The ACT Government is considering naming and shaming drink drivers.
Posted on May 20, 2009 by by Cristian
There has apparently been over 1600 motorists in the ACT caught over the legal alcohol limit since July last year, which kinda shocked me, since i didnt think there was that many at all.
Mr Stanhope says he is frustrated that despite the best efforts of police, Canberrans are not getting the message.
“I’m looking for a breakthrough in cultural change,” he said.
“We simply need to address this, we can’t continue to turn a blind eye.
“We can increase penalties, there’s a whole range of things we can do. We’re at the point now of changing our processes in the Magistrates Court because of the workload that the drink driving tally is causing the court.”
so what do you think about the territory govt thinking about publishing the names of drink drivers caught on a govt website or newspaper?
do you believe it could be a deterrent??
from the abc news
Tweet
32 Comments to “The ACT Government is considering naming and shaming drink drivers.”
"Leave a Comment"
Typeboard uses automatic spam filters, sometimes comments are sent to moderation
Please read our Code of Conduct
They should use Billboards, we could all then read the names as we come into civic.
What about community services and remove their licenses for at least a year, plus $200 fine – minimum.
(Report comment)
I think naming and shaming is too gross an intrusion of privacy. In this day and age, where people are so much more conscious of the prevalance of identity theft, it’s not a great idea.
Raising the fines is a lot more sensible. Eventually, people will decide the risk is too great.
L
(Report comment)
Errr …. prevalence, even
(Report comment)
my brother was a victim of a drunk driver, he lost his car, 2 months of work, and now has a metal rod in his hand. Because of the rod in his hand, he nearly got dropped by the AFP (could not use his trigger finger) The drunk driver got his license suspended for 6 months, and since he only had 3rd party insurance, paid no damages for the loss of my bros car. Because he was also on the dole, he didnt have to pay any other damages, the commonwealth took care of it.
so shame them I say, if youre too stupid to drink and drive, then youre worth been humiliated etc on a billboard somewhere.
(Report comment)
Sadly, Cristian, I don’t think such a person is capable of shame. I’m really sorry about your brother, but so glad he’s alive and still able to work. I also get upset about injustice. Your brother didn’t deserve to be the victim of a drunk driver, but he didn’t deserve to be treated like that by the justice system either. I despair sometimes. I honestly do.
(Report comment)
Thanks 99..
and yeah, i also feel like the justice system failed him, as did his insurance.
(Report comment)
The person who hit him is still a human being though, and deserves to be treated as such – with dignity and respect for their privacy. Punish them, sure, but don’t forget that you could be in that same situation yourself one day.
L
(Report comment)
Oh, yes. But the victim shouldn’t be left to pay for a crime committed by others. They have suffered enough already. I think it’s not just about punishment, but about restitution.
(Report comment)
@ loquacity – no one is saying theyre not a human being, and i dont think shaming them publicly is disrespecting their privacy.
I dont for one minute think i will be in that situation in the future, simply because I have never been stupid enough to drink and then drive, i always have my wife drive or….not drink at all. Its that simple.
Someone who has not thought about the respect of others on the road, or their dignity has no right (in my eyes) to think its intruding in their privacy to be shamed publicly.
(Report comment)
99 – that’s a policy change, then. Insurance reform and the like.
I’m saying that just because they do something stupid (like drink driving, and getting themselves entangled in an accident) doesn’t immediately revoke their human rights.
Cristian – how is naming and shaming *not* a violation of privacy? You say yourself that they should be “shamed publically” … how can that be done without exposing their private information?
L
(Report comment)
From ABC News Online:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2576645.htm
Civil Liberties Australia has dismissed any concerns about privacy saying it would be appropriate to publish names if a person has been convicted or paid a fine for drink driving.
But CEO Bill Rowlings has questioned whether the move would be effective.
“There would be circumstances where people would pay a very heavy price so this will not have an equal impact in the community,” he said.
“Some people will pay a price because of the nature of their employment. Normally people in high profile positions are under greater scrutiny and I think that will be the case.”
Mr Rowlings says he does not expect it would act as a long-term deterrent.
“I think it will be a PR gimmick that will last a very short period of time,” he said.
“It will have an effect for five minutes, five days or five weeks and that’ll be about it.”
(Report comment)
@ loquacity – their names and what they did are private information? they broke the law in the public eye, they could cause damages to public property, they are driving on public roads, theyre a menace to the public etc….and its not just ‘stupid’ its a criminal offence.
@ jonathon – thanks for the link…
(Report comment)
Yes, that’s a policy change that I think is really important.
I can’t say I’m in favour of naming and shaming. I think it exposes ordinary people who may have just done something stupid and made a mistake to possible vigilantes.
People are certainly capable of changing attitudes and behaviour, especially as they get older. If it does happen it should certainly not be forever.
(Report comment)
how about then for people who have been caught drink driving more than once? like 3 times for example.
would they still be considered to have just made a stupid mistake? or are they more the kind that need to be named, and maybe counselled?
(Report comment)
I think I would still be concerned about the vigilante thing, but I’m personally all in favour of anybody being caught drink driving three times being put behind bars for a very long time.
(Report comment)
And I think counselling should happen after the first time.
(Report comment)
yeah, counselling should be one of the important factors.
(Report comment)
And I really think it would be fantastic if there were cheap ways of getting home safely after a night out – especially if more was consumed than intended – and everybody should be able to check their blood alcohol as they leave a bar or even at work if they’re having drinks. If they’re going to provide alcohol they should also provide a way for people to make sure it’s safe to be driving. Counting drinks just isn’t reliable enough.
(Report comment)
I remember, years ago they used to have a breathelyser machine over at the holy grail, you used to pay a small fee and it would give you a reading.
(Report comment)
Yes, they should have those available in all licensed premises and also in workplaces where social functions are held involving alcohol – and they should be free, I think, too.
(Report comment)
The reason why breathalyzer machines were removed in a lot of premises was that they don’t promote actually responsible consumption of alcohol (people will purposely drink up to the legal limit) and there were also legal liability issues with regard to whether the devices were accurately calibrated.
Bottom-line is if you drink you shouldn’t be driving.
(Report comment)
I think it’s a matter of looking at the realities of life and making it easier for people to make responsible decisions. If they can’t check their blood alcohol levels they are left with counting drinks which is much less accurate, particularly if they are metabolising the alcohol less efficiently for some reason.
(Report comment)
If they have got to the stage where they are having trouble counting their drinks then I rest my case they shouldn’t be driving.
(Report comment)
You don’t have to have many drinks to have too many drinks. You can be over the limit *long* before you have trouble counting. Counting is much less reliable than a breathalyser would be. If you think the law should be changed, get it changed. But in the meantime thinking that people won’t drink and drive if they can is unrealistic. Most people do try and do the right thing per the law, and measures to assist them to stay within the law should be encouraged.
(Report comment)
I’d strongly advocate 0.02 as per P plate drivers and holders of heavy vehicle licenses as the limit. If you plan to drink, then plan not to drive.
(Report comment)