tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post7343622566315734524..comments2024-03-15T05:45:01.402-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Does pre-conviction shaming deter DWI or just obliterate presumption of innocence?Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-9410908419120754022012-01-04T18:11:22.007-06:002012-01-04T18:11:22.007-06:00Grits, I'm all for posting dismissals with the...Grits, I'm all for posting dismissals with the same zeal as accusations are printed. I'd make it so that they were given the same page in the paper, spot on the news, and/or typeface rather than the current practice of ignoring them or burying such content deep in the back pages (or worse, only in small runs of the paper; the Chron typically has several printings).<br /><br />Libel law aside, the "right" thing to do is to treat all equally. This is in keeping with the majority of comments here and I advocate doing likewise. I don't think being employed by the government automatically means it is open season on someone while self employment translates into a virtual shield, my firefighter friends tell me that anytime they or their public safety brethren are accused of anything, it is played up heavily in the media but if they are found innocent, not a peep from anyone.<br /><br />Having gainfully run a business that involved heavy machinery and driving, I'd be remiss if I did not want to know the details about a potential employee's pending court case in anything that could come back to haunt me, hence my belief that more information is a good thing. At least I balance that out with an educated opinion of Constitutional protections and a sense of fairness rather than a mob mentality. A fair trade? :)<br /><br />Anyway, keep up the good work. Decent people can agree to disagree from time to time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-43291629697156375242012-01-04T14:11:10.685-06:002012-01-04T14:11:10.685-06:00@3:08: The "public figure" concept is we...@3:08: The "public figure" concept is well-established in libel law and since its definition is not as broad as you you describe it, I feel no need to debate your false assumptions on the subject. Regardless, whether you agree with the distinction, it's one the courts have relied on for generations.<br /><br />You ask: "Why is it a "scarlet letter" for one to know if a person has had problems that can most certainly impact their position, pre or post conviction?"<br /><br />A: If you're talking pre-conviction, as is this post, because it may not be true. Moreover, it's problematic to widely publicize arrests but not do the same for dismissals. You seem to not want to address that aspect in any of your comments, but it's pretty fundamental.<br /><br />As for bloggers filling in for the MSM, I take it you don't blog or if you did you'd know that notion is a JOKE with a capital J. Nobody but the independently wealthy can spend that much time on a project without getting paid, and that's coming from somebody who generates a lot more unpaid, independent prose and oversight than most. What I do here is not representative of most of the blogosphere and even so does not (remotely) provide comprehensive coverage the way professional journalists can, and in the past, more often did.<br /><br />Happy new year in any event.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-81170226989920276272012-01-03T15:08:55.954-06:002012-01-03T15:08:55.954-06:00Grits, conceptually speaking, you either print all...Grits, conceptually speaking, you either print allegations or not regardless if they involve the President, a county janitor, or the baker down the street. The "public figure" exception being used on anyone and everyone in government employ seems about as worthwhile as saying that anyone receiving government benefits of any kind receive the same treatment. It is either right or wrong to print damaging accusations before guilt is established; which side of the fence you reside on is up to you.<br /><br />And while our founding fathers might not have envisioned many of the wonderful advances we have made over the years, they probably would be horrified at many others; their mindsets indeed puritanical by comparison. Still, they provided a road map that we still (mostly) follow, some deviations including far more application of rights than they ever provided (in practice or on paper). As some have pointed out, the information has long been published so the change is that more youth are making poor decisions (for whatever reason). Better they change their behavior than the rest of us suffer.