I'm completely the wrong person to ask about this. "Shaming people into proper behavior" is essentially another name for "the first ten weeks of Marine Corps Recruit Training".
I've seen variations of this in several places before, albeit usually smaller communities, where it's FAR more effective as a deterrent and embarrassment to those who break the law.
As far as this being 'punishment before conviction', perhaps it is - for any other crime except DUI or DWAI. If there's any offense that has a very, VERY low rate of false arrest, it'd have to be this one. If someone can come up with a precedent and/or a rate of occurrence, please feel free; I'll try to do the same.
And as far as being the first step to a 'police state', that's a laugh. Since the birth of this country, many newspapers used to publish the Monday morning police blotter of offenses from the weekend in this country - many still do.
If your good name was sullied by showing up on the blotter and you're later vindicated - fine. Lawyer up and sue for libel. Odds are you won't, though, because a drunk driving arrest requires a breath or blood test, and 99% of the time is captured on the cop's dashboard camera from start to finish.
For argument's sake, though, let's at least give it the same standard as, say, registered sex offenders. Fine, let's wait until after a DUI conviction to disclose names and MANDATE their being published. Because Lord knows that if someone is accused of groping a 6-year-old, and witnessed doing so by a cop who filmed the arrest while the crime was occurring, he's still committed no offense until it's proven so.
Or would too 'police state' as well?
I dunno. Even though "innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenet of our (alleged) judicial system, I just don't see a right to privacy as being a privilege one is entitled to after being accused of a crime, particularly when it's documented in the act.
__________________
"Peace" is when nobody's shooting. A "Just Peace" is when we get what we want. - Bill Mauldin
|