Should police publish names of Drinking Drivers ?

[my5cents]

the immediate roadside prohibition is not a criminal offence as in no criminal record is it not, therefore publishing someone's name to shame them would actually be considered a criminal offence

A criminal offense ? What pray tell is that charge ?

There is no criteria of "criminal charge" allowing the publication of a charge against someone. You may recall the reporting of a motor vehicle accident where one of the drivers was charged with a Motor Vehicle Act offense. "Disobey Red Traffic Light", "Driving Without Due Care and Attention", etc etc.

However the IRP isn't a charge at all, it's called a "sanction". In other words it's the penalty, and I do agree with you that it is wrong to publish the name of someone who has not had the opportunity to benefit from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, having a fair public trial to name a few.

The government has used the moniker of "sanction" to avoid the "inconvenience" of proper legal procedures, legal rights and rules of evidence.

If you receive too many traffic tickets, on top of the fines you have paid, the Supt of Motor Vehicles may review your driving history and issue a "sanction" of suspending your driving privileges for a period of time.

Going back to my original position that, the police/government, through the ignorant media, keep maintaining that impaired driving "charges" are up. I think the truth is that "Impaired Driving" charges (a criminal charge) are down, but added to the sanctions under the IRP the numbers of people dealt with for drinking and driving are up and that is what is really happening.

Posting the names of persons who have not been charged with any charge, criminal, motor vehicle act, or anything else, is, in my opinion inappropriate.

It concerns me that, as a society we have strived to establish rights and rules. But when those rights and rules become an obstacle in curbing a problem we have with a type of violation we suspend those rights and rules to solve the problem without a care.

[LTD]

I'm pretty sure it would be considered slander which is criminal I may be wrong, either way I don't condone drinking and driving and I also don't condone publishing someone's name in an attempt to shame them, doing such a thing has the potential to ruin someone financially as well as mentally.

[Bsuds]

I'm pretty sure it would be considered slander which is criminal I may be wrong, .

It all depends on the way it is worded. As "In my opinion" or "these allegations have not been proven in a court of law".
Then I don't think it's considered slander and they do that on the News all the time. If there is proof as well then it can't be libelous. There would be a public record of either a charge of driving under the influence or a 24 hr suspension so publishing their names could be done without repercussion.

Maybe not publish names of those with first offenses but the second time then go for it...front page News with pictures!
When you see reports of these drunk drivers having multiple charges then they need to be stopped somehow!

[my5cents]

I'm pretty sure it would be considered slander which is criminal I may be wrong, either way I don't condone drinking and driving and I also don't condone publishing someone's name in an attempt to shame them, doing such a thing has the potential to ruin someone financially as well as mentally.

Yes, you are correct, you are wrong.

For starters the topic is "...publish names...." so if the incident involves the printed media it is libel, not slander. Slander is the spoken word.

A defense to either slander or libel is that the statement is true.

"John Smith was arrested after police pulled over a vehicle they believe was being operated by an impaired driver", would be completely correct. It may hurt John's employment or his standing as president of the local chapter of MADD, but the writer of the article did nothing wrong.

You may have missed it, but if you listen to your local media you don't hear them saying :

"John Smith was arrested for impaired driving". You hear something similar to the above.

[jimmy4321]

If actually convicted, i would say yes.

[my5cents]

If actually convicted, i would say yes.

.... and there lies the problem. The vast majority of drinking driving enforcement in BC does NOT involve anyone being charged with anything, and thus, not convicted of anything. So, nobody to name.

Also I think the exercise is to name those apprehended as quickly as possible to set an example. Thus naming the few, six months later, that were actually charged and convicted wouldn't likely help with the goal to create a deterrent.

[Kelo_Can613]

As stated, If one were to receive an IRP, one's name would not be published as it is not a criminal offence. That makes sense to me.

If you are charged with an actual criminal offence, like impaired driving, I don't see any issue with publishing one's name.
You can run anyone's name on BC Court Services Online right now and see if they've ever been charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence. You can also see if they ever disputed a provincial offence or have been to civil court. Ditto for other provinces.

So really it comes down to whether the media and/or police have any interest in publicizing names of charged individuals. As it sits now, it seems that only the most heinous crimes or crimes that capture public interest garner any attention. I would say drinking and driving charges rank high on the public interest stage.

I know of at least one individual who got slapped with an IRP. At first they were *bleep* off and felt they were wronged because it's a regulatory process and they did not have a right to a trial and only a review. Eventually, they had a revelation and learned that they simply got caught and could have been charged criminally and are fortunate that the police went the provincial route.

