Shaming people into proper behavior

[Cynthetiq]

View: Suozzi plans to release holiday DWI arrest records
Source: Newsday
posted with the TFP thread generator

Suozzi plans to release holiday DWI arrest records
Suozzi plans to release holiday DWI arrest records
BY SID CASSESE

sid.cassese@newsday.com

10:11 PM EDT, May 23, 2008

Incensed by an allegedly drunken driver nearly killing a Nassau police officer last week, County Executive Thomas Suozzi is expected on Tuesday to release the name and address of every person arrested for driving under the influence in the county this holiday weekend.

For the first time, Suozzi and Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey are promoting the idea of publishing such information for every DWI and DUI arrest from the Memorial Day weekend. "We'll see how that works as a deterrent before trying it again," Suozzi said.

On Thursday, Suozzi and Mulvey saw the smashed police car Officer Kenneth Baribault was in on the Long Island Expressway last weekend. Baribault had detained a suspected drunken driver when a second alleged drunken driver slammed into his car from behind.

Afterward, Suozzi and Mulvey warned drivers that they would be doubling patrols over the holiday weekend and that anyone driving while intoxicated would be arrested. Last Memorial Day weekend, 72 people in Nassau were arrested on charges of intoxicated driving, a police spokesman said.

Now Suozzi is saying they will release photos of defendants and ask the media to publish their names and hometowns. Suozzi also vowed to send the mug shot and arrest record of each defendant to their local newspaper and request that they print it as well.

Hofstra Law School Professor Robin Charlow said Suozzi's action is both constitutional and sensible. "We want to use the criminal law to deter others from committing crimes. Shaming individuals -- which Suozzi is attempting -- serves the same function," she said.

Suozzi and Mulvey are to hold a news conference on this issue at 11 a.m. Tuesday at Nassau County Police Headquarters in Mineola. They are expected to hand out DVDs there with information on those arrested over the weekend. Suozzi also said the data will be posted on the county Web site.

Asked whether Newsday will publish the material, editor John Mancini said, "We'll take a look at and evaluate whatever material is released."

In Suffolk County, police have said they also would increase patrols to deter drunken driving this weekend, which would include checkpoints. During the Memorial Day weekend last year, Suffolk officers arrested 60 people on charges of driving under the influence.

The accident involving Baribault happened May 18 at 5:50 a.m. on the eastbound lane by the Sunnyside Boulevard overpass near Exit 46.

Baribault had pulled a black Kia sport utility vehicle over to the right side of the road and was in the patrol car when the driver of a silver Mercedes CLK320 plowed into it.

Baribault is still listed in critical condition in intensive care unit of Nassau University Medical Center.

I'm all for this kind of public record disemination of information. While I don't agree with Megan's Law (always registering), I do agree that the information being public is important. Many people in our building of 400+ units that there is a released pedophile living here, mostly becasue people aren't going to look it up.

I do agree that the prostitutes and johns who are posted are also deterrents.

I'm not sure how I feel about it being posted in the paper or on TV as there is some element of "innocent until proven guilty" that is being circumvented, maybe it's more convicted by media than anything else.

I don't drink and drive. Never have and never will.

In some cases bad behavior these days seems to be rewarded. We watch and consume more media for people who have utterly attrocious behavior.

Do you believe that public humiliation is a deterrent? What if it was you who was picked up?

[Willravel]

So far as punishments go, shame isn't really all that healthy unless it's coming from the individual.

I'd much prefer to look at this like Megan's Law: it's about prevention by reminding everyone else to be vigilant. Don't let your kids play outside alone. Don't let them talk to strangers. Look both ways before crossing the street. All that jazz.

[uncle phil]

Do you believe that public humiliation is a deterrent?

not just yes, HELL YES!!!

[Baraka_Guru]

Alcoholism is a disease. You shouldn't shame the diseased. Besides, it likely wouldn't even work in this case. It could, of course, make it worse.

Other forms of public shaming would work, but only where reputation is a key thing. Corporations, for example, would do well to suffer from public humiliation instead of just fines (which are business expenses) for breaking the law. Just an example.

[ngdawg]

Originally Posted by uncle phil

Do you believe that public humiliation is a deterrent?

not just yes, HELL YES!!!