<br /><br />Why is it a "scarlet letter" for one to know if a person has had problems that can most certainly impact their position, pre or post conviction? Most jobs are not impacted but if you employ heavy machinery workers, drivers, or those in certain kinds of fields, there is a public policy interest in the information. How many people think those formally accused of child molestation should work in day care, teaching elementary school children, or similar fields? <br /><br />Finally, while the number of formal media publishers may well have dropped in half, the ranks have swelled tremendously in regards to the bloggers, mentioned. Blogging has become increasingly important as an alternative means of gathering information and frankly, many do a better job than the vast majority of reporters have done for generations. To claim it is impossible to track something as a numbers game seems curious when the total number of "reporters" has increased and kept out of the control of official sources like the print media and television stations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-51143298789925600292012-01-03T07:34:32.406-06:002012-01-03T07:34:32.406-06:006:40, You can go elsewhere more easily today, but ...6:40, You can go elsewhere more easily today, but because of electronic media, databases, etc., the record follows you in a way that would have been unfathomable for those heading to the frontier or even to other cities or states in early America. And that's a bad thing because we're creating a huge class of people with needless employment barriers and employing scarlet-letter tactics for petty offenses in a way that violates decency, common sense and any rational cost-benefit analysis.<br /><br />You write, "Following your logic, any public servant should be immune from having allegations posted in the media." But that is the exact opposite of what I said, which was that, just as in libel law, public figures merit different treatment than non-public figures in the media, an assertion that's also in the original post. I realize it's easier to argue with straw men, but please try to address my actual arguments instead of made up ones that you think you have a better chance at countering.<br /><br />Also, I didn't argue for making convictions secret, so employers, etc., would still have all the info they need on cases where charges were provable. What benefit do you think they would gain from also knowing about unproven or false accusations before they've been vetted by the legal system?<br /><br />FWIW, in the British system the public knows full well "where [their] money is going regarding arrests, who is being tried for a crime, or where money is being spent." They just get all the information at a different stage in the process, with no ill effects that I can judge. <br /><br />So my question remains: Before accusations are proven, what do you want the public to do with that information? What good is it, particularly if the allegations turn out to be false, charges dismissed, etc.? IMO it often does harm and there's no upside from preconviction publicity except for if-it-bleeds-it-leads media selling advertising and demagogic grandstanding by public officials.<br /><br />Now, if you want to go for 100% transparency, that's a different matter. If you want to publish charges in the press, and simultaneously provide all the evidence in your case file, warts and all, to back it up, that's one thing. But they don't, and won't. Instead, they publish the accusation only and then otherwise refuse to comment. When the case is dismissed, there are seldom public retractions and never apologies. Arrests are touted widely; dismissals are swept under the rug. E.g, where's the Tarrant DA's list of dismissals on the website? I guarantee there isn't one.<br /><br />Finally, with less than half as many reporters in play as TX had twenty years ago, there's no manpower for the press to watchdog every case as you suggest and "point out the others." The volume has grown too high. We've criminalized so much activity that 30-41% of youth <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-proportion-of-young-people-gets.html" rel="nofollow">will have an arrest record</a> by age 23. Just think how much long-term earning potential (and resulting tax revenue, economic growth, etc.), will be reduced by comparison to earlier eras that didn't take a scarlet-letter approach. It's cutting off our economic nose to spite a puritanical face. At some point, when you need to get out of a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50075049062006006762012-01-03T06:40:59.661-06:002012-01-03T06:40:59.661-06:00Grits, I'd argue that back in the day of our f...Grits, I'd argue that back in the day of our founding fathers, people were far less mobile than they are now and with far smaller communities back then, everyone knew "the town drunkards" (reading old newspapers on microfiche was a hobby). Contrary to your assertions, I'd suggest that a) misdemeanors were treated much harsher for a long time than they are now and b) given our modern mobility, more opportunities exist now to move elsewhere than ever before. <br /><br />Sure, a record follows you around more easily but why should that be considered such a bad thing? As an employer, I'd like to know if candidate A has a problem with alcohol if I'm hiring for one of the many jobs it could have an impact. Following your logic, any public servant should be immune from having allegations posted in the media too, at least until they are convicted and all appeals are over; hardly a pill many are going to want to swallow.<br /><br />As for the ability of some to escape being posted, that's where you bloggers can come in and point out the others (as well as the media playing favorites). If a few are skipped, for whatever reason, work on making the system as fair as possible or provide an all encompassing shield to all under every circumstance in abject opposition to our right to know (be it where our money is going regarding arrests, who is being tried for a crime, or where money is being spent).<br /><br />The statistics of death are a bit difficult to balance though. In this country at least, flu shots are now available for free or dirt cheap to anyone. I don't have the figures for how much that is subsidized but given the enormity of the task developing such vaccines, I'm pretty sure it worked in the favor of all to accomplish this task. <br /><br />We collectively have subsidized mental health facilities for generations, mass transportation, and a slew of other things that have helped reduce deaths so while I get where you're coming from, it is not that different in scope or scale if you take a long term look.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40758195100028194822012-01-03T01:02:58.469-06:002012-01-03T01:02:58.469-06:002:07, personally I'm not ready to eliminate wa...2:07, personally I'm not ready to eliminate warrant/probable cause requirements and other constitutional restrictions on police, as has been done with the FAA, just because of demagoguery and fearmongering over what in the VAST majority of cases is a victimless crime. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who would trade essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.<br /><br />And BTW, there are a LOT of reasons your flight insurance is cheaper than your car, mostly that you fly less than you drive and there are far fewer others flying that are available for you to crash into. You're confusing correlation with causation. Your insurance rates are based on many underwriting criteria besides the ones you mention.<br /><br />That said, if you think it's reasonable to regulate auto drivers at the same level the feds regulate airplane pilots, fine ... just don't complain about the massive local tax hikes that ensue, since the locals can't borrow to pay for it like the feds do. Good luck pushing that idea. I'm sure it's gonna be a real winner.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7173694067880937512012-01-02T14:07:53.757-06:002012-01-02T14:07:53.757-06:00Grits said:
"It's easy to stop somebody f...Grits said:<br />"It's easy to stop somebody from flying a plane if they get a DWI... I don't need permission from an aircraft cxontroller to fly one."<br /><br />Actually, it isn't, and no you don't need permission from an aircraft controller to fly off in an airplane. Nothing would physically stop them from driving up to the local airport, strolling to their airplane, and taking off from an uncontrolled airport into class "G" and "E" airspace. (Which, is where most private pilots fly.) What DOES stop them is what will happen to them if they get caught. The fine will be a humongus amount of money, and/or serious jailtime. And, since you are violating federal laws, the fed will own you, literally. Local and state laws are much more leinient. The fed has no problem garnishing wages or confiscating property - even your airplane. <br /><br />I agree that so many peole now drive around with suspended or revoked licenses. But, that's because nothing bad happens to them in comparison. Start confiscating and auctioning off automobiles, and I'll bet that will stop a lot of drunks from driving.<br /><br />But, here's something to think about. Compare what you pay in auto insurance to what a pilot pays for aircraft/flight insurance. To insure myself and a 100k airplane, I carry a one million dollar liability policy, 100k comprehensive, and 50k personal injury for myself and each passenger. I only pay about 800 dollars/year for that policy. It cost me more to insure my car. That's because before I can fly, I have to be tested with a flight review by an FAA instructor every two years, and pass a flight medical exam every year, which includes looking for ANY history of ANY alcohol related problems. (The FAA regularly checks the National Driver Register). My flight insurance is cheap because if I so much as cough wrong during these evaluations, I am immediately taken out of the pilots' seat for further evaluation. And, if I get caught flying during this eval time, it will cost me a whole lot more than any DWI in a car ever would. And, FAA agents don't need any kind of warrant to walk up to you as you enter an airfield and ask to see your paperwork. You better have it all in order. You would be surprised at the podunk airports where they might show up. <br /><br />The bottom line is, there is a lower percentage of pilots DRIVING drunk than the equal percentage of regular drivers. That's because pilots have a lot more to lose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-65880885825125606052012-01-02T12:45:47.609-06:002012-01-02T12:45:47.609-06:00Does pre-conviction shaming deter DWI? Isn't t...Does pre-conviction shaming deter DWI? Isn't the very nature of drinking that one overlooks potential consequences? I'd think it doesn't. As for preventing drunk drivers from driving more, maybe in 20 years the technology will be widespread but that will involve numerous threats to civil liberties, that may be unavoidable regardless of this issue.Robert Risternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-44327578474081237202012-01-02T09:48:45.502-06:002012-01-02T09:48:45.502-06:009:20, actually it's you who don't understa...9:20, actually it's you who don't understand: It's easy to stop somebody from flying a plane if they get a DWI. It's virtually impossible sans incarceration to ensure they won't get behind the wheel of a car, and you can't inarcerate every drunk driver ad infinitum. Cars are not planes; I don't need permission from an air traffic controller to drive one.