Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police To Publicly Shame Drunk Drivers On Twitter This Christmas

Posted by samzenpus on from the boys-of-the-surrey-pd-choir-were-singing-galway-bay dept.

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."

43 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Knee-jerk... by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My knee-jerk reaction is to say, "good, fuck 'em."

    Arrest records are public information, but we don't tweet out every one. Where do we set the line?

    1. Re:Knee-jerk... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's probably just leverage to "encourage" people to take a fine and points instead of contesting it. It will be similar to speeding accusations, where they accuse you but won't let you see any evidence, and give you the choice of just admitting it or going to court. Now they can throw in the added shame of being named on Twitter as encouragement.

      Start with the drunks, no-one will stand up for them. These people really are scum... The police I mean.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Knee-jerk... by TWX · · Score: 2

      My knee-jerk reaction is to say, "what does the modern equivalent of publishing arrestee names in the newspaper have to do with nerdy or geeky news or discussion?"

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Knee-jerk... by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Knee-jerk... by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Ah, well, you see, we put "on the internet" in front of same police blotter we've always published...

    5. Re:Knee-jerk... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >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.
    6. Re:Knee-jerk... by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Knee-jerk... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    8. Re:Knee-jerk... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quick, patent the idea of shaming on the Internet. This is clearly a new invention.

    9. Re:Knee-jerk... by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Consequence is not usually front of mind for offenders like that, since there are already huge penalties for being caught driving drunk even just once (although the penalty for killing someone while doing the same is oddly light compared to, say, killing someone while robbing a bank) and would-be offenders rationalize it by telling themselves that almost everyone who does it does not get caught (which is true.) Ultimately, the tweets serve more as a constant reminder that people DO get caught regularly and so, hopefully a few who read the tweets will skew their cost/benefit judgement since the perceived risk is higher, and opt to not drive drunk or not drink in the first place.

    10. Re:Knee-jerk... by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      In some states you can request the evidence. In WI for instance you can ask to see the radar gun (with read speed still displayed) as well as the certification information for said gun. Generally this is a bad idea, since it will take you from "maybe get out of this with a warning" into "they will throw everything they can at you even if they can't get you for speeding".

    11. Re:Knee-jerk... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re: Knee-jerk... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      >You missed "if they're eventually convicted "from the summary.

      That's because it isn't there.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    13. Re:Knee-jerk... by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Knee-jerk... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    15. Re: Knee-jerk... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      From the TFA

      Anyone ordered to appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug-driving offence will have their names and details published online and made available to the media.

      Not sure if that means "convicted" as you said because I don't know UK law?

    16. Re:Knee-jerk... by Znork · · Score: 2

      Mainly that Twitter appears to be turning into one of the main platforms for online bullying and harassment and that the police want in on the action as well.

      Is it a result of the brevity of tweets leading to the inability to engage in any meaningful communication? Is it an effect of Twitters social dynamics with following/followers? Interesting research could surely be done, possibly qualifying for an Ig Nobel prize.

    17. Re:Knee-jerk... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Ironically, this technique of Name & Shame works for other drugs too ... but everyone seems to ignore its effectiveness! /sarcasm Why use something that costs almost nothing when police officers could be spending their budgets buying over priced weapons, tanks, etc.

      http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

      How America Lost the War on Drugs
      7. The Harvard Man

      For the cops on the front lines of the War on Drugs, the federal government's fixation with marijuana was deeply perplexing. As they saw it, the problem wasn't pot but the drug-related violence that accompanied cocaine and other hard drugs. After the crack epidemic in the late 1980s, police commissioners around the country, like Lee Brown in Houston, began adding more officers and developing computer mapping to target neighborhoods where crime was on the rise. The crime rate dropped. But by the mid-1990s, police in some cities were beginning to realize there was a certain level that they couldn't get crime below. Mass jailings weren't doing the trick: Only fifteen percent of those convicted of federal drug crimes were actual traffickers; the rest were nothing but street-level dealers and mules, who could always be replaced.

