Should police publish names of Drinking Drivers ?

[my5cents]

There was a news item on the TV news, where Ontario police departments are considering posting the names of "drinking drivers" that they catch.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-po ... -1.3235715

First, I know I'm opening up a whole can of worms here. The subject of drinking driving tends to bring out the black and white in opinions.

The media, as usual, doesn't have a clue about the law on drinking and driving and like so many lump "impaired driving" in with people who have lost their license pursuant to provincial laws allowing for temporary suspensions, without trial, when breath alcohol content (BAC) is over 50 mg (.05%) (In BC it's call IRP - Immediate Roadside Prohibition)

The article actually states that the police would release the name of persons "charged with impaired driving", NOT, "convicted of impaired driving". Big difference.

Also the article goes on to say : "Impaired driving charges have been on the rise in the region north of Toronto for the past five years"

That leads me to suspect we are NOT talking about just "Impaired Driving" but all drinking and driving, including provincial suspensions. Because Ontario, like BC has implemented the same type of provincial driving suspension.

It is a well know fact in BC and I strongly suspect, in Ontario, that the actual numbers of IMPAIRED DRIVING charges are down, because many police are cutting corners and using the NON CRIMINAL, NON CHARGE option of a provincial suspension.

So the REAL question is... Should police be allowed to publish the names of persons who have been assessed provincial driving suspension, without the availability of a trial. The case of the grandfather, who was a passenger in his own car being suspended, completely illegally, by RCMP comes to mind.

In my never to be humble opinion, if this public shaming takes place, this is a wrong pilled on top of another wrong.

[zzontar]

Yes, let's have judges like this who's names aren't published decide who gets their names published.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2849410/canad ... 31851042=1

[w84u2]

Yes, let's have judges like this who's names aren't published decide who gets their names published.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2849410/canad ... 31851042=1

Judges are NOT the criminals here. Stay on topic.

[zzontar]

Judges are NOT the criminals here. Stay on topic.

If you missed the point that's your problem. Also, if you stopped trolling my posts it probably won't bother you when I post in a thread that you're not even posting in other than to troll.

[my5cents]

Yes, let's have judges like this who's names aren't published decide who gets their names published.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2849410/canad ... 31851042=1

I fail to see what the release by the parole board has to do with judges.

The topic here is releasing the names of people either charged and not yet convicted and people not charged with anything just suspended without a trial.

[zzontar]

Back to my point, is it right to shame someone who's had a few beers before driving and not someone who let's a rapist with 3 life sentences who's broken his parole before out to roam the streets by day?

[zzontar]

The topic here is releasing the names of people either charged and not yet convicted and people not charged with anything just suspended without a trial.

If not charged or convicted, it seems that would go against one's rights.

[w84u2]

Judges are NOT the criminals here. Stay on topic.

If you missed the point that's your problem. Also, if you stopped trolling my posts it probably won't bother you when I post in a thread that you're not even posting in other than to troll.

You're the one offering the bait, if I am too big of a catch for you....? Oh well.

[w84u2]

Back to my point, is it right to shame someone who's had a few beers before driving and not someone who let's a rapist with 3 life sentences who's broken his parole before out to roam the streets by day?

The answer to your question is YES.

[my5cents]

Back to my point, is it right to shame someone who's had a few beers before driving and not someone who let's a rapist with 3 life sentences who's broken his parole before out to roam the streets by day?

Well for one it's not a "someone" is a group of people.

Do we regulate the release of prisoners by publishing the identity of the parole board ? Perhaps their home addresses and phone numbers ?

[w84u2]

The topic here is releasing the names of people either charged and not yet convicted and people not charged with anything just suspended without a trial.

If not charged or convicted, it seems that would go against one's rights.

What right did this drunk driver have to endanger every other person on any roadway/sidewalk/bus stop/crosswalk, at/near the same time?
What about the rights of the victims?

[my5cents]

If not charged or convicted, it seems that would go against one's rights.

Well we do see many people named who have been charged with offences.

My big concern is the vast majority of "drinking drivers" who are never charged, just suspended under the provisions of a motor vehicle act "sanction".

[zzontar]

What right did this drunk driver have to endanger every other person on any roadway/sidewalk/bus stop/crosswalk, at/near the same time?
What about the rights of the victims?

None, but although it's not right, someone can have a few and make it home with no victims. You think this isn't as bad as letting someone walk the streets who's already had over 100 victims he sexually assaulted, has fantasies of raping more, and has already broken parole he shouldn't have been out on to begin with. I think the latter is much more shameful as far as publishing names. You obviously think the first offence is worse so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[Chyren]

Around and around we go....

The real issue here is saving lives, not posting the names of people who do it.

As for the convicted person(s) who drink and drive, most newspapers and website DO post the names of people convicted for crimes in court. It just doesn't usually end up as the top story but its in there in court briefs.

As for the comment on "most people don't get charged, they get motor vehicle sanctions" is for the most part an accurate comment.

The Immediate Roadside Prohibition program is recognized nationally as a tool that has, and continues to, save the lives of Canadians. BC was at the forefront of the program which is now being looked at internationally.

For this we should be proud. Just a few short years ago Impaired Driving was killing Canadians at a growing rate and today, cell phones kill more British Columbian's than drunk drivers do.

Why? Because even drunks understand the universal language of money. Real sanctions.

If you're caught drunk driving today you lose your licence. You lose your car. Immediately.

It will cost you 5-7 thousand dollars to get your licence back and you have to take a course and get a breathalyzer in your vehicle.

So yes, shaming drunk drivers seems like something we could do to try to fight back, but BC is already winning this battle because we all decided enough was enough.

Now the world is watching us.

[LTD]

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