<br /><br />If you lose your flying privileges, you're right, you cannot fly. By comparison, more than a million Texans have lost their licenses because of the driver responsibility surcharge, and <i>nearly all of them still drive.</i> Therein lies the fallacy on which your views so comfortably rest. Taking away "driving privileges" doesn't mean someone won't drive, it just means they'll do it unlicensed, can't buy insurance, etc..<br /><br />Ironically, judges have <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/01/declining-dwi-convictions-and.html" rel="nofollow">told the Legislature</a> that too-harsh punishments are causing DWI conviction rates to decline and that driver license suspensions as you suggest haven't worked in the real world. Sorry if reality interferes with your punishment fetish, but that's the truth.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-89742228499252925352012-01-02T09:20:35.546-06:002012-01-02T09:20:35.546-06:00Grits said:
"Cars aren't airplanes and I ...Grits said:<br />"Cars aren't airplanes and I don't have to go through airport security to reach my driveway."<br /><br />You missed my point. A pilot can lose his flying privileges for DRIVING drunk. I don't go through an airport security checkpoint either to get to my driveway. And, even if I did, they aren't going to check me for DWI. I still say that the problem with DWI enforcement is that the punishment isn't severe enough. If it were as severe for everyday drivers as it is for pilots, there would be less drunks on the road. Heck, even when I was in Germany many eons ago, you could lose your driving privileges for life if you were caught driving while intoxicated. You didn't dare do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-73824621411754596632012-01-02T08:34:44.178-06:002012-01-02T08:34:44.178-06:002:10, in Texas they've taken away the license ...2:10, in Texas they've taken away the license of more than a million drivers through the driver responsibility surcharge, and most of them still drive. What you suggest is unrealistic and unenforceable: Cars aren't airplanes and I don't have to go through airport security to reach my driveway.<br /><br />As for "shaming" in era of the founding fathers, a) without electronic media the impact wasn't nearly as widespread and didn't follow you from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and b) the frontier gave folks a safety valve to remove themselves from the situation that we do not possess today. The Founding Fathers, I'm certain, couldn't imagine a world where petty misdemeanors, particularly related to drinking, could keep one from getting a job for years after the fact.<br /><br />Lawton Davis asks, "I also lived in several communities where arrest reports were placed in the newspaper, unless it was soemone of influence or the golfing buddy of the executive staff at the newspaper, and it did not impact the trials from what we could see. Locally, some of the smaller newspapers still do this too; why should the citizenry be deprived public information?"<br /><br />My answer: For the same reason they don't publish it for "someone of influence or the golfing buddy of the executive staff." They recognize it does harm because they don't want to harm their pals. So the "why" not to do it is self evident from your own commentary; the more fundamental question "why" is why does the public need to know about unproven allegations? What if anything constructive can they do with that information, particularly if the charges turn out to be unprovable?<br /><br />As mentioned in the post, in 2009 only 44% of DWI arrests resulted in convictions. So for the 56%, publishing the arrest on their website but not the case dismissal when it comes up IMO amounts to de facto libel.<br /><br />As for the stats, 12,000 deaths nationally is not de minimis, but it pales in comparison to more serious <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm" rel="nofollow">causes of death</a>. E.g., flu and pneumonia killed 52,000 in 2009, so would more lives be saved if some of the DWI enforcement money were instead spent on flu shots? Probably. 36,500 died of suicide that year, so why isn't there the same weeping and gnashing of teeth over failing to provide mental-health care? The demagogic focus on DWI enforcement (as opposed to, say, pushing for <a href="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-so-few-dwis-in-berlin-public.html" rel="nofollow">public transit or zoning changes</a> as a solution), results from a witch-hunt mentality, not a rational cost-benefit assessment of how best to protect the public from the most serious threats.