      Police in Boston, concerned about violence between youth drug gangs, turned for assistance to a group of academics. Among them was a Harvard criminologist named David Kennedy. Working together, the academics and members of the department's anti-gang unit came up with what Kennedy calls a "quirky" strategy and convinced senior police commanders to give it a try. The result, which began in 1995, was the Boston Gun Project, a collaborative effort among ministers and community leaders and the police to try to break the link between the drug trade and violent crime. First, the project tracked a particular drug-dealing gang, mapping out its membership and operations in detail. Then, in an effort called Operation Ceasefire, the dealers were called into a meeting with preachers and parents and social-service providers, and offered a deal: Stop the violence, or the police will crack down with a vengeance. "We know the seventeen guys you run with," the gangbangers were told. "If anyone in your group shoots somebody, we'll arrest every last one of you." The project also extended drug treatment and other assistance to anyone who wanted it.

      The effort worked: The rates of homiÂcide and violence among young men in Boston dropped by two-thirds. Drug dealing didn't stop â" "people continued what they were doing," Kennedy concedes, "but they put their guns down." As Kennedy reflected on the success of the Boston project, which ran for five years, he wondered if he had discovered a deeper truth about drug-related violence. If the murders weren't a necessary component of the drug trade â" if it was possible to separate the two â" perhaps cities could find a way to reduce the violence, even if they could do nothing about the drugs.

      In 2001, Kennedy got a call from the mayor of San Francisco that gave him a chance to examine his theories in a new setting. The city had experienced a recent spike in its murder rate, much of it caused by an ongoing feud between two drug-dealing gangs â" Big Block and West Mob â" that had resulted in dozens of murders over the years. Could Kennedy, the mayor asked, help police figure out how to stop the killings?

      Kennedy flew out to San Francisco and met with police. But as he researched the history of the violence, it seemed to confirm his findings in Boston. Though both Big Block and West Mob were involved in dealing drugs, the shootings were not really drug-related â" the two groups occupied different territories and were not battling over turf. "The feud had started over who would perform next at a neighborhood rap event," says Kennedy, now a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "They

    18. Re: Knee-jerk... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      You will only be in front of a Judge if you have been charged. The conviction will occur when in front of the judge as will sentencing.

      A drink driving charge in the UK will ONLY come about after you have failed a breathalyser or blood test. There is no requirement for your driving to actually have been poor, or dangerous or anything like that. Only that your blood alcohol level exceeded 0.08 (that is what it was in 2003 it may now be 0.05). Your only hope of winning when you are in front of a judge is to prove the device you were tested on was not checked and calibrated.

      As for proving it, good fucking luck. I can only comment on the Queensland police force as I have had a lot of personal dealings with them, but at the end of every shift all Lidars and Breathalysers are placed into a calibration machine. These are then serial logged that they have been tested and at the beginning of the shift the officers only take devices from the machine. It is also generally located at the same place as the armoury and equipment stores.

    19. Re:Knee-jerk... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For starters, it's a record of the police's activity.

      No, it's a selective record of what they want to release. There's no uniform reporting requirements, it's not an official record, it's solely at the discretion of the Met's own PR gimps.

      They are not going to tweet anything that embarrasses the Met, nor anyone who is protected, no insiders will be shamed. For DUI'd politicians, influential businessmen and off-duty cops, whether they end up on the name'n'shame roster will be purely a political decision - whether they are considered "friend" or "foe". Similarly, if some researcher or NGO uses the Twitter feed to show, for example, a statistical bias in arrests, then from then on the PR gimps compiling the Twitter feed will simply filter the cases to fit whatever "balance" is deemed acceptable to their higher-ups (note: doing nothing to change the actual target rates).

      You either make it an official record of every qualifying incident, at a central .gov.uk site (not using a social "play" site like Twitter or Facebook), where reporting conforms to uniform requirements and there are set legal and civil penalties for misuse of the register, or you do none of it.

      Selective reporting is inherently unsound.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  2. Slander? by sdguero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An arrest is not the same as a conviction. IANAL but I think this would be slander (and the police could be sued in civil court) if this happened in the USA.

    1. Re:Slander? by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      IANAL

      For sure. :)

      Slander requires a false claim that causes injury (to reputation or otherwise).

      Tweeting that you were arrested is only slander if it's false.

      Now, it may be a bad idea to tweet these, but what's the difference between that and the police blotter that's already published in the newspaper other than the speed at which tweets happen? Arrest records are already public information.

    2. Re:Slander? by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stops aren't tweeted. Just arrests, per TFS.

      Not all people arrested are charged. Some are released after being arrested.

      This is the same information that's been in the morning paper for decades.

