moral superiority. Nyah, nyah.

Would any of you who have written anything less than serious and who have had a very insensitive attitude about the deadly issue of DWI have chosen the words you did and approach this the same if you'd lost someone you love in a car wreck? Would you be writing about how horrible "public shaming" is or about the tragic effects of DWI? I agree with abbacaab and thank you for your words. Imagine a world where people say, write and do things with empathy. What a concept.

Do you think criminals should have the right to privacy? - That is, to keep their crimes private, away from public view and scrutiny? And let's be perfectly clear about this - drunk drivers are criminals, not unfortunate partiers who happened to have gotten caught.

Drink

Drink

Drink

Drink

Dont think

Drive

Kill

-------

or

-------​

Knock it back

Have another one

Drinking and driving is so much fun

------------

Because nobody here things that drunk driving is a problem besides abbacaab and backpatter(drivesober). Drunk driving is not good and that is not the point of Jessica's article (imo). Posting the picture serves the community in no way to fix the problem - I know people when I was in high school that would have loved to have their picture in the paper for that. When I am out driving at night I see cars not faces. The problem needs to be fixed not by some organization giving themselves a pat on the back for their advocacy – I don’t think the drunk driving number went down a bit after this was posted.

Nobody thinks drunk driving is a good thing. Some do think that public humiliation is a bad thing. That doesn't make them pro-drunk driving.

Got it?

Nobody thinks drunk driving is a good thing. Some do think that public humiliation is a bad thing.

I still think it's a nutty opinion. And it could've been expressed in a much less offensive way.

I don't have statistics, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that the threat of getting your picture published in the paper provides an additional disincentive not to drink and drive. Not only do you risk killing someone, going to jail, losing your license, etc., you risk losing the respect of your peers and coworkers and possibly your job when people see your picture in the paper - deservedly so!

I reconstructed my sentence and forgot to remove the "dis."

There is plenty of deterrence to drinking and driving, especially the mandatory and incredibly harsh penalties leveled against first time offenders.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. I don't think it's harsh enough. Obviously what the law does now is not working. There is still way too much drunk driving. I think we would see much better results if people automatically lost their license and car for a year - or better yet, their freedom for a year. No exceptions.

and I would agree that all criminals should be published in the paper. I think the difference, though, is that rapists and murderers are deliberately commiting evil acts while drunk drivers are just being stupid and negligent. It's a stupid, dangerous thing that should be easily prevented.

to me at least, I think it would be great if alcohol was illegal, along with all other drugs. I would never advocate that position though, because crime would just blow up. In fact, I might be in favor of actually legalizing all drugs, but I'm not sure. I have mixed feelings about it. I just think it would be great if people didn't feel the need to get wasted on drugs an alcohol. It would be a much healthier, safer, productive and loving world.

We should totally go have a drink together.

Why the hell haven't we yet? I think about you all the time...

because I have nothing to be ashamed about. I'm not hiding behind a fake name; my name is simply irrelevant.

From what I can tell, there are Alibi staffers who use their real names and there are those staffers who use a fake name. Those that use a fake name don't seem to ever take any heat for it regardless of how provocative, controversial, obnoxious or offensive their post is.

I'll make a deal with you: post your full name, prove it's who you really are, and I'll post my full name.

If you don't spend

a whole lot of energy defending Puritanical approaches to enforcement of public morality

, why not post your name? Why would you want to remain anonymous? Do you want to express opinions that certain people might hold against you or perhaps be able to crap on others with impunity? No? Then post your name! If not, then get off my back about not posting mine! By the way, my offer still stands.

Every time I ask anyone around here a direct question, they vanish! This crowd definitely does not like any sort of confrontation.

I never vanish - I love confrontation.

and I think someone said it above, is that the Journal's DWI spreads clearly read "paid legal advertisement" at the top. Why it bothers to distinguish itself as a "legal" ad remains a mystery, unless it intends to calm those who suspect it's "illegal." (Why doesn't it say "Paid Tasteful Advertisement?")

In any case, taxpayer dollars were shelled out to the Journal for inserting and probably printing the thing. The Journal just took the contract.

Though Vader does seem to take a certain glee in it, what with pumping it on the front page and all the trashy little posters on their boxes. But that's just taking advantage of the morbid fascination everyone seems to have with it, and our taxes are probably paying for all that, too, as some sort of a "legal" ad package.

The DWI problem has not been addressed rationally. To be fair, I'm not offering up an easy solution, either, but I don't think de facto prohibition is the answer and that seems to be where our learned statesmen are leading us.

The current model leaves nearly all discretion in the hands of law enforcement. The judicial system's hands are effectively tied with legislation, propaganda and politics.

With adresses and phone numbers would be even better! If you are looking for a hot date, you know two things about these folks already: they like to party, and they need a ride...