[my5cents]

As stated, If one were to receive an IRP, one's name would not be published as it is not a criminal offence. That makes sense to me.

It's not an offence at all

If you are charged with an actual criminal offence, like impaired driving, I don't see any issue with publishing one's name.

I doesn't matter if the offence is criminal, or a provincial statute offense, the information can be released. But I don't think it would be wise to publish the names of persons receiving an IRP.

You can run anyone's name on BC Court Services Online right now and see if they've ever been charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence. You can also see if they ever disputed a provincial offence or have been to civil court. Ditto for other provinces.

So really it comes down to whether the media and/or police have any interest in publicizing names of charged individuals. As it sits now, it seems that only the most heinous crimes or crimes that capture public interest garner any attention. I would say drinking and driving charges rank high on the public interest stage.

I know of at least one individual who got slapped with an IRP. At first they were *bleep* off and felt they were wronged because it's a regulatory process and they did not have a right to a trial and only a review. Eventually, they had a revelation and learned that they simply got caught and could have been charged criminally and are fortunate that the police went the provincial route.

I strongly suspect that the number of Impaired Driving and/or Driving Over 08 (both criminal) is extremely low compared with the number of IRP "sanctions". Something I doubt the police or government want to make known.

We hear information that is generally wrong or intentionally misleading that "X number of impaired drivers were caught....." An "impaired driver" in my dictionary means a person charged with Impaired Driving under the Criminal Code of Canada.

I'd love to see the actual statistics for each community in the Okanagan on how many IRP were issued vs criminal drinking and driving charges (Impaired or Over 08).

[w84u2]

If you start publishing names of all of those that are "sanctioned" from driving for 24hrs.-7 days, where does it end? How about publish the names of all those that exceed the speed limit by 50kms./hr and get their car impounded for a week? Why stop there? Publish all the people that were driving with expired insurance or drivers' licence, smoking in a car with minors on board, no seat belts, or multiple infractions at any one time? Where does one draw the line?
Why limit private information to the public at all? How about big billboards with names of bad cheque writers or those that have not paid their hydro bill on time? Maybe publicly embarrass anyone that has been arrested for drug related offences, or urinating in a public place?
Where does the line get drawn? What benefit to the public have over the "Right to Privacy" for some that may have just made a mistake, this one time?

[my5cents]

If you start publishing names of all of those that are "sanctioned" from driving for 24hrs.-7 days, where does it end? How about publish the names of all those that exceed the speed limit by 50kms./hr and get their car impounded for a week? Why stop there? Publish all the people that were driving with expired insurance or drivers' licence, smoking in a car with minors on board, no seat belts, or multiple infractions at any one time? Where does one draw the line?
Why limit private information to the public at all? How about big billboards with names of bad cheque writers or those that have not paid their hydro bill on time? Maybe publicly embarrass anyone that has been arrested for drug related offences, or urinating in a public place?
Where does the line get drawn? What benefit to the public have over the "Right to Privacy" for some that may have just made a mistake, this one time?

Your argument links OFFENCES where a person has the right to have a trial and dispute the charge, such as Motor Vehicle Act offences that you mentioned, to a SANCTION, where a person isn't charged with anything at all and does not have the right to a trial.

Where does the line get drawn ?

Well for some of us, it is drawn at naming persons charged with OFFENCES, since they have an opportunity to dispute them.

The reasoning of authorities considering forming a policy of naming persons charged with drinking driving offenses is because drinking and driving is a problem offense. Perhaps at some point the authorities will want to name persons charged with texting. I personally have no problem with naming those charged with offenses, as long as the person is actually CHARGED.

Personally I would like to see a media that knows the difference between "Impaired Driving" and an IRP. I know I'm asking a lot from a media that doesn't even know the difference between a robber and a thief.

[lesliepaul]

Charged is not CONVICTED!

[GordonH]

People who drink & drive are complete fu ing morons, who are willing to risk there lives. As well the lives of other drivers on the road, which are innocent ones & they pay the price of moron.
So if you are stupid enough to drink & drive, why not publish idiots name.

[w84u2]

If a person is a junkie and gets caught in possession of drugs and charged with that crime under the CCC, is their a right for the public to be informed of that person's name?

[my5cents]

If a person is a junkie and gets caught in possession of drugs and charged with that crime under the CCC, is their a right for the public to be informed of that person's name?

Even if the person isn't a junkie.

It's. public record. You don't have "a right to know" ie, you can't phone the courts and demand to know, but if you know where to look, it's not something that is protected.

[my5cents]

Charged is not CONVICTED!

....and your point is ...?