Slashdot Mirror
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."
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
Ice Cream has no bones.
I guess it's gone out of fashion. Sad.
I checked the article to be sure, and yep, it says that those CHARGED will have their names published on Twitter. So, even if you are found not guilty, you are going to be publicly named as a DUI offender before you even get a chance to clear your name.
I'm not trying to excuse drunk drivers, but for some reason, its seen as ok to make those charged or convicted of DUIs out to be the scum of the earth, wantonly careening down the roadways, seeking out innocents to mow down, when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind.
The idea that it is somehow ok to humiliate people who are supposedly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY seems like a prelude to a morality police state.
Now, im as against DUI as any sane person, but theres a law about cruel and unusual punishment.
You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
But the difference is, they blur the faces of those who haven't been found guilty (yet). They are also a news organization with no legal power, but this is a police (military) organization. These police are assuming guilt for anyone merely charged, so I suppose it's natural for them to also apply punishment.
A few years in the future when the police will be scouring the streets performing judgments and executions on the spot, I'm afraid it will be too late for anyone to do anything about our lost rights. By then the court system will be a rarely used dusty relic of the past.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Because we all check twitter feeds containing nothing but hundreds of random names on the off-chance that someone we know has been drink driving.
That's not the law though is it and the police have proved many times they're not above faking the evidence. The police and the CPS or DA (or local equivalent) are biased, they have an incentive to get convictions, so I certainly wouldn't want them acting as judge as well.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
In a hundred years, your grand-grand-grand kids will have fun googling their ancestry and finding that they were driving under influence ... .. sorry we can't employ convicts here"
nowait - doesn't the DA know that the internet never forgets? That anyone can find this informatiuon by just googling someone's name?
"Hello i'm here for the job interview"- "Oh I see you had a DUI 32 years ago
Of course a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't had anything to drink. Reasons for this might include, but will not be limited to:
1. Evil cops (not likely, IMO, but definitely possible).
2. Deluded cops (more likely, but still a stretch).
3. Overzealous cops, particularly if you're exhibiting something that looks like inebriated behavior but isn't; for example, several neurological conditions can cause you to have slurred speech or an unsteady gait but still be fine to drive.
4. Getting framed by an enemy.
5. Being acquainted with Ashton Kutcher.
In addition, as several posters have already pointed out, a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't actually driven and are not going to drive.
I'd be fine with capital punishment for people convicted of causing an accident while driving drunk, but I'm a little uneasy about draconian punishments for those who haven't actually caused damage yet, and I'm adamantly opposed to punishment of people without due process. To me, publishing names of arrestees is punishment without due process.
People aren't guilty of DWI until they are convicted - they're a drunk driver the moment they drive while pissed.
Considering that this policy has the potential to harm innocent people, it should really come with a sensible plan to monitor its effectiveness, and to monitor its unintended side effects.
If it doesn't do any good, or if it screws up too many innocent people lives; there should be figures to show it.
I think anyone in this district who interacts with law enforcement should twitter accusations of police brutality and prosecutorial malfeasance.
I mean, as long as were making public unproven allegations both sides should suffer the same consequences.
if they publish names of people that are only *charged*, it needs to be stopped and those responsible put in jail. While it is technically public record, there is no need to broadcast a persons name just due to suspicion and would just end up ruining peoples lives for nothing.
Now, if they want to publish people *convicted*, and the story just used the wrong term, more power too them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's nice to know that "not accidentally killing someone" is 3rd on your list of reasons to not drive drunk. Or maybe the word I'm looking for is sociopathic.
Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.
Now, I don't drive, so take what I say with the amount of salt you deem necessary. I do get on my bicycle after partying, though.
When I'm drunk, I'm not particularly thinking that my actions may kill someone. I also don't think I've ever harmed anyone (including myself) in traffic, and in all the dangerous situations I've been in, I think I acted prudently before ending up in that situation (I'm not saying "it's their fault!"---sometimes bad things just happen even though everybody is acting responsibly).
Now, suppose you drive, and your traffic danger history sounds similar to mine. Are you really going to entertain the likelihood of you harming or killing people?
If the though "I might harm someone" never enters your mind, are you really showing a contempt for human life?
It's a different thing to think "I might harm someone" and then not follow through on that thought (the next thought might be "how likely is that?"; not asking that question, or ignoring that answer, that might be contempt).
Before you give me the argument that you need a roof over your head more than you need a fair and just employer, the only reason for the power imbalance is so many people like you fearing the loss of little comfort.
Tell that to your kids when you're living in a shelter! Many people (along with their families) who get fired or not hired via the scenario you described, are facing a lot more than than the loss of "little comfort"? In a severely depressed job market, job loss can very realistically lead to not having a place to live and while I agree that it's important to assert our legal rights, the survival of one's family is not a trivial consideration.