Texas County Will Use Twitter To Publish Drunk Drivers' Names 301
alphadogg contributes this snippet from Network World: "If you get busted for drunk driving in Montgomery County, Texas, this holiday season, your neighbors may hear about it on Twitter. That's because the local district attorney's office has decided to publish the names of those charged with driving while intoxicated between Christmas and New Year's Eve. County Vehicular Crimes Prosecutor Warren Diepraam came up with the idea as a way of discouraging residents from getting behind the wheel while drunk. 'It's not a magic bullet that's going to end DWIs, but it's something to make people think twice before they get behind the wheel of a car and drive while they're intoxicated,' he said."
Oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:5, Insightful)
What? No Due Process? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to excuse drunk drivers, but for some reason, its seen as ok to make those charged or convicted of DUIs out to be the scum of the earth, wantonly careening down the roadways, seeking out innocents to mow down, when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind.
The idea that it is somehow ok to humiliate people who are supposedly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY seems like a prelude to a morality police state.
Terrible Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.
Huh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Will this evolve into a DUI Offender Registry?
COPS TV show features drunk drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
But the difference is, they blur the faces of those who haven't been found guilty (yet). They are also a news organization with no legal power, but this is a police (military) organization. These police are assuming guilt for anyone merely charged, so I suppose it's natural for them to also apply punishment.
A few years in the future when the police will be scouring the streets performing judgments and executions on the spot, I'm afraid it will be too late for anyone to do anything about our lost rights. By then the court system will be a rarely used dusty relic of the past.
Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the law though is it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:2, Insightful)
That's just one example. Rest assured there are more, and there are things we haven't thought of. In many jurisdictions you can be charged without a breathalyzer.
Think things never go wrong with the DUI process? Here's some more links to think about: http://delicious.com/clintjcl/dui [delicious.com]. I especially like the forceful catherization of your penis because a breathalyze showed no DUI. But in your world, you'd permanently mar these people, guilty or not. Have fun with your fascist prictatorship.
Re:Oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
They typically ignore their own mistakes and make others pay for them.
Re:That's not the law though is it. (Score:4, Insightful)
In some cases it appears to have been more "important" to convict someone than to find the "right" person. On the police side the incentive may be more to arrest as many people as possible.
Your grandkids will love it! (Score:3, Insightful)
In a hundred years, your grand-grand-grand kids will have fun googling their ancestry and finding that they were driving under influence ... .. sorry we can't employ convicts here"
nowait - doesn't the DA know that the internet never forgets? That anyone can find this informatiuon by just googling someone's name?
"Hello i'm here for the job interview"- "Oh I see you had a DUI 32 years ago
Re:Oh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just one question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't had anything to drink. Reasons for this might include, but will not be limited to:
1. Evil cops (not likely, IMO, but definitely possible).
2. Deluded cops (more likely, but still a stretch).
3. Overzealous cops, particularly if you're exhibiting something that looks like inebriated behavior but isn't; for example, several neurological conditions can cause you to have slurred speech or an unsteady gait but still be fine to drive.
4. Getting framed by an enemy.
5. Being acquainted with Ashton Kutcher.
In addition, as several posters have already pointed out, a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't actually driven and are not going to drive.
I'd be fine with capital punishment for people convicted of causing an accident while driving drunk, but I'm a little uneasy about draconian punishments for those who haven't actually caused damage yet, and I'm adamantly opposed to punishment of people without due process. To me, publishing names of arrestees is punishment without due process.
Re:Oh. (Score:2, Insightful)
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
You ever hear of the police blotter?
http://www.google.com/search?q=police+blotter [google.com]
Unless you're a minor, the fact of your arrest and the charges surrounding it are part of a public record that gets published daily.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.
Why not? The arrest is a public record.
I, for one, look forward to the day that police put their arrest archives online, in an easily searchable format, with mugshots.
Information wants to be free.
the problem is the public's attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
It is an essential part of the justice process that arrest records are public, to prevent secret detentions, etc. This has already been discussed by other posters, and is why such records are already public, just not accessible in such a convenient manner. A group of private individuals could easily republish such records.
Now, it is clear that the police should not be doing what is being described here, but the reason is that shaming is not part of the job description of the police. The reason is not that arrest records should be kept secret.
The more fundamental problem here, if any, is a misunderstanding of the law by those reading that twitter feed. A list of charges should be interpreted as nothing more than a list of charges - it is not a list of guilty people, and even if it were, it is not a list of people to be abused. Any employer refusing to give you a job on the basis of being on a list of charged people, unless perhaps they had determined that you were still moving through the legal process and your job involves driving, would have been a very dangerous employer to work for. Before you give me the argument that you need a roof over your head more than you need a fair and just employer, the only reason for the power imbalance is so many people like you fearing the loss of little comfort.