It is only a deterrent to people with a conscience. There will always be those (the name Spitzer comes to mind) who think that A)they'll never get caught because they're either too clever or lucky and B) they are above the law.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by ngdawg

It is only a deterrent to people with a conscience.

It is also a deterrent to people with the ability to make good judgements. This is impaired in alcoholics, and one reason why I don't think it would work.

[thingstodo]

It would sure be a deterent to people that don't want other people to know what they've done!! A DUI is a pretty stiff thing these days. It means you didn't have the self control to manage your drinking and driving. If one of my staff had a DUI they might find themselves out of a job! I sure wouldn't want tha moniker badied about regarding myself.

[uncle phil]

DWIs used to be published in the local newspaper up here 20 years ago...

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It is also a deterrent to people with the ability to make good judgements. This is impaired in alcoholics, and one reason why I don't think it would work.

It may also be part of their bottom in getting them to start the path of recovery alot sooner than after the next time behind the wheel wherein they actuall kill and/or maim someone.

[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.

[Hain]

I am with Cynthetiq on this one, Baraka_Guru. My uncle was an alcoholic and he always said after he cleaned up that alcoholism "is the only disease I kept givin myself." One has to pick up the bottle, he said. There might be causes behind alcoholism, like depression, but treating one's self with a drinky-poo is never the right answer, and he said he always knew it.

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

And thanks for sharing your story, Hain.

Thank you, I actually went through it and realize I butchered which person I was telling it from.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

It may also be part of their bottom in getting them to start the path of recovery alot sooner than after the next time behind the wheel wherein they actuall kill and/or maim someone.

Maybe, but that's what I thought the courts were for. It's not like you can hide that very well from your family and friends. It simply seems a bit of the wrong thing aimed at the wrong target, especially if you look at it from a holistic perspective. I'd rather balance crime & punishment with health & healing. This idea puts it out of whack, I think.


And thanks for sharing your story, Hain.

[percy]

Not every person who drinks and drives is an alcoholic. I don't condon drinking and driving but shaming people for it won't make people stop doing it.

If and when any level of government is serious about putting a stop to drinking and driving, they will impose a lifetime ban on driving after the first offence regardless if you are .01 over or .100 over the limit as well as minimun years in prison if caught driving while suspended on a life ban.

But it won't happen because then other sentences to crimes like rape and assault will pale by comparison and the justice system doesn't have the time to adjust every other law on the books

[guyy]

Originally Posted by percy

If and when any level of government is serious about putting a stop to drinking and driving, they will impose a lifetime ban on driving after the first offence regardless if you are .01 over or .100 over the limit as well as minimun years in prison if caught driving while suspended on a life ban.

I think the problem is driving. Public transportation is a mere gesture in most places in the US, and in rural areas, there aren't even taxis.

What are you going to do? People are going to drink, even if you revive prohibition. Given the transportation network we have, drunk driving is inevitable. Some of the upright folks here may not do it, but someone out there is going to.

It's just one of the prices we pay for a private car based transportation network. There are many others.

[laconic1]

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

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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...

Agreed. I have no issues with publicizing convictions once due process has run its course, but it seems lately in an effort to appear as tough as possible on crimes the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is being cast aside.

[The_Jazz]

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.

I'm pretty much in complete agreement here. Mistakes are made by people. Sometimes those people are those with authority. That's why there's not a 100% conviction rate.

[QuasiMondo]

Badge of honor if you ask me. Let's see what it takes to get my name in the papers.

[inBOIL]

Penalties for driving drunk are already pretty steep; I don't think adding shame will have much, if any, effect. Besides, I'd be willing to bet that most drunk drivers don't think they'll get caught, making the severity of the penalty a secondary concern to those who actually think about what they're doing. Increasing enforcement, thereby making it less likely that you'll get away with it, would be a more effective deterrent.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by laconic1

Agreed. I have no issues with publicizing convictions once due process has run its course, but it seems lately in an effort to appear as tough as possible on crimes the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is being cast aside.

You think publishing DUIs is bad? In Oregon, if you get a DUI, you can never have that arrest expunged from your record--even if the DA decides not to press charges or you're found not guilty. This has turned out to be a nasty can of worms in my community, as we had a power-hungry cop who gave out hundreds of DUIs without any evidence--he even arrested a friend of mine (who was completely stone-cold sober at the time).

