Slashdot Mirror
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."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"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!"
offender registry.
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.
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.
...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.
sounds like fun. this carries the potential for people to start up 'drunkard hall of fame' in their town and see who can stay 'on the charts' the longest. people will purposefully drive cars into one another, then splashing bottles of mad dog and mcmasters over their heads just to get 'top score'. remember that kid who rode down all those people on that busy night strip and then ran up and down the street cheering? well, top fucking score, man! first place! woo hoo! and best of all it'll probably end up cheaper than buying a new console and keeping yourself in new titles.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
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".
--
$tar -xvf
to be loved by anyone! dweedoo dwedoo dee.
anyways doesn't it just count as an extension of 'debt to society'?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
to be loved by anyone!"
really though, wouldn't it just be an extension of their 'debt to society'?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
For example, here's a story from today's wires about a 74 year-old who has amassed over 400 DUI arrests:
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.
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.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Maybe this should be extended to:
Corporations convicted of tax evasion
Yeah, baby. Print a picture of the Tyco or Enron buildings in the paper. That'll deter 'em.
...but you should know that I've been drinking...
Here before all but 8486 of you.
After all, we are talking about risk management. If people can't keep themselves safe, then we have to help them [within reason, of course]. Remember, if the drunk driver kills someone, then most often it lasts forever. So, it's not unreasonable to have to serve capital punishment, or to mar his reputation. Part of the debt he pays to society is taking punishment with his reputation.
A reputation is worth more than silver & gold, or driving drunk @ a million miles per hour. If people can't grasp that concept, then they deserve cruel punishment. It's not unusual, though.
testing out my trending skills
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.
Where I come from, anyone who's charged with anything, from a speeding ticket to murder (though not much of that happens) shows up in the county newspaper. It's a matter of public record anyway.
I thought we'd done away with the stockade punishment.
The further we head into the future, the more we do the same things we did in the past.
No comment.
If they're forced by the law to pay for the advertisment in the local paper, if I was the local paper I'd raise the ad rates very, very high.
> 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...
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Because that's how many elected someone who drove drunk as leader of the free world.
Will someone please just blow this whole country off the fucking map before it gets any worse?
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 accuracy. I don't see any big effort to do this in the stories I've been reading about people putting more public data online.
Digital Citizen
I thought that the Scarlet Letter was just a really bad old book, not reality...
When we get that national microchipped ID, it should be required to bye alcohol for everyone of every age. Then if you're convicted the system should be updated to deny you access to alcohol, so that anyone selling or supplying you would be guilty just like they would be with a minor.
Addionally there should be a website were we can all go and make fun of the drunk driving losers. The more we can do to humiliate and shame them the better.
I also advocate a "beat up" squad. For all the guys convicted of beating women, the beatup squad comes on a regular basis, some days they are nice and just hang out other days they come and kick the shit out of the guy. The beauty is he never knows which day it will be, just like the poor woman.
The cool part is we could have "beat up" duty be like jury duty, so evry one gets to kick the shit out of losers on occassion. Though our luck would be that you'd have to be beaten by a panel of your peers, so all the shitty wife beaters would have to be each other up, and us normal folk would not get the opportunity to bust a move on the low-life scum bags. Too bad it would be a good way to relieve stress and teach a low-life scum a lesson.
Drug dealers we should force them to OD on the shit they sell. Hopefully they die, if not, we can still video tape the debachary and sell it on the internet. The proceeds can be used to offset taxes.
Murder is a tough one. How do you kill a guy several times over? Or half kill him if tehir was an accomplace? Maybe extended visists from the beat up squad. Anther fun one to watch on DVD. Perhas they let the family of the victim automatically be on the beat up squad (and they can get free copies of the video).
Rapist we should just shoot on site. Or perhaps we should publically castrate them. Too bad ebay does not allow the auction of human body parts. But the videos would sell too.
End of rant for now. We should all pray that I don't win an election for public office. . .
and the fun ends
I think that the government should make all human driven vechiles outlawed. The cars should drive you from point A to point B and decide on the safest course and speed there. You shouldn't even have to pay any car insurance other than theft because it is all on the car manufactur if it has an accident. Humans don't make good drivers. We get drive drunk, drive while talking on the phone, drive while talking/yelling at the kids in the back sit, drive while eating, drive while nearly falling asleep, drive while shaving, drive while putting on make up, and drive while looking for something in the passanger floor board. Human driving should be made illegal now! There are thousands of deaths a year because of this. We should sue the goverment for allowing the population to drive vechiles when it is proven to be unsafe.
IF I want to drink or eat or make out with my wife in my car, I should be able to do that at any time while going from point A to point B. I shouldn't have to drive a damn vechile. All I care about is getting from point A to point B.
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.
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".
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Well I charge you of molesting and raping very young children and savagely murdering them, as well as listening to Britney Spears music.
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.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Last time I checked, having a license to drive a car was a privelige, not a right.
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 again, do we really need people like that in society?
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Has no one heard of this site? It seems there is no law a celeb can break without making it there. Why is it a big deal to do this to non-celebs?
Y'know, it's people like you that are the reason our prisons are full of murderers that get YOUR tax dollars to stay alive when they don't deserve life. But then again, their freedom has been taken away, so life in a hell on earth.. NO WAIT! Thanks to you pussy liberals the people who have no qualms about killing you and your kids are getting better treatment than me!
This is reason number 117 why the human race is doomed.
P.S.
Try a Dictionary next time you want to use those big words of yours.