Texas County Will Use Twitter To Publish Drunk Drivers' Names

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."

Doubtful

[MindlessAutomata]

This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!

This really is just some inane idea some bureaucrat thought up because it makes them look tough on crime and HEY LOOK TWITTER ISN'T THAT COOL. This is just some stunt someone thought up to make it look like they are getting paid for a good reason. The kind of gimmick that appeals to PHBs in corporate settings.

Re:What? No Due Process?

[enjo13]

I agree with you that this sort of publication of charges instead of convictions sucks.

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.

Buying Chocolate when you wanted Strawberry is a bad decision. Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.

Attempting to trivialize it in the way you have is honestly quite disturbing.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[CountBrass]

Then that's a failing in the process not the law. If the police are corruptly allowing other cops to get away with breaking the law (often in collusion with the courts*) then it's the corruption that needs to be dealt with. *"But if you ban this highly trained and skilled police officer from driving then he'll lose his job your honour." "In that case this pillar of society who drunkenly mowed down three people in his car is fined $3."

it's just an electronic perp walk

[YesIAmAScript]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp_walk [wikipedia.org]

I'm not really a fan of perp walks, but they've been present in US society for 100 years haven't yet pushed us into a morality police state.

Re:Doubtful

[mpe]

This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!

There's also the problem that if the accused has a common name such "naming and shaming" won't be such a good idea anyway.
If they really wanted to be tough here then a conviction would always result in a driving ban and a need to take a driving test after the ban had expired.

Re:What? No Due Process?

[TapeCutter]

"Innocent until proven guilty" goes all the way back to the dark ages when it replaced trial by fire in England. This system is a modern day trail by fire and would offically put Texas back to the dark ages when it comes to the rights of the accused.

However I think shaming is a reasonable but insufficient punishment for those convicted, and it is definitely an effective deterent for others. A consistent campagin by the state of Victoria, (Australia) to make drink driving socially unacceptable has dramatically cut the road toll over the past 30yrs. DUI is no longer seen as a "bad decison" as it was when I learnt to drive in the 70's, it's seen as a selfish and reckless act that is worthy of jail time.

There's are few Aussie's alive who have never seen the award winning bloddy idiot [youtube.com] ads. These ads combined with "booze buses" were so effective that in the first few years of the campaing the TAC saved several billion in injury payouts. Yeah I know, it's "social engineering", but it's the good kind that fills young heads with images of reality. Of course Aussies being what they are the slogan quickly became; "If you dink and drive you're a bloody idiot, if you make it home you're a bloody ledgend".

Re:Oh.

[slarrg]

In a community of six million people, how many people do you think share the same name? I can just imagine someone in my community reading my name on this Twitter page and thinking it was me rather than one of the three other people I know about with the same name. What a mess.

Worse, imagine getting fired because your clueless boss decided to fire people because their name was on the list and they drive a delivery truck. Even if you later prove that the person was someone sharing your name but living at a different address you're not likely to get your job back in an "at will" employment jurisdiction.

Future News: Wrongfully Charged Awarded Millions.

[jafo]

DUI is a terrible thing, and I won't defend it. However, I also know that beat officers will sometimes abuse their power. I grew up around sheriff's deputies, my mother worked in the department (in administration) and most of her friends were beat officers. So I got exposed to a lot of their stories.

So, yeah, I'm sure that quite a lot of the people who get charged are guilty as hell. And I'm sure that some of the people who get cleared of the charges are cleared only on a technicality and they were guilty. If they have multiple tests

However, I can imagine also that there are officers who, for whatever reason, may wrongfully charge someone. "I saw him leave a bar." Truth is he was the designated driver but had to go home early. "He was staggering." Truth is he had an inner ear infection that messed up his balance, or maybe he was messing with his smartphone while walking to the car. "He had dramatic variances in his speed." The truth was that he was doing the speed limit just fine until the officer started tailgating him, where he slowed down to reduce the chance of getting run into. What may be overwhelming evidence to the officer -- say if his breathalyzer in his car is broken, may be later found by the court to have other reasons, like the stumbling.

This is why we have the courts hear the case before passing judgment, and the police don't do the conviction on the spot.

The speed change part above happened to my wife a few years ago. She was pulled over and asked if she had been drinking because she dramatically slowed down. She slowed down because there was a giant SUV following her less than a car length away 55MPH. It was the officer's SUV. Why he wasn't in the next lane over, which was empty, I can't imagine.

It is not the job of the "beat officer" to make a conviction -- it's the job of the courts to look at the evidence and make that determination. They can charge you with anything, and you can't make any defense of that charge to the officer. You have to make it to the court.

The world today, here in the US, has a reality where posting something on the Internet, particularly from an official source like the police, will probably follow you around forever. And you'll never know if you didn't get that job offer because of this search result (which is probably highly ranked), because HR will tell you they just had a better candidate, if they tell you anything at all, because they don't want to be sued for making a bad decision.

Sean