UK Police To Publicly Shame Drunk Drivers On Twitter This Christmas 256
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."
Knee-jerk... (Score:5, 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?
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
So this will be very effective convincing those people who calmly consider the long-term consequences of their actions while drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, when I started drinking I realized that there would be the potential for coming up with good ideas that might not actually turn out to be good ideas. I decided that if I came up with what seemed like a good idea while drunk, that if it's REALLY good I should write it down and revisit it later while sober, to make sure that it actually was a good idea. I figure this
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we had more practice back in my day, or less overall distractions?
I mean...worse distraction you had was jamming to the stereo on way home from the bar, now....you have folks trying to do cell phones while driving and listening to stereo.
Re:Knee-jerk... (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.
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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... [rollingstone.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Holy shit, your country sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd bother to read the article, you'd say that it applies to people who've been charged.
That's not an alternative to either of the things you mention; it's a prerequisite to both.
Perhaps you should only express your opinions on things where they refer to the side of the Atlantic whre you live, fatty.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, well, you see, we put "on the internet" in front of same police blotter we've always published...
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly; the internet has no shame.
The Internet doesn't forget as easily (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
>You missed "if they're eventually convicted "from the summary.
That's because it isn't there.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome back to the Dark Ages (Score:2)
This seems to be the modern version of the Stocks. Public shame and display of those people daring to break the law. In the US at least, this should be considered cruel and inhumane punishment. Though it would take a decade to see the light of day in court, and yeah people back then didn't want to do away with the stockades either.
Does the UK have any laws regarding overly cruel punishment?
Sure, arrest records are publicly records but not normally without a request (I.E. Not posted on a public facing web
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
That still doesn't explain why it should be public information.
Obviously police should be required to keep their own records of arrests, but why should it be public?
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between keeping public records, and publicly shaming people on twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
My local PD publishes incident numbers and a vague description of what the incident was about. There is no identifiable information disclosed. If you want identifiable information, you have to go through the whole rigamarole of a "freedom of information" request.
They don't just "let it all hang out" or anything remotely close to that.
Re:Knee-jerk... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
An arrest is not a conviction
Human resources personnel tend to confuse the two, as well as confuse a 15-year-old conviction with a recent one. This is what the "right to be forgotten" debate in some countries is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you are arrested in the US that means you were charged with a crime not just questioned. Yes, you are still innocent until proven guilty but there are plenty of local news papers that have feeds of both arrests and convictions. No idea how that works anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be arrested and not charged. Happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Those don't end up in the paper, or the local news feed... since you weren't charged and were released after questioning.
That's the I'm reading you your rights and treating it like an arrest because I already think your guilty move.
I used to work nights when I was in college at a gas station in a very bad neighborhood. {the company had nicer places nearer to where I lived but they paid more at that station because it was such a bad neighborhood} A cop pulled me over for no turn signal as I was pulling into
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On that occasion he just detained me, that is the only time I've ever been handcuffed, or had my shoes taken by an officer. Usually they call me sir and are very respectful, but then again I'm not that young anymore.
I know people who have had their rights read to them told they were going to be charged and held at a police station for close to 12 hours before they decided not to charge them after all and finally released them.
Re: (Score:2)
well, a habit is more than once right? and the overwhelming majority of drunk drivers have most likely done so more than once. so "usually" habitual follows just like "most non-negative integers" are greater than 1.
someone who would stop at just once, would more likely have stopped at just none.
Slander? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that most people who drive drunk don't care much
Some may even be proud of it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Generally speaking, no. Due to sovereign immunity you can't sue the police (or the courts) for slander if they're acting within the scope of their duties.
Re: (Score:2)
it already happens and no it wouldn't... they just put a disclaimer that it was an arrest and that the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Then you flip to the next page and read the convictions for the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why, after you're arrested, you get your day in court, even in the UK.
Records of your arrest already exist and were already public information.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that you can claim damage if you are wrongfully accused. And there are usually laws protecting people from being treated as criminals before they are declared guilty by a court of law.