    3. Re:Slander? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      yeah I think the word he's looking for is "defamation". Section 2 para. 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 abolished the common law defence of justification, so even if true, using an arrest to defame someone (as in cause them harm in *any way*) is an actionable injury.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:Slander? by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      slander needs to be false... you were stopped, you were arrested, and you were suspected of driving under the influence. They have not yet said anything false.

  3. There's no point in shame by quietwalker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it feels good for the public at large, feels like karmic justice, but it doesn't hinder offenders.

    Having done a good deal of research into crime and punishment, it turns out that shaming punishments have no statistical impact on the chance they'll re-offend. Anyone who is even briefly ostracized from society will be at least as likely to turn to alcohol or drugs as they were before, and other potential impacts like losing their job or positions of respect further worsen the odds of recovery.

    What does work for DUI cases is to provide access to rehab clinics followed by support organizations, though apparently not any of the -anonymous ones like AA or NA, which have a worse-than-nothing recidivism rate.

    1. Re:There's no point in shame by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Come on... We have a LONG history of public shaming..

      24 hours in the stocks, public hangings, chain gangs and even pink underwear have all had their place.

      I fear that you are correct though, I doubt these things deter crime in any meaningful way.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:There's no point in shame by Zalbik · · Score: 2

      If they have money to drink they can afford to pay for their own rehab. The taxpayers shouldn't have to shell out anything.

      Exactly!

      Instead of paying for rehabilitation in order to help ensure they don't re-offend, let's name, shame and ostracize them. That way we can pay even more money to prosecute/incarcerate them as their unwanted behaviors continue.

      Brilliant!

    3. Re:There's no point in shame by spike+hay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:There's no point in shame by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:There's no point in shame by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      It's not that the taxpayers have a duty to shell out anything, it's just that paying for rehab is more cost effective since it actually reduces recidivism. You don't have to have as many cops, judges, public defenders, etc.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:There's no point in shame by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      We all chip in for the treatment because it improves society. Plus it's cheaper than paying the medical bills for the family of four that he's going to crash into one night coming home from a bender.

    7. Re:There's no point in shame by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  4. Accused? by iONiUM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Accused? by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      actually, there is a lot. If you're having a hyperglycaemic episode, for instance - actone on the breath due to ketoacidosis causes false positives. Challenge in court and beat a BAC if you're diabetic. You're welcome.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Accused? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      taking it to the other extreme - hypoglycaemia. Often there is zero warning of an attack. Hell, you might not even be diagnosed, but it could well happen that your blood sugar falls so dangerously low you simply keel over. Such happenings can be caused by high stress situations.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  5. While I HATE drunk drivers by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    shouldn't they be waiting for an actual conviction?

    Yeah I know, not the US, just the backwards UK...

  6. Elapsed time to this becoming a contest... by Sir+Realist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    3.2 seconds.

    Idiots who are rich enough to afford the ticket will probably take it as a badge of honor, and/or vie for getting pulled over in the weirdest places.

    I remember when they put breathalyzers in Australian pubs so people could check if they were legal to drive home... and then had to take them out again when people started having contests to see who could blow the highest BA levels before passing out.

  7. Sounds punitive to me by holophrastic · · Score: 2

    "shaming" sounds like a punitive action. Last I checked, police are law enforcement. I'd have thought that a judge would be required for anything punitive.

  8. How do we read these. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

    How are we supposed to read these tweets if we are driving along with a beer in one hand?

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  9. The Internet doesn't forget as easily by tepples · · Score: 2

    The difference is that newspapers from long ago and far away are far easier to get on the Internet than they were before the Internet. This means your misdeeds from well over a decade ago, from which you have been rehabilitated, are more likely to continue to haunt you no matter where you try to start over.

  10. Will there really be any influence on behaviour? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it just me, or have we now reached the point where people who drive drunk just aren't affected by 'external influences?'

    Threat of a large fine doesn't stop them, nor does threat of jail, threat of loss of driving privileges or threat of loss of their vehicle.

    Threat that they might injure or kill others, themselves or passengers doesn't influence their behaviour either.

    So sure, embarrass them with a tweet, but will the risk of embarrassment really decrease drunks on the road? I think not...

  11. Re:Everyone? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

    OK, you can be the one to order him to land his Apache helicopter. I'll be behind this fucking big wall.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel