Calif. City Wants to Put DUI Photos on Facebook

[dmpco]

"Consumption of alcohol isn't illegal.....and if you read the laws closely, in most states it's a violation of one's right to privacy. Privacy advocates will have a field day fighting this. Quite frankly, if my picture were to be posted by any media source, I'd be immediately filing charges against said media source for violation of privacy and defamation of character... and in the case of underage drinking, most laws forbid posting of pictures and charges of those under age 18."

you would hate to live in western michigan then. there is a Busted Magazine that comes out weekly w/ posted mug shots of all arrests and sells for only a $1.00. it's sold everywhere and very popular.

 

[Anomalyx]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]not only that, but if you get your picture posted for a dui, you life is ruined. remember, this isnt only for people who hurt someone, even a victomless dui YOU WILL BE SCREWED.imagin this, your dad had 2 beers with coworkers before coming home. he makes 30-40$ an hour, he gets pulled over, blows a .08, and now because his picture was posted, he loses his job, his home, cant get a new job for anything good and is forced to work minimum wage to support a wife and 2 kids. he hurt NO ONE, but because of the chance he might have, his whole life is ruined, allong with his wife and kids lives too.[/citation]

You're right... we should totally let his drunk driving kill somebody first... 😵

This is about prevention. DUI is dangerous enough that public shame is an appropriate punishment (punishment has to be bad enough to keep people from committing the act). If someone loses their job because they were DUI, that's their own problem, whether or not it got posted on Facebook (it's public record already anyways). DON'T DUI! It's one of the most idiotic things you can do.

 

[keczapifrytki]

Even if they TAG you in the photo you can always UNTAG yourself...

 

[ahnilated]

sykozis :
Consumption of alcohol isn't illegal.....and if you read the laws closely, in most states it's a violation of one's right to privacy. Privacy advocates will have a field day fighting this. Quite frankly, if my picture were to be posted by any media source, I'd be immediately filing charges against said media source for violation of privacy and defamation of character... and in the case of underage drinking, most laws forbid posting of pictures and charges of those under age 18.



sykozis i think you misread the article. They're posting pictures of people who have been charged with a DUI. Not underage drinking, or drinking in general. This is about drinking and driving, which if you didn't realize it yet, is extremely bad.

Buuuttt, I think this could be a little harsh in some cases. I think some people can learn from their mistakes the first time and don't deserve to be humiliated in such a way. Other people I could understand posting pictures. This could really go either way with me. I think that doing this could in some cases cause more harm than good. Extreme humiliation in society can truly make things worse.. Because in the minds of some humans, humiliation is translated to bullying (not to say it is, but thats just how some people register it).

You do realize that driving under the influence is NOT a crime? To be a crime there has to be a victim and there isn't one until you do damage to someones property or to someone. They keep pushing statutes that are against the constitution and people continually let themselves be punished for them thinking these statutes are law. Posting someones picture and accusing them of a crime when there was not one is a violation of their privacy and defamation of character. I would be filing a MAJOR lawsuit against them for that.

 

[zerapio]

[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]You're right... we should totally let his drunk driving kill somebody first... 😵This is about prevention. DUI is dangerous enough that public shame is an appropriate punishment (punishment has to be bad enough to keep people from committing the act). If someone loses their job because they were DUI, that's their own problem, whether or not it got posted on Facebook (it's public record already anyways). DON'T DUI! It's one of the most idiotic things you can do.[/citation]
Strictly speaking even after having one sip you could be DUI. In reality there's a law that specifies an intoxication limit that declares you impaired. What alidan is talking about is that not everyone is impaired at the same intoxication level. The same way people need different doses of the same medicine to get the desired effect.

No one wants an accident to occur due to drinking and driving but I agree with alidan that there are instances where you could be charged with a DUI without being impaired. In practice having a personal DUI limit seems hard to implement and until that happens it's safer to be under the limit.

 

[sseyler]

"I'm hoping it prevents others from getting behind the wheel and getting inebriated."

This should definitely say:

"I'm hoping it prevents others from getting inebriated and getting behind the wheel."

 

[ceh4702]

Crush the cars of the drunks!

Close the bars where they drink.