[blahblah454]

I say go for it. For everyone that says that the penalties are already steep, I think not. I think that everyone caught for the second time with a DUI should be charged with intent to kill. Because essentially that is what it is.

The first DUI should be huge fines, and potentially a license suspension for a week to a month, and the second should be the charge.

I have absolutely no respect for people who drink and drive, and even less sympathy for those who are arrested for it.

[Psycho Dad]

Knowing that is was possible to be published on a "John's List" is perhaps a deterrent to some who would buy a prostitute. But I can't see it being as effective with drunk drivers.

It would certainly be more of a punishment for some though. Not through shame, but through the potential for professional embarrassment, loss of jobs or things of that nature.

Originally Posted by blahblah454

I think that everyone caught for the second time with a DUI should be charged with intent to kill. Because essentially that is what it is.

It is far from intentional. I'm all for tougher punishment for drunk drivers. But I'd hate to see this punishment come at the expense of abusing laws.

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

In Oregon, if you get a DUI, you can never have that arrest expunged from your record--even if the DA decides not to press charges or you're found not guilty. This has turned out to be a nasty can of worms in my community, as we had a power-hungry cop who gave out hundreds of DUIs without any evidence--he even arrested a friend of mine (who was completely stone-cold sober at the time).

If that policy is indeed in place, you can bet it was put there with a lot "think of the children" behind it.

Originally Posted by uncle phil

DWIs used to be published in the local newspaper up here 20 years ago...

They still are here (a rural shit-hole). One paper does go to the effort to publish it as suspicion of driving while under the influence rather than leaving it look as though due process has been served.

[StanT]

I've been arrested for DUI and spent the night in a drunk tank. I got in a car accident, hit my head on the steering wheel, and got a concussion. Even though I blew a .00 on a breath test, I spent the night in jail, instead of a hospital.

A judge threw the case out as outrageous and chewed out the arresting officers. Should my name be published, too?

[Cynthetiq]

To those about the convictions outrage angle...

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.

Such harsh words, yet where where you in 1938 when Sinatra got popped for "carrying on with a married woman". It is one of the most famous photos of Sinatra. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other civil rights marchers have had their mugshots. Their charges also dismissed. But the photos and the paperwork associated with it are public records. The difference here is that they are inviting the media to attend a press conference on Tuesday morning. In other words, what is normally not spoken about and just done regularly, is being given more press than the "we arrested suspected 40 DUI/DWI" over the weekend.

Originally Posted by laconic1

Agreed. I have no issues with publicizing convictions once due process has run its course, but it seems lately in an effort to appear as tough as possible on crimes the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is being cast aside.

really? It's been done for many years since arrest records are public records. Anyone is free to look them up and find them. There may be fees involved in finding the information, but there is no challenge to getting the information especially if confronted with press or Freedom of Information Act.

Frank Sinatra was arrested by the Bergen County, New Jersey sheriff in 1938 and charged with carrying on with a married woman (yes, you could get popped for that back then). The charge was later changed to adultery, and eventually dismissed.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'm pretty much in complete agreement here. Mistakes are made by people. Sometimes those people are those with authority. That's why there's not a 100% conviction rate.

I agree with you to some degree. An example clearly stating your position.

Honey, You're Under Arrest
Nevada sheriff's deputy busts his wife (also a cop!) for DUI
AUGUST 14--Meet Charlotte Moore. The Nevada sheriff's deputy was pulled over for drunk driving Saturday night--by her own husband, a fellow cop. The 36-year-old Moore, pictured in the below Elko County Sheriff's Office ID photo, was stopped by Deputy Mike Moore, at about 11:40 PM for some kind of moving violation. However, she allegedly left the scene before a Breathalyzer test could be conducted. Moore, driving a 2004 Pontiac Grand Am, was then pulled over again by her husband, who this time called for backup from the Elko Police Department (officers from which subsequently arrested Moore on a driving under the influence rap). Moore, who was released after about two hours in custody, has been placed on paid administrative leave from her post as a jail deputy. (1 page)

The Smoking Gun is famous for its "mugshots of the famous" collection. They already have posted their Mugshots for Memorial Day, which is viewd by many as it's Fark'd weekly. They even have themes Overflowing cleavage, witty T-shirts, camouflage, bandages, hair styles, strippers, strippers again, strippers yet again, andstrippers round 4. There is plenty of fodder for this type of activity.