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-49455095648009324352012-01-02T08:22:06.072-06:002012-01-02T08:22:06.072-06:00pretrial shaming by gov't happens due to one s...pretrial shaming by gov't happens due to one sole reason - the lawyer industrial complex (aba membership) allows it to happen. making money and creating more work opportunities for lawyers trumps protecting the rights and justice. if lawyers really cared about protecting rights and delivering justice, this would never happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66152485702699175002012-01-02T02:10:00.681-06:002012-01-02T02:10:00.681-06:00Initially, I used to think nothing deters DWI, bec...Initially, I used to think nothing deters DWI, because you can usually buy your way out of the first offense, and/or keep driving.<br /><br />However, if you're a pilot, you won't be flying. The FAA is quite unforgiving regarding flying or driving while intoxicated. Yep, I said "driving." Flying under the influence is an absolute no-no, as federal aviation law states that you cannot have ANY alcohol for at least 8 hours before getting into the pilots' seat. But, If you're a licensed pilot and get tagged for a DWI driving a car, you have no later than 60 days to report the "motor vehicle action" to the FAA's security office. You also have to report it to the FAA medical examiner for evaluation. (Alcoholism is considered by the FAA to be an unfit medical condition.) This will trigger a whole set of anal exams by the FAA, including an out-of-pocket psych eval, cost you a BIG bundle of money, and you definitely won't be flying for awhile, no matter what the outcome of traffic court. You might be grounded for good if it's you second violation. And, the FAA can go back on you five years looking for alcohol related incidences.<br /><br />I promise you, you won't find that many drunk drivers who are active pilots. The cost is just too great. I think it would have the same effect if it were this tough for licensed drivers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22027049506644917162012-01-01T21:32:20.434-06:002012-01-01T21:32:20.434-06:00D. Reznicek, I wrote the original numbers (which a...D. Reznicek, I wrote the original numbers (which are estimated to be on the low side by the way) which came from official websites. Currently, there are far fewer people in this country than 300MM that drive, that number being closer to the entire population of the country. <br /><br />Further, fatalities are only part of the equation, many times more involved in accidents that leave people alive but disfigured, ruined lives, or just facing tremendous expenses of one sort or another. That you would stoop to attacking the award giver by using faulty logic, after all, laws are made to control the behavior of "other" people, weakens your point (which has some merit).<br /><br />The bottom line for many people is that huge numbers of deaths and costs to society result in many trying to mitigate the problems. Government often does a poor job at this but to make no attempt to reduce the numbers seems pretty harsh.<br /><br />And no, just because many people are idiots by assuming an accusation in a newspaper equates to guilt, does not mean it "obliterates" the presumption of innocence. It just proves what many have said regarding the beliefs of the general public versus our legal rights. Such public shaming was very common back when our country was founded, far more common than now, so it's not like our founding fathers (including some that owned/ran newspapers) were clueless.<br /><br />Heck, given some of the blog and other media coverage of numerous people accused of misconduct well before guilt or innocence was properly established, I'd think most here would be okay with the practice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25387046185764189522012-01-01T20:57:50.669-06:002012-01-01T20:57:50.669-06:00Tell ya what, Anon... I'll accept that award i...Tell ya what, Anon... I'll accept that award if you'll be willing to come forward and state your name for who you are. Oh, and 12000 divided by 300000000 is .00004% of the population. That's a pretty low number the last time I checked. Yes, freedom's messy and sometimes people die from stupidity. I'm a grown man, and I can handle myself. I'm sorry that you can't trust yourself to manage your own life. I'd like to be left alone to be an adult, much as I'm sure you would, as well. This is posturing by a DA who has no comprehension of "presumption of innocence".D. Rezniceknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-28582870047072232982012-01-01T13:40:44.573-06:002012-01-01T13:40:44.573-06:00Anonymous 10:38 nailed it. The moral minority who ...Anonymous 10:38 nailed it. The moral minority who criminalize social problems have way too much to lose to actually stop DWI. Think of all the mad ho’s with nothing to do if cars didn’t start when a drunk got behind the wheel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39176502654857207942012-01-01T13:04:34.403-06:002012-01-01T13:04:34.403-06:00It is wrong to publish mugshots of persons not con...It is wrong to publish mugshots of persons not convicted of a crime. Too many people don't understand the difference between an arrest and a conviction. <br /><br />DWI will never stop so long as the consumption of alcohol remains socially acceptable, a place to drink remains at a bar next to a public road, convenience stores continue to sell alcoholic beverages, ice chests, and ice at the same place you purchase gasoline, etc. Heck, today in Texas, you can still buy one 12-ounce can of beer at most convenience stores, get a paper sack to put it in, and get into your vehicle. All the while, there are laws against open containers. <br /><br />Follow the money. Too many people will go out of business if steps were taken to really reduce/eliminate DWI. <br /><br />As far as District Attorneys go,my experience is they are more concerned about the conviction at whatever cost rather than what is right and just for an offender.