Note that it has not yet been proven that the public in general think a charged person is a convicted person. This sort of thing needs to be studied scientifically, as a basis for educating where necessary to disabuse the people of serious misconceptions about the legal process.
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:3, Insightful)
People aren't guilty of DWI until they are convicted - they're a drunk driver the moment they drive while pissed.
Considering that this policy has the potential to harm innocent people, it should really come with a sensible plan to monitor its effectiveness, and to monitor its unintended side effects.
If it doesn't do any good, or if it screws up too many innocent people lives; there should be figures to show it.
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, your characterization of drunk drivers is just wrong. They ARE incredibly dangerous. They ARE reckless, and while they may not intentionally be seeking out people to mow down, they are showing a tremendous disregard for those same people.
As is the 80 year old whose children don't have the nerve to take his license away. As is the car full of teens joking around and wrestling with each other. As is the soccer mom making 'play-date' plans for her kid on her cell phone.
However of those, at least around D.C., only the drunk driver has a specific set of laws that may well ruin their life, even if they never cause any harm. If they do cause harm, the punishment is considerably worse than for anyone else.
Drunk Driving laws are a prophylactic and perverted form of justice. They punish on the theory that you may hurt someone in the future. Should we accept laws saying 'Because you own a gun, you are probably going to be a murderer'?
Reckless endangerment of life is that always, regardless of if one is drunk, old, young, or scatter-brained.
Re:it's just an electronic perp walk (Score:1, Insightful)
Look, we've had the internet for a while now and it's time that everybody understands the implications. The internet is not like chit-chat. What is published on the internet does not disappear and is not limited to a local audience. The internet is a searchable archive. A perp walk has limited consequences. "Just" making it an online perp walk fundamentally changes the consequences, not just the medium.
Re:Oh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most likely your boss wouldn't tell you that he fired you because your name was on the list. He'd fire you "because he doesn't need you any longer" or "because times are tough" or whatever. He might not give a reason at all in an at-will state.
So, unless you could somehow prove that your name being on the list was the real reason (maybe he tells somebody this and it gets back to you), good luck doing anything about it.
Ditto for people with photos of them doing stupid things on the web - you're not going to get a call from a future employer saying "well, your interviews went well but we thought that the photo of the tattoo on your butt was a bit tacky" - you'll get a call saying "thanks for interviewing but you were not selected."
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:5, Insightful)
Except these people haven't 'mowed down three people'. They haven't committed any other crime than driving under the influence. No children were hurt in the making of this tweet. No damage done. No insurance claims filed. They were simply caught driving under the influence.
People here keep associating these people with murderers, referencing the M.A.D.D. folks, ad-nauseum. The simple truth, is that the only crime here is DUI until it isn't. This isn't pre-cog court. These folks most likely would have gone home, and no one would have been the wiser if they hadn't been pulled over. Were they pulled over for weaving? Perhaps because the cop camps outside of some winery? They are being treated as if they did hit and kill someone, when such a thing hasn't happened. They are being pre-judged due to every drunk driver who happened to cause some accident.
This does nothing more than to prosecute these people in a public court, without a trial.
My sister was killed in a jeep driven by a drunk driver. Did I hate the driver? Yes. Was it totally his fault? No. I later learned that a construction company failed to put up signs warning that the pavement was uneven due to resurfacing. Could he have avoided the accident if he hadn't been drinking? Who knows. I can't claim to know the future, or predict events. I can only judge the facts after they are known. Somehow I doubt this blog presents the facts that are heard in a trial. This blog won't prevent DUI. It simply serves some sick need for people to butt into other peoples business so that they can feel judgmental and holier than thou.
And the cops beat me during the arrest... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think anyone in this district who interacts with law enforcement should twitter accusations of police brutality and prosecutorial malfeasance.
I mean, as long as were making public unproven allegations both sides should suffer the same consequences.
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:2, Insightful)
Alcohol doesn't prevent the ability to handle situations, it impairs them. I think it's a good point to raise. These people were not arrested for DWI, they were arrested for DUI.
The amount they were impaired isn't known other than a blood alcohol count, as it affects each person differently, but they are being judged as if they had just slaughtered someone with a car, which is obviously not the case.
Are they innocent of a crime? No. Do they deserve to be punished in a public court for something far worse? No.
"charged with"? (Score:4, Insightful)
if they publish names of people that are only *charged*, it needs to be stopped and those responsible put in jail. While it is technically public record, there is no need to broadcast a persons name just due to suspicion and would just end up ruining peoples lives for nothing.
