Shame: Drunk Drivers Published Online

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."

Oh whaaa....

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, if some drunk person started firing a gun towards a crowd of people, and was caught, do you think the newspapers would publish his name? Damn right they would.

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...

[Josh Booth]

...cruel and unusual punishment? I thought that once you paid your debt to society, whether by forfeiture of property, money, or time (in prison), you were done. Now it seems that the want to punish people beyond the usual sentance simply because the law doesn't explicitly prohibit it. That seems unfair.

Drunks have no shame

[mbstone]

What, publishing the names of convicted (I hope) DUI offenders will deter them? Fat chance. Whoever thought this one up enjoys the good fortune not to know any alcoholics.

For example, here's a story from today's wires about a 74 year-old who has amassed over 400 DUI arrests:

ANDERSON, Ind. (AP) -- A 74-year-old Anderson man who's been arrested at least 400 times for drunken driving was sentenced Monday to 17 years in prison for his latest drunken driving conviction.

Virldeen Redmon was arrested in July for driving even though his license had been suspended for life.

His latest conviction was on charges of driving while intoxicated, endangering a person and driving while suspended.

Police have been arresting Redmon since 1947, including three times since June. He's had his driver's license suspended for life five times.

In 1996, a judge sentenced Redmon to 9-1/2 years in prison. That sentence was reduced in 2001 and he was released after a doctor testified that Redmon suffers from health problems.

These people need help, not shame

[Yohahn]

I'm sick and tired of the "retrabution" method of "rehabilitation".

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.

Lets develop this idea

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Okay, so we have sex-offenders and over-the-limit drivers. If this is a good idea for two crimes, it follows that it might be a good idea for others.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Violation of free speech

[Jerf]

I would consider forcing somebody to fund an advertisement saying, well, anything to be a violation of thier free speech. Free speech includes the choice to not speak. For instance, the fifth amendment.

Come to think of it, it's a violation of the spirit of the fifth amendment too, if perhaps not technically the letter.

...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...

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.

hmm, you're new to reading, aren't you?

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> Yeah, baby. Print a picture of the Tyco or
> 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 print the real election results and the number of WMDs found in Iraq, etc...

Re:Violation of free speech

[pauljlucas]

I would consider forcing somebody to fund an advertisement saying, well, anything to be a violation of thier free speech.

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.

Come to think of it, it's a violation of the spirit of the fifth amendment too ...

No it isn't because, again, the suspect isn't the one doing the speaking.