Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
If they were publishing CONVISTIONS then I have no problem with it at all... I believe this is current practice in any case.
Publishing the names of people who have not yet been convicted but only arrested and charged with a certain offence is utterly outrageous, and if this is happening here all responsible people should be sacked and barred from ever holding public office.
Im not even joking. This is a horrific abuse of office, if I am reading the story correctly.
Most times I think that we live in a society where everyone is too free to sue, but (again if I read this correctly) I hope that the authority is sued into financial ruin by anyone who is publicised as arrested for any crime which they are later found not guilty for.
This is an attempt to create, perhaps in a small way, a police state - ignoring the courts and passing a guilty sentence at the point of arrest. It is a terrible thing, a disgrace... the responsible should be thrown out of office and if possible deported.
|
Abso-damn-lutely. Innocent until proven guilty. They are effectively punishing people for being accused, rather than being found guilty.
Secondly, they're foisting the punishment onto other community members, rather than having it being meted out by the proper authorities, ordinary citizens are supposed to ostracize and attack DUI suspects.
Imagine you're falsely arrested for DUI (very rare, since it's usually pretty cut-and-dried with breathalyzer tests and whatnot, but I'm sure it happens). Your name is in next morning's paper. How do you feel about going to work? Walk past the guy down the hall whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver...you get the idea.
Convictions, on the other hand, are a different matter. I still disagree, but not as strongly.