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25018770728307654172012-01-01T10:38:19.930-06:002012-01-01T10:38:19.930-06:00The whole problem is nobody wants to stop dwi.Ther...The whole problem is nobody wants to stop dwi.There us too much revenue to be gained.Otherwise every car would have an aclohol sensor installed.When you get in the car and turn the key the sensor picks up the smell of alcohol and your car wont start.End of story.These sensors are relatively cheap compared to the cost of DwIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77232378050216141452012-01-01T08:47:01.184-06:002012-01-01T08:47:01.184-06:00Congrats Reznicek. Calling the 12000+ dead neglig...Congrats Reznicek. Calling the 12000+ dead negligible will surely win "stupidest post of 2011 award!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25134185614981139642012-01-01T06:09:30.128-06:002012-01-01T06:09:30.128-06:00While I agree with the presumption of innocence an...While I agree with the presumption of innocence and that the tacky posting of mugshots of accused but not convicted people is libelous and slanderous. The two edged sword would also effect my favorite reading by reducing the bad cop stories to a lot of lines that read "officer so n so just returned to work after 6 months paid administrative leave for no reason" storiesRed Leathermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506840758526404304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-38676181851926554702011-12-31T23:09:54.329-06:002011-12-31T23:09:54.329-06:0012000+ versus the 300 MILLION of us in the country...12000+ versus the 300 MILLION of us in the country is negiligible, however.D. Rezniceknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54418091998578040602011-12-31T21:42:12.131-06:002011-12-31T21:42:12.131-06:00As long as there are 12000+ alcohol related traffi...As long as there are 12000+ alcohol related traffic fatalities in the USA, there will be a push to reduce the number. That is in addition to tends of thousands of alcohol related accidents, by the way. <br /><br />I don't think the public shaming does as much good as some think nor do I think it ruins the presumption of innocence but it'd be nice if fewer people drove while under the influence, no matter what level of alcohol they had in their system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69344159849271669192011-12-31T15:47:32.172-06:002011-12-31T15:47:32.172-06:00A lot of the comments seem to miss the point that ...A lot of the comments seem to miss the point that the goal is to have less offenses. If the goal was just to shame then the DA would be posting the names of all people charges with all crimes. IF this deters someone from driving while intoxicated and taking a life do any of you really think that is worth others suffering a little embarrassment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-5651264211976005562011-12-31T09:49:30.229-06:002011-12-31T09:49:30.229-06:00If it's not important whether or not an actual...If it's not important whether or not an actual crime has been committed - i.e. presumption of innocence has no meaning - then let's expose everyone's picture as DWI suspect. Think what good that would do for public safety!<br /><br />But I wouldn't let reporters' ethics - or lack thereof - decide principles of disseminating information. Freedom - even if abused - is still the only path to take.<br /><br />I recently read where John Bradley slandered the Dallas DA as a publicity hound for his overturning of wrongful convictions. (A pretzel of logic if I ever heard one!) But this is clearly a case of a DA seeking publicity at others' expense.Harry Homelesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03947463975664686669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-78985975304927315052011-12-31T09:19:23.191-06:002011-12-31T09:19:23.191-06:00Posting in local newspaper obviously,isn't a d...Posting in local newspaper obviously,isn't a deterrent, or why would you read 2 times and more DUI/DWI charges. Also, so true, depends on who you are as to if local paper post your arrest. <br />From my knowledge MSM report isn't always correct either. No surprise there. As for D.A. and Police saying all in name of "public safety", then why not have mandatory monitors for "proven" offenders. Money is the real reason we have recurring DWI/DUI as well as possession charges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com