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."

10 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 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.

  2. 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 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.
  3. 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...

  4. 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.