Newsday, the paper that is for Long Island and which Tom Suozzi presides over, publishes their own regular mugshot goodness. They write: These are the arrest or booking photos provided by Long Island law enforcement officials. A criminal charge is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty before a jury of the accused's peers.

There's even mugshots.com, localmugshots.com, even some police departments Monroe County Sherrif's Office which publishes the arrest log for 7 days.

Local store owners do it, I've seen many mom & pop shops with photos of people who beat them with fraudulent checks or even shoplifting.

Online mug shots in shoplift cases raising concerns
by Elias C. Arnold - Apr. 8, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
A controversial law-enforcement tactic used to deter crime is now targeting shoplifters, reviving the debate over the civil liberties of people who are singled out for an offense they may or may not have committed.

Avondale is the latest police agency to post suspects' mug shots online. The city publicizes photos of adults arrested and accused of shoplifting, even if they haven't been convicted.

Police officials say they're helping merchants by cracking down on shoplifting, which peaked at 94 reports in October.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and Valley defense attorneys question whether the practice infringes on citizens' rights.

"I think we have to look at this from a public-policy perspective" and ask if the program is effective, said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. "This is part of a growing trend" to penalize people who are arrested, no matter if they're cleared later, she said.

El Paso; Chicago; and St. Paul, Minn., already post suspects' photos online to curb DUI, prostitution, domestic violence or public indecency.

In Arizona, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office began displaying convicted DUI offenders' photos in December. The county Sheriff's Office posts photos of suspects booked into its jails for about three days.

Avondale is the first in the Valley to zero in on shoplifting through the same tactic.

The city averaged about 74 shoplifting reports per month in 2007.

From January through March, there were 173, an average of about 57 per month, according to police figures.

In March, the southwest Valley city launched the online program.

"(Stores) keep on losing merchandise. And with that, they keep on losing profit," said Sgt. Memo Espinoza, an Avondale police spokesman. "Our purpose is not to embarrass the individuals."

Janet Becchina, who manages an Avondale Walgreens near Dysart Road and Van Buren Street, fights store theft daily, sometimes confronting shoplifters without bothering to contact police.

Becchina said she already hangs photos of shoplifters at the store, but posting their pictures online could be extra helpful.

She said viewing the photos could help her employees recognize suspects' faces if they enter her store.

Psychological impact

Yet legal experts say Avondale's program runs counter to the presumption of innocence and could taint a jury pool, making it difficult to get a fair trial without changing venue.

"We know from talking to lots of juries that they give lots of weight (to what police say)," Phoenix defense attorney Joey Hamby said.

Even though Avondale's Web site states "all persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence," the disclaimer does little to dissuade people from assuming the suspects listed are guilty, Hamby said.

"If they (police) thought the guy was innocent . . . his picture wouldn't be up there," he said.

Month of notoriety

Avondale began posting photos of adults arrested on suspicion of shoplifting in mid-March. The Web site - www.avondale.org/police - hosts the photos for about a month.

The suspects named from February arrests range in age from 18 to 61. Some have no previous criminal record, while others have an extensive case history.

Donna Hawk's picture is among 18 appearing online in connection with February arrests.

Hawk, 40, of Avondale, admitted she made a mistake, her second shoplifting offense in 14 months. She said the ordeal of being caught, going to court and paying fines was embarrassing enough.

She said she knew her March conviction for shoplifting from an Avondale Wal-Mart could show up in a background check, but she never thought it would be so easily accessible to anyone browsing Avondale's Web site.

"If they're going to single people out, there are worse people than shoplifters," Hawk said.

Across the nation

Some cities believe publishing suspects' photos online has been effective, although they acknowledge it is difficult to measure.

Patrick Camden, deputy director of news affairs for Chicago's police force, described the tactic as one in a series of measures the city uses to fight prostitution, a primary complaint among locals.

"We try to make it (prostitution) as difficult as possible to discourage the activity," Camden said.

El Paso has faced a lawsuit related to posting suspects' photos.