How effective these mechanism are, I don't know, but they exist.
Re:Slander? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter reporting is pull-based. You only see the tweets of things you subscribe to.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really sure what a police blotter is, but if we're talking of people who've committed offences I'd expect a document from a court.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really sure what a police blotter is...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
i've heard tell that libel in the UK is a joke. and you basically have to prove that you're innocent if accused of defamation.
yay, libel. apparently when you go shopping for places to sue people, you hope they have a presence in the UK.
There's no point in shame (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:There's no point in shame (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re:There's no point in shame (Score:5, 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.
Re:There's no point in shame (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point of laws is not to bless or condemn specific actions, but to provide in incentives that produce a society best for each of us.
Why should we provide health care for illegal aliens? Because diseases are contagious. Whether the person receiving the preventive care deserves it is entirely irrelevant - I'm paying to keep me from getting infected by some broke asshole.
Why should we provide rehab clinics for drunken drivers? Because drunk drivers are dangerous to others. Whether the person receiving th
Re: (Score:2)
we sent illegal aliens home rather than coddling them and giving them amnesty despite breaking the law, disease infection wouldn't be an issue, would it?
And if unicorn giggles cured cancer, all we'd need is more unicorns. But here in the realm of the possible, subsidizing health care for illegals is net cheaper for me. I'm not going to pay more just to watch them suffer, sorry.
Why should I have to pay for rehab for a drunk? They're the ones who couldn't control themselves. As I said in the beginning, if they have money to buy alcohol they have money to pay for their own treatment. In fact, this would address two issues: they would have to go to rehab or face jail and by spending money on rehab they'd have less money to spend on purchasing alcohol.
Again, if the goal is reducing my chance of injury, subsidizing recovery clinics is the cost-effective way. I'm not going to pay more just to watch them suffer, sorry. Now, if you want to also fine those convicted the cost of that care, sure, go for it, but that only addresses tho
Public health insurance to prevent John Q (Score:2)
Why is it my responsibility to use my money to get them to take care of a problem they created?
For the same reason it's your responsibility to use your money to take care of any other medical problem faced by another client of your health insurer. Substance dependence is a medical problem, and I was under the impression that public health insurance such as NHS existed to make sure the public's medical problems were solved. Otherwise you'll likely see people committing violent crime to pay for treatment, as illustrated in the film John Q.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Hmm? What makes you think that? Assuming we're talking about an alcoholic here (not just someone who had 3 drinks and then was dumb and drove home, which is actually more likely), most alcoholics will go out of their way to find the best price to alcohol ratio they possibly can. Typically they'll be shit faced on 2 £3 six-packs, are you asserting that you can get rehab for £6 a day?
Re: (Score:2)
The public derives a non-excludable benefit from reducing DUI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
ONS has lots of information about conviction rates for schedule 1 offences. That's the go-to place for Home Office statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Responded up in http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
caveat: I did not produce any sources which one could validate online without paying for journal access.
However, if you do any research at all on this topic, you should be able to find the resources on your own, even online. This is such a widely known & accepted fact that it's not really considered that interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooch. I knew this was coming.
I have about 4-5 textbooks from college, and the one I enjoyed the most out of was this one http://www.amazon.com/CRIMINAL... [amazon.com] though it's probably quite dated by now (published in 1981).
Otherwise, there's scads of both psychological and sociological journals with papers on it ... but they're all behind paywalls. For example, http://pss.sagepub.com/content... [sagepub.com] is a very recent study that says, basically, if they feel guilty, they'll be less likely to re-offend, but shaming make
Re: (Score:2)
If you see someone having a heart attack, and the first thing you do is grab the defibrillator that you have no idea how to properly use, you probably will end up making things worse.
Not the first time that's been tried in UK. (Score:2)
Already been tried in the UK, and it didn't go well:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng... [bbc.com]
As for the USA, I doubt that "embarrassing a drunk" could even be conceptualized.