 

[Guest]

I'm currently stationed in Germany and if caught drinking and driving, OMG! There's goes the security clearance, lost of rank, jail time, lost of overseas and of course stateside license. Oh yea, and a 5,000 euro fine that you'll have to pay b4 leaving the country and possible dishonorable discharge. And since we are so over strength right now, definitely dishonorable discharge is at the top of the list. In other words, you are super f*%ked!

 

[Von Death]

I'm for even more drastic measures against drunk drivers, but I'll settle for posting their pictures on facebook. Anyone who chooses to take the risk of killing someone else's loved ones needs to face heavy consequences. I also feel that when I'm attacked by second hand smoke I need to physically defend myself from the smoking assaulter; otherwise it is equivalent to someone punching you and then you just coughing back at them to show your disdain.

 

[phate]

Why not tar and feather them too while we're at it. You people are a bunch of Jackals. DUI is the scapegoat of today, smoking had it's day... What to move onto and blow out of proportion and evangelize against next?

Grab your pitchforks, I'm sure we can find something.

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Quite frankly, if my picture were to be posted by any media source, I'd be immediately filing charges against said media source for violation of privacy and defamation of character.[/citation]
Defamation only works if it's a lie and a mug shot is not invading privacy since it's not your property and breaking the law allows taking the picture I'm all for this get caught drunk driving, put the picture up wherever you can, shame them to hell and back!

 

[svdb]

Those city reps are just a stupid as those drunk drivers.
Drunk drivers get drunk because they don't care about anything or the lives of anybody including themselves.
What makes those reps think drunks would care about having their picture on published facebook? The city was already publishing them in the local news paper, and yet the city still has the highest number of DUI related fatalities: ipso facto, publishing doesn't work.

 

[restatement3dofted]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Consumption of alcohol isn't illegal.....and if you read the laws closely, in most states it's a violation of one's right to privacy. Privacy advocates will have a field day fighting this. Quite frankly, if my picture were to be posted by any media source, I'd be immediately filing charges against said media source for violation of privacy and defamation of character... and in the case of underage drinking, most laws forbid posting of pictures and charges of those under age 18.[/citation]

You need to do a little learning, son. First, mugshots and criminal records are publicly available - no right to privacy there, making it perfectly appropriate for a media outlet to publish them.

Second, you don't seem to know what "defamation" is. Defamation requires that someone publish something false about you, and truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim (i.e., if what was published is true, then no civil wrong occurs because of its publication). If you were convicted of a DUI, then a media outlet's publication of that information would constitute a true statement. You can't be "defamed" if what was said or written about you was true.

 

[Unolocogringo]

The little town I live in publishes a print paper with every arrest made in 3 counties arround us. Along with the picture is what they are charged with.
I think they cost $0.50 . Ive seen them in the stores but no purchase. I guess they sell?

 

[computerlame]

The Huntington Beach City Council turned down this proposal on January 18 (2 days before this story was posted...whoops)

DUI attorneys argued that posting the names of suspects before they've been convicted (which is what this proposal would have allowed for) of a DUI would be problematic for those could be wrongfully accused of a DUI.

The Huntington Beach Independent, a local newspaper in the town, used to publish the names of people arrested for DUI, but recently stopped due to an editorial decision.

Good story, and interesting topic, although it was a little late in posting here. It would have been more appropriate to post this back when the story broke, around last Thanksgiving, and before there was a vote on it.

http://losangelesduiblog.com/2010/11/huntington-beach-looking-to-post-names-of-dui-suspects-on-facebook.html

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]sykozis i think you misread the article. They're posting pictures of people who have been charged with a DUI. Not underage drinking, or drinking in general. This is about drinking and driving, which if you didn't realize it yet, is extremely bad. Buuuttt, I think this could be a little harsh in some cases. I think some people can learn from their mistakes the first time and don't deserve to be humiliated in such a way. Other people I could understand posting pictures. This could really go either way with me. I think that doing this could in some cases cause more harm than good. Extreme humiliation in society can truly make things worse.. Because in the minds of some humans, humiliation is translated to bullying (not to say it is, but thats just how some people register it).[/citation]

Next time I'll be sure to quote all the posts above mine that I'm responding to instead of assuming that others will figure it out simply by reading....