Javier Sambrano, an El Paso police spokesman, said the city settled the case by clarifying its presumption-of-innocence disclaimer to say the site does not reflect case outcomes.

The St. Paul Police Department began publishing suspects' photos in partnership with a local newspaper in the early 1980s before moving the program online in the '90s, according to spokesman Tom Walsh.

He said prostitutes have told undercover officers they would not go to St. Paul. He believes publishing suspects' photos "has had a deterrent effect, but I can't say that it's been a blanket success.

"If that were true," Walsh said, "we wouldn't have to run undercover operations. Period."

[girldetective]

I think this could be very effective, but I dont like it. I think it is too modern-day papparazzi-ish, too intrusive in ones life. I think it is a throw back to ancient times of stoning almost, but using ink instead. Of course I think society as a whole would benefit from getting drunk drivers off the road, but I think this is a distasteful and dangerous way to go about it. I believe education is the way to go, and there have been many inroads and a change in society slowly over the years. People dont drink like they used to and are more conscious of safety. I like the idea of losing one's license for a limited time. It gets them off the road, is a lesson learned and allows the person to see how fortunate they are to be able to drive. More importantly it allows them, and puts the responsibility on them, to own up to what they did with others.

[filtherton]

If they're going to publish names and photos of people for DWI before they've been convicted they should probably publish names and photos of police officers who currently have abuse allegations against them. I mean, if you're going by the combined assumptions that shame is a deterrent and that people need not be guilty of a crime to require "deterrence" it seems only reasonable.

[lotsofmagnets]

i suspect that most people who drink and drive have so little respect for others around them and for themselves that this method will be completely pointless.

[QuasiMondo]

It'll be like a poor man's version of TMZ.

[robot_parade]

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.

[Sion]

I am a civil liberties "nut" (in that I despise anything that in any way intrudes on or curtails our civil liberties) but this doesn't really bother me. After all, arrest records ARE public records. And many newspapers run a weekly column of arrests and or police calls.

there is nothing new in this except for the media hype it's getting.

[echo5delta]

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.

[Yakk]

echo5delta, did you not read the two people in this thread who had false DUIs arrests occur to themselves or a friend of theirs?

All it takes for a cop to arrest someone is that cop wanting that person arrested. There is no review until it goes to court. There might be an assload of evidence, and they might be guilty -- or the cop might be on a power trip, arresting people for the hell of it, or hell you might be a fire-breather. (there is a case!)

What harm would there be in delaying the publication until conviction?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Yakk

echo5delta, did you not read the two people in this thread who had false DUIs arrests occur to themselves or a friend of theirs?

All it takes for a cop to arrest someone is that cop wanting that person arrested. There is no review until it goes to court. There might be an assload of evidence, and they might be guilty -- or the cop might be on a power trip, arresting people for the hell of it, or hell you might be a fire-breather. (there is a case!)

What harm would there be in delaying the publication until conviction?

So would that go for ALL crimes? People are suspected of robbing banks, embezzling millions of dollars, murder, fraud, theft, and many others. You can pick up an paper and see that people are "suspected" of crimes all the time.

If it's delaying publication until conviction, then it's delaying it for ALL that are accused of crimes.

Yet, by that time could it be too late? I may have done business with someone who was suspected of theft. Should I worry about them stealing something in my business?

I could have hired someone suspected of embezzling money and they were eventually convicted. Should I have to worry that maybe they somehow didn't figure out how to embezzle money from my business?

The key here is that these individuals are accused, NOT convicted. People appear in the paper as accused inviduals all the time. There doesn't seem to be any "up in arms" about them. Why just the DUI accused?

[Seer666]

two problems with this. 1, Cruel and unusual punishment. 2, right to privacy. Two very important constitutional amendments that this flies in the face of. While I have no love of drunk drivers, I lost my grandfather to one when I was very young, the though to shaming a couple of assholes into being good little boys and girls is not important enough to risk compromising those rights. Once we start making exceptions for the bad guys, it's easier and easier to start making exceptions for the rest of us as well. Not worth the price in the long run.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Seer666

two problems with this. 1, Cruel and unusual punishment. 2, right to privacy. Two very important constitutional amendments that this flies in the face of. While I have no love of drunk drivers, I lost my grandfather to one when I was very young, the though to shaming a couple of assholes into being good little boys and girls is not important enough to risk compromising those rights. Once we start making exceptions for the bad guys, it's easier and easier to start making exceptions for the rest of us as well. Not worth the price in the long run.

cruel and unusal punishment? right to privacy?

where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to privacy from me or another citizen? or cruel and unusual punishment from another individual?

the data is available to the public. the public is free to do with it as they please and has for many years.

