Slashdot Mirror
UK Police To Publicly Shame Drunk Drivers On Twitter This Christmas
An anonymous reader writes Sussex and Surrey police plan on fighting drunk driving with the help of twitter this Christmas. The police say that they will tweet details of accused intoxicated drivers, including: where, when, and who was stopped throughout December. From the article: "They're cruising the streets for embarrassing tweets. It's no secret that every year, the number of people driving under the influence of alcohol shoots up around Christmas. As part of its yearly crackdown, police in Sussex and Surrey are taking to Twitter to document the alcohol-related arrests they make on the road. Each snippet mentions where and when the motorist was pulled over, but also, more importantly, their name if they're eventually charged. Those who were stopped last year aren't getting off lightly either; officers are reportedly putting up posters to show exactly where motorists were caught over the limit."
I'd be okay if they did this with convicted drunk drivers, but doing it with accused is not cool.
This is the exact same problem with the media (and police) talking about accused sexual predators, like the notorious Jian Ghomeshi case going on in Canada right now. The guy was crucified by the public social media lynch mob before he charged had even be levied. Is this what society has become? We demand justice before someone even has a chance in court?
It's probably just more leverage to encourage people not to drive drunk.
Some people can live with the possibility of a delayed fine or suspension of license just fine - but couldn't bear to see their name tweeted badly in public.
>My knee-jerk reaction is to say, "good, fuck 'em."
My knee-jerk reaction is to think it's wrong to "fuck 'em" before they are convicted.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
shouldn't they be waiting for an actual conviction?
Yeah I know, not the US, just the backwards UK...
For starters, it's a record of the police's activity.
What? The police arrested you and let you go 37 times last year? You'd like to take action against the police? Sorry. We don't keep record of arrests...only convictions. Guess you're SOL.
There's a difference between keeping public records, and publicly shaming people on twitter.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Well, you will pay more (through incarceration and costs of the crime to society) if you don't prevent it in the first place.
It doesn't matter if you don't think you should pay for it. That's not how the world works.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
We also have a history of burning witches-- although, I admit, it seems to have worked. I can't remember the last time I was cursed by a witch.
So essentially anyone can do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences, knowing full well someone else gets to pick up the tab.
I don't think anyone ever sets out to become an addict because rehab is publicly funded.
Just keep taking from everyone else so someone doesn't have to be an adult and take responsibility for their actions.
You'll pay either way, either to cach, prosecute and lock them up or to get them rehab. The latter is vastly more cost effective. Why do you not want the cost effective choice?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's probably just more leverage to encourage people not to drive drunk.
Agreed but they had better not make any mistakes and accuse someone who does not subsequently get convicted. While it is hard to see how someone arrested for drunk driving would be not convicted they do have a history of mistakes like this. A few years ago they busted an online child pornography ring and then went around and named people whose credit cards were used without stopping to think that some of those cards were stolen and used fraudulently.
I'm all in favour of doing what we can to stop drunk driving but deliberately naming and shaming people before they have a conviction is dangerous at best and just plain wrong if those people are not found guilty.
Yes, I was concerned about the situation of shaming someone who has not (yet) been convicted of a crime. You can seriously cause problems for people if you make others think that they are a drunk. There could be implications to their social life, marriage, even their job or their kids at school who could have to endure taunts from their peers. Shaming is powerful stuff.
It feels to be unprofessional on their part to do something like this, at the very least. I am sure it is coming from a place of concern, but punishment should come for the guilty, not the accused.
It's probably just more leverage to encourage people not to drive drunk.
Actually, it is probably just leverage to get people used to the idea that the police are judge, jury, and executioner. Also to phase out the pesky tradition of a presumption of innocence. Hey, if they weren't guilty, why would the police pull them over?