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

And in Florida

[squiggleslash]

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.

And in Florida, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require spammers send out millions of unsolicited emails advertising their name and conviction...

shaming as a deterrent?

[kurosawdust]

Can't you shame someone enough by just searching google groups for their usenet posts from when they were 16?

"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!"

This isn't really in the same class as the sex

[shweazel]

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.

Isn't that...

[Josh Booth]

...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.

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.

"Charged"

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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".

Drunks have no shame

[mbstone]

What, publishing the names of convicted (I hope) DUI offenders will deter them? Fat chance. Whoever thought this one up enjoys the good fortune not to know any alcoholics.

For example, here's a story from today's wires about a 74 year-old who has amassed over 400 DUI arrests:

ANDERSON, Ind. (AP) -- A 74-year-old Anderson man who's been arrested at least 400 times for drunken driving was sentenced Monday to 17 years in prison for his latest drunken driving conviction.

Virldeen Redmon was arrested in July for driving even though his license had been suspended for life.

His latest conviction was on charges of driving while intoxicated, endangering a person and driving while suspended.

Police have been arresting Redmon since 1947, including three times since June. He's had his driver's license suspended for life five times.

In 1996, a judge sentenced Redmon to 9-1/2 years in prison. That sentence was reduced in 2001 and he was released after a doctor testified that Redmon suffers from health problems.

Re:Drunks have no shame

[barzok]

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.

These people need help, not shame

[Yohahn]

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.

Lets develop this idea

[ciaran_o_riordan]

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.

Violation of free speech

[Jerf]

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.

Come to think of it, it's a violation of the spirit of the fifth amendment too, if perhaps not technically the letter.

...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...

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.

Re:Violation of free speech

[pauljlucas]

I would consider forcing somebody to fund an advertisement saying, well, anything to be a violation of thier free speech.

The suspect isn't the one doing the speaking: the police department is (with their words). The suspect is merely paying for the ad as an additional fine. It's actually kind of dumb to me: the police department could just add, say, $50 to the fine that would cover the cost of the ad and then the suspect would be paying for the ad indirectly.

Come to think of it, it's a violation of the spirit of the fifth amendment too ...

No it isn't because, again, the suspect isn't the one doing the speaking.

hmm, you're new to reading, aren't you?

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> 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...

Apparently, millions of Americans agree

[Anonymous Coward]

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