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."

Comments

Re:Isn't that...

[squiggleslash]

...cruel and unusual punishment?

Well, modern day pillorying isn't unheard of amongst more radical judges in the US who'll be quite happy to have someone stand at the side of the road wearing a billboard describing their offenses. As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, but it hasn't been tested.

I doubt SCOTUS is going to outlaw publishing names of miscreants in newspapers. This is established practice anyway, the major difference here is that the court is going to force offenders to foot the bill, and fining offenders isn't new either...

I thought that once you paid your debt to society, whether by forfeiture of property, money, or time (in prison), you were done.

Well, not exactly. In addition to being considered part of "paying your debt to society", this is also part of the well established post-direct-punishment regime. People who serve their sentences generally still suffer afterwards - prospective employers, for example, will expect to be able to find out felonies and misdemeanors committed by prospective employees in recent years. So, no, there isn't a "you're done" aspect that this undermines.

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.

It would be unfair if this were retroactive, or if this was excessive. I'm not going to comment on the latter, but on the former, as I understand it, this is being passed as a law going forward. You only have to be concerned if you intend to break the law after it is passed, by which time you should know what the consequences are.

I'm a liberal. I support Amnesty International (though this comment shouldn't be read as stating a position AI would agree or disagree with.) I find the death penalty objectionable. If prisons are anything close to their reputation, I find their continued promotion repugnant. But I also have to say that this type of law does not strike me as extreme, cruel, or unusual. Indeed, to a certain extent, I'm glad a legislature is looking at alternative ways to make sentences for crimes harsher, rather than adding years to prison terms.

Unquestionably this punishment will act as a deterent. It's going to hit the wallet, and it's going to be embarassing. But it also will not destroy someone's employment opportunities, their finances, their families, or put them in physical danger - in short, it will punish, not destroy someone.