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."

Comments

Oh.

[Adambomb]

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..

Re:Oh.

[Suki I]

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..

They typically ignore their own mistakes and make others pay for them.

Re:Oh.

[Rich0]

Most likely your boss wouldn't tell you that he fired you because your name was on the list. He'd fire you "because he doesn't need you any longer" or "because times are tough" or whatever. He might not give a reason at all in an at-will state.

So, unless you could somehow prove that your name being on the list was the real reason (maybe he tells somebody this and it gets back to you), good luck doing anything about it.

Ditto for people with photos of them doing stupid things on the web - you're not going to get a call from a future employer saying "well, your interviews went well but we thought that the photo of the tattoo on your butt was a bit tacky" - you'll get a call saying "thanks for interviewing but you were not selected."

"Innocent until proven guilty"

[seifried]

I guess it's gone out of fashion. Sad.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[DJRumpy]

Except these people haven't 'mowed down three people'. They haven't committed any other crime than driving under the influence. No children were hurt in the making of this tweet. No damage done. No insurance claims filed. They were simply caught driving under the influence.

People here keep associating these people with murderers, referencing the M.A.D.D. folks, ad-nauseum. The simple truth, is that the only crime here is DUI until it isn't. This isn't pre-cog court. These folks most likely would have gone home, and no one would have been the wiser if they hadn't been pulled over. Were they pulled over for weaving? Perhaps because the cop camps outside of some winery? They are being treated as if they did hit and kill someone, when such a thing hasn't happened. They are being pre-judged due to every drunk driver who happened to cause some accident.

This does nothing more than to prosecute these people in a public court, without a trial.

My sister was killed in a jeep driven by a drunk driver. Did I hate the driver? Yes. Was it totally his fault? No. I later learned that a construction company failed to put up signs warning that the pavement was uneven due to resurfacing. Could he have avoided the accident if he hadn't been drinking? Who knows. I can't claim to know the future, or predict events. I can only judge the facts after they are known. Somehow I doubt this blog presents the facts that are heard in a trial. This blog won't prevent DUI. It simply serves some sick need for people to butt into other peoples business so that they can feel judgmental and holier than thou.

Re:"Innocent until proven guilty"

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you get in a car you endanger others, drinking or otherwise. Your implying that these people are all guilty of such a crime when it's obvious that all of them are not intoxicated. You would treat them like dangerous criminals.

What? No Due Process?

[hedgemage]

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.

Good idea

[91degrees]

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.

Re:That's not the law though is it.

[mpe]

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,

In some cases it appears to have been more "important" to convict someone than to find the "right" person. On the police side the incentive may be more to arrest as many people as possible.

Re:Just one question...

[pitterpatter]

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.

"charged with"?

[nurb432]

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.