It is how we've been notified of many accusations like Pee-Wee Herman, OJ, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Frank Sinatra, Al Sharpton, and so forth.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

cruel and unusal punishment? right to privacy?

where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to privacy from me or another citizen? or cruel and unusual punishment from another individual?

the data is available to the public. the public is free to do with it as they please and has for many years.

It is how we've been notified of many accusations like Pee-Wee Herman, OJ, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Frank Sinatra, Al Sharpton, and so forth.

My thoughts exactly.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

cruel and unusal punishment? right to privacy?

where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to privacy from me or another citizen? or cruel and unusual punishment from another individual?

the data is available to the public. the public is free to do with it as they please and has for many years.

It is how we've been notified of many accusations like Pee-Wee Herman, OJ, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Frank Sinatra, Al Sharpton, and so forth.

Bad examples. One of those exceptions I was mentioning. Celebrities and people that live life in the public eye have less expectation of privacy then the rest of us. Also, thanks to modern culture being so obsessed with famous people, these assholes can't fart without the rest of us hearing about it.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Seer666

Bad examples. One of those exceptions I was mentioning. Celebrities and people that live life in the public eye have less expectation of privacy then the rest of us. Also, thanks to modern culture being so obsessed with famous people, these assholes can't fart without the rest of us hearing about it.

Again, it is also how newsfolk find out about other crimes, bank robberies, hit and runs, thefts, embezzlements, by normal, every day, run of the mill, people. Almost every single crime report your read or hear in the news is about people suspected of crimes. There are different reports of trials which show conviction or aquittals of crimes. Two very different news items.

Again, the right to privacy is from the government not other individuals and corporations. If you believe that you have a right to privacy by the Constitution from other individuals, then there would be no need for websites, telecommunications, cable company, credit cards companies, banks, hospitals, etc. to disclose what they will do with the data they collect. If you don't like their privacy policy, you can chose to not utilize their services.

[Seer666]

The news get's it hands on a lot of information. They are some sneeky bastards. The thing here is though, this is not releasing court documents under the freedom of information act, it's putting out names of people that have not even been tried yet. Untill that trial goes through, it is NOONES busines. Let's say someone get's busted on a DUI, there boss reads about it before they go to trail and fires them, then, in the trial, the person is found not guilty. That person just had their life trashed because of a very stupid idea. No trial, no info. Pretty damn simple. Until that trial is done, it is a private matter, unless it's an ABP on a suspect that has run to ground.

[The_Jazz]

If anyone's ever read a police blotter report in a newspaper, you'd realize that they rarely post anyone's name. It's generally a description of the person, but rarely their name.

I don't have a problem if someone publishes the names of those accused of notable crimes, but since when have papers been required to publish anything by the government?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Seer666

The news get's it hands on a lot of information. They are some sneeky bastards. The thing here is though, this is not releasing court documents under the freedom of information act, it's putting out names of people that have not even been tried yet. Untill that trial goes through, it is NOONES busines. Let's say someone get's busted on a DUI, there boss reads about it before they go to trail and fires them, then, in the trial, the person is found not guilty. That person just had their life trashed because of a very stupid idea. No trial, no info. Pretty damn simple. Until that trial is done, it is a private matter, unless it's an ABP on a suspect that has run to ground.

happens EVERY day... people are accused of lots of things.

The thing is that if they do lose their job becuase of it, and they are not convicted, they can go and ask for their job back. Sometimes they even sue for back wages. They can even sue the mediagroup who published it for libel.

Steven Pagones comes to mind, where Al Sharpton media fucked someone because of Tawana Brawley

Read the paper carefully, listen to that news report carefully... people are alleged perpurtrators and suspects all the time.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If anyone's ever read a police blotter report in a newspaper, you'd realize that they rarely post anyone's name. It's generally a description of the person, but rarely their name.

