Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shame: Drunk Drivers Published Online

Posted by timothy on from the what-about-lousy-ebayers dept.

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."

4 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. This isn't really in the same class as the sex by shweazel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  2. "Charged" by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 4, 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".

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  3. Re:Drunks have no shame by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Suspension/revokation does nothing. It can't stop the person from driving. Chaining him to his house might.

    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.

  4. Apparently, millions of Americans agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because that's how many elected someone who drove drunk as leader of the free world.