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]on one hand....doesn't this go against "cruel and unusual punishment"?but other hand....maybe a public shaming could straighten out these idiots from driving after drinking....[/citation]

No, this wouldn't be considered "cruel and unusual punishment"...but a lawyer would see "defamation of character" and "emotional distress"...and my personal favorite "copyright infringement".... Gotta love trends started by Apple....

 

[Guest]

This would be entirely Illegal action if some city law actually allowed this type of action to occur.

Public defamation by virtue of a person whom has broken a law is not considered true and honest justice system for the person whom committed a crime.

other forms of punishment are illegal and unconstitutional and not fair as an equalized judicial system, a person whom breaks a law, and has serverd their sentance for the crime that is the punishment for what they did wrong, in no way adding public defamation to the sentancing proceedings will that benifit anyone.

And since when do poeple in cars moving around, use facebook anyways to spot someone whom commited a crime could be years ago, and they cannont socialy get back into society to fix their mistakes if they are under constant public humiliation. Jails is their punishment, public himiliation is not fair dna equal justice due to, cant cherry pick just DUI people for a punishment type. A thiefo r murder doesnt get that, but a DUI person does = non equal justice for all = illegal unfair jucidial practices.

Jail = fair as everyone goes no matter what crime they do, adding side humiliation tactics to a certain crime type will not correct anything.

 

[thegreathuntingdolphin]

You do realize that driving under the influence is NOT a crime? To be a crime there has to be a victim and there isn't one until you do damage to someones property or to someone. They keep pushing statutes that are against the constitution and people continually let themselves be punished for them thinking these statutes are law. Posting someones picture and accusing them of a crime when there was not one is a violation of their privacy and defamation of character. I would be filing a MAJOR lawsuit against them for that.

Actually, it is a crime. There does not need to be a victim, damage to property, or a person hurt for something to be a crime. This is rather basic and VERY obvious. So under your thinking, I can go buy a bazooka and a crap ton of automatic weapons with silencers. After all, no crime has been committed since there are no victims. I should be able to drive a car without a license or without insurance cause it isn't a crime until I hurt someone. Hell, why not fly a plane too?

The reality is alcohol related fatalities are one of the biggest killers in the US. Around a 1/3 of traffic related deaths involved alcohol impaired driving.

I am also tired of all the people that say "I have X relative/friend that can have X drinks and still be fine!". First off, we all know someone like that however there is a big difference between thinking they are alright and them actually being able to drive fine. I had a friend that could consume vast quantities of liquor and not seem impaired. That being said one time when driving he did swerved off the road and hit a telephone poll even though he could walk straight, talk perfectly fine and was "completely there".

Also, it is not "2 beers" and you are legally drunk. That is only true if you are a 100 pound female that had 2 beers and hour before driving or were dumb enough to have down 2 beers right before getting in your car. Its more like 3-4 beers will get you in trouble if you a 170 pound man.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]You're right... we should totally let his drunk driving kill somebody first... 😵This is about prevention. DUI is dangerous enough that public shame is an appropriate punishment (punishment has to be bad enough to keep people from committing the act). If someone loses their job because they were DUI, that's their own problem, whether or not it got posted on Facebook (it's public record already anyways). DON'T DUI! It's one of the most idiotic things you can do.[/citation]

ruining someones life over a maybe.

lets make it illegal to have childern in a gheto, and imprision the ones that are already there, due to the high probibility of them commiting a crime.

lets kill all dogs, because they may bite someone and possibly contract rabies.

dont get me wrong, im thinking about the person who is good to drive at .08, got pulled over for something that was minor (cop actually told me this, there is a reason to pull over ANY car on the road, but most of it is so minor they dont unless they suspect foul play)

lets say a guy got stopped at a road block for dui test. that shouldnt happen. he should be free to drive unless he does something wrong.

but lets say the guy is crossing into oncoming traffic, among other dangerous things, i believe that the punishment should be harder than it is now.

a victimless dui where the drive did nothing wrong but blow higher than a .08, to me is a failure of the justice system.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

maybe shame will work where common sense did not