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."

23 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Knee-jerk... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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?

    11. 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: 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. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
  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. 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...