I don't have a problem if someone publishes the names of those accused of notable crimes, but since when have papers been required to publish anything by the government?

Notable crimes, yes agreed, I don't know what level that is, but generally the police blotter does only have basic descriptors, but somehow press people find out the rest of the information and put it the public eye.

newsday.com/news/local/ny-lislas0528,0,7590500.story

Newsday.com
Woman, 31, arrested in Hempstead slashing
BY JOHN VALENTI

john.valenti@newsday.com

8:36 AM EDT, May 27, 2008

Police arrested a 31-year-old woman Monday night in the brutal slashing of another woman Friday in Hempstead.

Sandra Appiah, 31, of Hempstead, confronted a 25-year-old woman who was sitting in her car at the corner of Rutland Road and Jerusalem Avenue in Hempstead on Friday, slashing her in the face and left breast, Nassau police said.

Appiah, of Seabury Street, then fled to another vehicle, police said. When the slashing victim reached into Appiah's car in an attempt to stop her from fleeing, police said Appiah drove away "at a high rate of speed" -- dragging the woman for about 125 feet, before the victim fell to the pavement.

The victim was taken to Nassau University Medical Center, where police said she required 40 stitches to close the wound to her face and 15 more to close the wound to her breast.

Police have not said what they believe led to the confrontation and slashing -- or whether the two women knew each other.

Appiah was arrested Monday night in Williston Park. She was charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault and fourth-degree possession of a dangerous weapon and was scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday in First District Court, Hempstead.

I was looking up to see if they even published the names of the DUI collection from this weekend and I found this example. No conviction, just accusation as a suspect.

as far as the LI police that stated they would publish their DUI catch...

View: Nassau arrests 109 in drunken-driving crackdown
Source: Newsday
posted with the TFP thread generator

Nassau arrests 109 in drunken-driving crackdown
BY MATTHEW CHAYES

3:39 PM EDT, May 27, 2008

Flaunting photographs from a drunken-driving "wall of shame" -- as County Executive Thomas Suozzi called the mug shots displayed behind him -- Nassau officials announced that police had charged 109 people with intoxicated driving during the Memorial Day weekend.

Stepped up enforcement of drunken driving came after officials had promised that twice as many police as last year would patrol the county's roadways over the holiday weekend. Sixteen of the arrests came after car accidents, including one that resulted in a serious injury.

The arrests marked a 51 percent increase over roughly the same period last year, when 72 people were arrested, officials said.

And in an unabashed effort to shame those charged, the names and addresses of the suspects were itemized and distributed to the media; the mugshots of the 81 people charged with driving while intoxicated were to be posted on the county government's Web site, Suozzi and police said. Twenty-eight of those arrested were charged with driving while ability impaired, a lesser offense.

"If the fear of killing somebody," Suozzi explained, "or the fear of ruining your life by getting arrested or injuring yourself is not enough, we're going to try and add other techniques, like embarrassing you."

Meanwhile, Nassau Police Officer Kenneth Baribault, the cop who had pulled over a suspected drunken driver on the Long Island Expressway last Sunday in Plainview only to be hit by a second one, is "doing a little bit better," Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey said, adding that Baribault is almost breathing on his own.

The critical injury of Baribault May 18 has been repeatedly cited by Suozzi and Mulvey as a driving force behind their anti-intoxicated-driving efforts.

Eight of the 109 were repeat offenders and charged with felonies, authorities said. Most of the 109 were in their 20s, though the youngest arrested was 17, the oldest, 74.

The arrests were made starting just before midnight Thursday through 5 a.m. Tuesday. Suffolk police made 57 DWI arrests from 3 p.m. Friday until 11:59 p.m. Monday.

Among the most serious cases in Nassau: Juan F. Cardoza, of Baldwin, who police say was driving along Sunrise Highway westbound in eastbound lanes; Eric F. Flores, of Kings Park, whose blood-alcohol level police say was three times the legal limit; Karen A. Armata, of East Meadow, who police say was driving drunk with her children aboard; and, Samir Nayee of Winter Park, Fla., who police say had two previous arrests for drunken driving, authorities said.

Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said she hopes the extended weekend's 109 arrests would serve as a warning to people as they enjoy the summer.

"Please think before you drink this summer," Rice said.

I can't seem to find them online tho...