I suspect that may be true in parts of the UK, haven't been there myself.
Accused? (Score:4, 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?
Re:Accused? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
While I HATE drunk drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
shouldn't they be waiting for an actual conviction?
Yeah I know, not the US, just the backwards UK...
Where is the sense in that? (Score:2)
I sincerely hope that the goal is to work as some kind of deterrence. And sorry to say that, it fails as such. Punishment as a deterrence demands two things: First, that the crime is motivated by rational thought rather than emotion or instinct. And second that the culprit does indeed consider the chance to be caught to be a relatively big one.
For a proof of the first, see any kind of sexual crime, the related punishment and the lack of any kind of reduction in crime with increased fines or jail times. If a
Elapsed time to this becoming a contest... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If they took them out that's silly, the same thing happened here with informational speed measurements and the solution is really simple. Only show values of the legal limit + a bit more. That's what they did with speeding, if the limit is 80 km/h they'll show up to 99km/h or else just >=100 km/h. No fun for speed devils who want to see if they can go 250 km/h.
Say the legal limit to drive is 0.05, then you show values up to 0.09 or else just >=1. Of course you need special software for that, but I ima
Sounds punitive to me (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.
Re: (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.
A punitive action can be about deterrence, protection, reparation, rehabilitation, and/or possibly vengeance. Even if we can all agree that "vengeance" shouldn't be a factor in sentencing someone, there is really no objective criterion for it that we could all possibly agree on.
How do we read these. (Score:3)
How are we supposed to read these tweets if we are driving along with a beer in one hand?
Too easy, says I. (Score:2)
Bad Drunk! Naughty Drunk!!! (Score:2)
I can't wait 'til the first time one of the people who's been shamed after being charged is found innocent in court. Unlike the US, England's courts take a very dim view of smearing someone's reputation unjustly.
I suspect a couple of nice, fat payouts in the wake of libel convictions will put a stop to this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Will there really be any influence on behaviour? (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Okay but... (Score:2)
Despite draconian laws against it (Score:2)
Shame? On Twitter? (Score:2)
This sounds like one of those great ideas often had by people who have spent no time on Twitter at all. People on Twitter seem to be quite happy to shout to the world opinions most of us thought went extinct decades, or even centuries ago. If you don't mind occasionally creating a new burner account, there are no filters, and pretty much anything goes.
So they are essentially going about this entirely backwards. If they really want to shame people, they should go through the drunk's Twitter feeds and send c
Let's ruin as many lives as possible. (Score:2)
Public shaming is how we destroy people, not encourage good behavior.
If you want to end DUI, end alcohol culture. That requires fixing social problems and giving people something to live for.
Of course, doing that will require more systematic and structural efforts.
Not everyone is influenced by Twitter (Score:2)
No facebook, twitter or any of that shite. I barely have time for Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly waiting for my door to be kicked down because we're discussing in TS how to ambush that convoy and where to place the IED in ArmA...
Frankly, our governments have become more paranoid than the conspiracy nuts ever were.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being an idiot. More people are killed by people fucking with their phones than people who are counted as over the limit.
The limit is ridiculously low, and no where near unsafe in 99.999% of the population.
You effectively want to ruin someones life for no actual reason, just because you've listened to MADD too fucking much.
If they get into an accident BECAUSE they were intoxicated, sure, thats another story. If they are repeat offenders, SURE.
First time? No, you're just an ignorant moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the OP but... fuck off.
If you're driving a ton of machinery at 70 mph within inches of other people you NEED to be sober. It's not optional.
The BAC limits cannot be adjusted to the individual, you have NO way of knowing what effect that BAC will have. As anyone knows, not having eaten, being dehydrated etc. will VASTLY affect the alcohol's effect on anyone. And you can't measure "hunger", and dehydration may not show up on a later (non-road-side) measurement.
Just don't be a fucking idiot.
And phones a
Re: (Score:3)
OK, you can be the one to order him to land his Apache helicopter. I'll be behind this fucking big wall.