Now, if they want to publish people *convicted*, and the story just used the wrong term, more power too them.
Re:things have changed re drunk driving. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's nice to know that "not accidentally killing someone" is 3rd on your list of reasons to not drive drunk. Or maybe the word I'm looking for is sociopathic.
Contempt for human life? (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.
Now, I don't drive, so take what I say with the amount of salt you deem necessary. I do get on my bicycle after partying, though.
When I'm drunk, I'm not particularly thinking that my actions may kill someone. I also don't think I've ever harmed anyone (including myself) in traffic, and in all the dangerous situations I've been in, I think I acted prudently before ending up in that situation (I'm not saying "it's their fault!"---sometimes bad things just happen even though everybody is acting responsibly).
Now, suppose you drive, and your traffic danger history sounds similar to mine. Are you really going to entertain the likelihood of you harming or killing people?
If the though "I might harm someone" never enters your mind, are you really showing a contempt for human life?
It's a different thing to think "I might harm someone" and then not follow through on that thought (the next thought might be "how likely is that?"; not asking that question, or ignoring that answer, that might be contempt).
Re:the problem is the public's attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
Before you give me the argument that you need a roof over your head more than you need a fair and just employer, the only reason for the power imbalance is so many people like you fearing the loss of little comfort.
Tell that to your kids when you're living in a shelter! Many people (along with their families) who get fired or not hired via the scenario you described, are facing a lot more than than the loss of "little comfort"? In a severely depressed job market, job loss can very realistically lead to not having a place to live and while I agree that it's important to assert our legal rights, the survival of one's family is not a trivial consideration.
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd love to know how a drunk driving charge can be justified for someone in a parked car.
Well, I can tell you how it goes according to the law. This however does not explain the 'how' any better though.
Apparently all that is required under the law, is to have a BAC above a specified number, be physically within *12 inches of your car, and have the cars keys on your person.
[*] This number is for my city, will probably be different elsewhere
Sleeping in the car back seat qualifies (As does sleeping UNDER the car yet still outside of it, or even in the bed of a pickup truck)
As long as the keys are in your pocket (Which 99.9% of the time they will be, the other 0.1% of the time they will be in your hand, or dropped near the car trying to unlock the door) then you have violated the DWI laws.
After violating the law, all that is required to be convicted is the BAC reading taken at the time, and a statement from the officer that shows the above points have been met.
The most common 'advice' from police officers is to not go near your car, or if you do toss the keys outside a couple feet away (Sounds like excellent advice if your goal is to have your car stolen)
Personally I live in a city where cab drivers are required to pickup/dropoff anyone calling from a bar who says they are drunk and need a ride home. The state reimburses them for these jobs.
So best case you have no DUI charges at all, but have to leave your car in a bar parking lot overnight to be broken in to. But I have to say that is slightly better than a DUI charge that did or did not make it to conviction.
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time you get in a car you endanger others, drinking or otherwise. Your implying that these people are all guilty of such a crime when it's obvious that all of them are not intoxicated. You would treat them like dangerous criminals.
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:2, Insightful)
That is not a crime to be taken lightly, and if you think it is, you're either (i) stupid, or (ii) making excuses because its a crime you commit regularly and I for one would gladly sabotage your car to stop you from driving.
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, I'm not defending this plan as some kind of good idea. I don't see how the threat of being tweeted about is going to change one fucking mind, when the thing at issue could already cause death, dismemberment, or jail time...
And I'm sorry I'm singling you out, but this thread is full of people saying "WHAT HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!? HURR!"
If you get arrested, I can report that you were arrested. I can report the facts of said arrest, and as much as is known about the circumstances of said arrest.
Yes, there are idiots like the Nancy Graces of the world who will try and convict people in the court of public opinion for the purposes of sensationalist journalism, and it's okay as long as they use the word "alleged" every ten minutes or so. Yes, that's within their rights, and the rules of the system, and if you would call that abusing the system, I'd agree.
But seriously, this is more akin to the police blotter in the paper. Only some bureaucrat thinks that since Twitter is the next big thing, that it will revolutionize this kind of thing and OMG SAVE ALL THESE LIVES.
It's factual. John Smith was pulled over. John Smith was given a field sobriety test. In the judgment of the officer, he failed it. He was not convicted, nor does it say he was. In fact, it says his day in court is pending.
The above is of course made up, but here's some I just pulled up by googling "NJ police blotter"
The Daily Record Police Blotter [dailyrecord.com]
This happens all the time, and I don't see it as a violation of any kind of civil liberties. It's just reporting the facts of charges pending. Those charges may or may not stick.