Shame: Drunk Drivers Published Online 61
Shiifty writes "In a related story to the recent slashdot story on Maine's online sex offender registry, an article in the Toronto Star discusses how 'shaming' people by publishing their names online will deter them from drinking and driving. Durham Police in the Toronto Area recently published online the names of those charged with drinking and driving in last week's R.I.D.E. program. This isn't something new, as local papers frequently publish names of those charged with criminal offences, and last year a Name and Shame campaign in the Medway Today published the pictures of those who were twice the legal limit on the front page. In Arizona, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require drunken drivers to pay for an advertisement in the local newspaper that displays their name and conviction."
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And in Florida (Score:1)
Is this true? I kinda like that idea, it seems fitting at least (although seems a bit counterproductive)
shaming as a deterrent? (Score:5, Funny)
"Mr. Schwartz, your blood alcohol level is .05 over the legal limit - I'm afraid we'll be publishing your posts to alt.games.counterstrike in the newspaper."
"No, not those! I was just a n00b!"
This isn't really in the same class as the sex (Score:2, Insightful)
For one, only the names, ages, and hometowns of the convicts are being published.
This kind of information is public record anyway, I don't see what the big deal is.
Accuracy should count for something. (Score:2)
The big deal is that inaccurate data can be the difference between someone getting a job or loan and not. As we rush headlong into putting more information into more hands, I think we have an obligation to create an environment where accuracy is prized and inaccuracies are corrected and harm resulting from those inaccuracies is righted.
As we move data like this online we have a golden opportunity to review its accura
Oh whaaa.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Some drunk driving a car is just as dangerous.
You get drunk, get in a car, and go for a drive... and risk MY life.
And what, you want pity from me? Fuck off.
Isn't that... (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
This seems fair. (Score:1)
A reputation is worth more than silver & gold, or driving drunk @ a million miles per hour. If people can't grasp that co
"Charged" (Score:5, Insightful)
These people were simply "charged", and not convicted of the crime. If you charge me, print my name in the paper, and I am found "Not Guilty"--I'm going to sue you for defamation of character and slander. Sure, the article truthfully recounts that these people were simply "charged"--but I'll bet you that I could argue that there is no difference in perception or the repercussions that'll be felt by me.
OTOH, I have no issue with convicted lawbreakers being made public. But too often the line is crossed between "deliberated upon by a Jury of my Peers, and found Guilty" and "cop didn't like my looks".
Re:"Charged" (Score:2)
I was astonished to be a victim of precisely "cop didn't like my looks". I was driving my big, expensive BMW wearing jeans and a geek T-shirt. Pulled onto the Motorway (Highway) behind a police car and over take him. Next thing I know, I'm being pulled over. The reason I was pulled over ? Because, and this is what the cop said, if the police car hadn't been there I would have been speeding !!! Not that I had been speeding (I didn't) but because if he hadn't been there I would have been.
I regret to this da
Re:"Charged" (Score:2)
Loophole: you would be found "not guilty", but not "innocent". Still enough bile for the public to chew on to have you 'punished'.
Re:"Charged" (Score:1)
Oh by the way you may not be guilty.
Re:"Charged" (Score:1)
Liar! Blasphemer! I'll Sue! (Score:2)
I'll have you know that I've never listened to Britney, and I have several highly-paid expert witnesses prepared to testify on my behalf.
Re:"Charged" (Score:1)
Now, if they published the names and pictures of people who were found not guilty of drunk driving (after publishing them when they were charged), I wonder how that would change things.
Drunks have no shame (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, here's a story from today's wires about a 74 year-old who has amassed over 400 DUI arrests:
Re:Drunks have no shame (Score:3, Insightful)
The system really blew it with that guy. How he was allowed to go 50 years before being imprisoned long-term for repeat offenses boggles the mind.
This is why I think... (Score:1)
For a first time offense, with no priors, you get a slap on the wrist and probation, but you still carry having been charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter.
This kind of charge may stop the occasional drunk from getting behind the wheel, it won't stop those that don't care, but then
Re:This is why I think... (Score:1)
Re:This is why I think... (Score:1)
Hmm... That's funny. I always thought it was prudent to lockup those that have and will continue to cause murder and mayhem upon greater society by being left to their own devices...
Ooooh... Wait a minute... you must be one of those Fresh out of Liberal College kids... Wake up and take a look at reality.
These people need help, not shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Most alcoholics are sick people. They should receive therapy not shame. They will receive shame enough, especially if they killed somebody in the process of abusing.
Punishment may be appropriate too, but come on, deal with the problem. If a drug addict is caught, they must undergo therapy.
Now, incarseration until they are willing to cooperate with detox/treatment would be a good idea.
Apparently, millions of Americans agree (Score:2, Insightful)
Because that's how many elected someone who drove drunk [google.com] as leader of the free world.
Re:Apparently, millions of Americans agree (Score:1)
Since you believe that it's not possible to atone for things you did decades ago, after all.
Re:Apparently, millions of Americans agree (Score:1)
Now get over the whole "Bush did something stupid while he was young" kick already, mmmmkay? Or must I remind you that Gore claimed he invented the internet, and Clinton screwed a
Lets develop this idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe this should be extended to:
Corporations convicted of tax evasion
Police that assault members of the public
Politicians convicted of area re-zoning or taking back handers.
If it's good enough for the public, why isn't it good enough for the law makers? the law enforcers? and the "Legal People"/Corporations?
This reminds me of lawyers advocating software patentability, but they'd never suggest that "legal innovations" should be patentable.
hmm, you're new to reading, aren't you? (Score:3, Interesting)
> Enron buildings in the paper. That'll deter 'em.
If I said that drink drivers should be given free space for a personal ad, your sarcastic reply would make sense. But I didn't.
The topic of this discussion is Name'n'Shame campaigns. So how about making Enron pay for a full page ad that lists their real accounts, the number of lay-offs, the average cost to US industry, etc.
Maybe the RIAA should have to list the number of minors they have sued, Bush could
This sounds like a great idea... (Score:1)
Violation of free speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Come to think of it, it's a violation of the spirit of the fifth amendment too, if perhaps not technically the letter. You could read that as one can not be forced to "witness" against one's self (which being forced to proclaim to all their guilt could be considered) as part of the "trial" (including punishment) as being protected here.
Really, this strikes me as a bad idea over all. "Innovation" in punishment is something that should generally be discouraged, and held to a very high standard.
Re:Violation of free speech (Score:2)
Re:Violation of free speech (Score:2)
Re:Violation of free speech (Score:1)
Re:Violation of free speech (Score:3, Interesting)
The suspect isn't the one doing the speaking: the police department is (with their words). The suspect is merely paying for the ad as an additional fine. It's actually kind of dumb to me: the police department could just add, say, $50 to the fine that would cover the cost of the ad and then the suspect would be paying for the ad indirectly.
Hobson's Choice (Score:2)
I think something like this would be worked out in a deal by the DA to avoid a trial, considerable legal costs, and jail.
Sort of like the RIAA's "You downloaded illegal MP3s -- Give us $3000 and Sign This Form".
Gee... (Score:2)
The further we head into the future, the more we do the same things we did in the past.
Re:Gee... (Score:2)
An action which has done more to divorce a criminal from resposibility for his crime than any other.
Bring the "stockade" back and crime would drop dramatically. It doesn't have to be a stockade. Simply a holding cell with thick glass walls that passersby can see into.
How would this work? (Score:2)
I thought (Score:2)
Re:We Should do more (Score:1)
Just make human driving illegal! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Smoking Gun? (Score:1)