Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Shame: Drunk Drivers Published Online

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the what-about-lousy-ebayers dept.

Privacy 61

Shiifty writes "In a related story to the recent slashdot story on Maine's online sex offender registry, an article in the Toronto Star discusses how 'shaming' people by publishing their names online will deter them from drinking and driving. Durham Police in the Toronto Area recently published online the names of those charged with drinking and driving in last week's R.I.D.E. program. This isn't something new, as local papers frequently publish names of those charged with criminal offences, and last year a Name and Shame campaign in the Medway Today published the pictures of those who were twice the legal limit on the front page. In Arizona, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require drunken drivers to pay for an advertisement in the local newspaper that displays their name and conviction."

cancel ×

61 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And in Florida (3, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614599)

In Arizona, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require drunken drivers to pay for an advertisement in the local newspaper that displays their name and conviction.
And in Florida, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require spammers send out millions of unsolicited emails advertising their name and conviction...

Re:And in Florida (1)

unitzero (725049) | more than 10 years ago | (#7616863)

And in Florida, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require spammers send out millions of unsolicited emails advertising their name and conviction...

Is this true? I kinda like that idea, it seems fitting at least (although seems a bit counterproductive)

shaming as a deterrent? (4, Funny)

kurosawdust (654754) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614623)

Can't you shame someone enough by just searching google groups for their usenet posts from when they were 16?

"Mr. Schwartz, your blood alcohol level is .05 over the legal limit - I'm afraid we'll be publishing your posts to alt.games.counterstrike in the newspaper."

"No, not those! I was just a n00b!"

This isn't really in the same class as the sex (2, Insightful)

shweazel (583363) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614646)

offender registry.

For one, only the names, ages, and hometowns of the convicts are being published.

This kind of information is public record anyway, I don't see what the big deal is.

Re:This isn't really in the same class as the sex (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7614691)

I don't know if anyone said it was a "big deal." Not every story posted on Slashdot is meant to imply huge sweeping changes and conflict are in the air.

Oh, you're a nigger.

Accuracy should count for something. (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615608)

This kind of information is public record anyway, I don't see what the big deal is.

The big deal is that inaccurate data can be the difference between someone getting a job or loan and not. As we rush headlong into putting more information into more hands, I think we have an obligation to create an environment where accuracy is prized and inaccuracies are corrected and harm resulting from those inaccuracies is righted.

As we move data like this online we have a golden opportunity to review its accuracy. I don't see any big effort to do this in the stories I've been reading about people putting more public data online.

Oh whaaa.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7614671)

Tell me, if some drunk person started firing a gun towards a crowd of people, and was caught, do you think the newspapers would publish his name? Damn right they would.

Some drunk driving a car is just as dangerous.

You get drunk, get in a car, and go for a drive... and risk MY life.

And what, you want pity from me? Fuck off.

Re:Oh whaaa.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7618859)

..

Nail, meet hammer.

Isn't that... (2, Interesting)

Josh Booth (588074) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614696)

...cruel and unusual punishment? I thought that once you paid your debt to society, whether by forfeiture of property, money, or time (in prison), you were done. Now it seems that the want to punish people beyond the usual sentance simply because the law doesn't explicitly prohibit it. That seems unfair.

it's not unusual, (0)

eyenot (102141) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614733)

to be loved by anyone! dweedoo dwedoo dee.

anyways doesn't it just count as an extension of 'debt to society'?

it's not unsual, (0)

eyenot (102141) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614785)

to be loved by anyone!"

really though, wouldn't it just be an extension of their 'debt to society'?

Re:Isn't that... (3, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614968)

...cruel and unusual punishment?
Well, modern day pillorying isn't unheard of amongst more radical judges in the US who'll be quite happy to have someone stand at the side of the road wearing a billboard describing their offenses. As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, but it hasn't been tested.

I doubt SCOTUS is going to outlaw publishing names of miscreants in newspapers. This is established practice anyway, the major difference here is that the court is going to force offenders to foot the bill, and fining offenders isn't new either...

I thought that once you paid your debt to society, whether by forfeiture of property, money, or time (in prison), you were done.
Well, not exactly. In addition to being considered part of "paying your debt to society", this is also part of the well established post-direct-punishment regime. People who serve their sentences generally still suffer afterwards - prospective employers, for example, will expect to be able to find out felonies and misdemeanors committed by prospective employees in recent years. So, no, there isn't a "you're done" aspect that this undermines.
Now it seems that the want to punish people beyond the usual sentance simply because the law doesn't explicitly prohibit it. That seems unfair.
It would be unfair if this were retroactive, or if this was excessive. I'm not going to comment on the latter, but on the former, as I understand it, this is being passed as a law going forward. You only have to be concerned if you intend to break the law after it is passed, by which time you should know what the consequences are.

I'm a liberal. I support Amnesty International (though this comment shouldn't be read as stating a position AI would agree or disagree with.) I find the death penalty objectionable. If prisons are anything close to their reputation, I find their continued promotion repugnant. But I also have to say that this type of law does not strike me as extreme, cruel, or unusual. Indeed, to a certain extent, I'm glad a legislature is looking at alternative ways to make sentences for crimes harsher, rather than adding years to prison terms.

Unquestionably this punishment will act as a deterent. It's going to hit the wallet, and it's going to be embarassing. But it also will not destroy someone's employment opportunities, their finances, their families, or put them in physical danger - in short, it will punish, not destroy someone.

This seems fair. (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615058)

After all, we are talking about risk management. If people can't keep themselves safe, then we have to help them [within reason, of course]. Remember, if the drunk driver kills someone, then most often it lasts forever. So, it's not unreasonable to have to serve capital punishment, or to mar his reputation. Part of the debt he pays to society is taking punishment with his reputation.

A reputation is worth more than silver & gold, or driving drunk @ a million miles per hour. If people can't grasp that concept, then they deserve cruel punishment. It's not unusual, though.

sure, whatever makes life more like a video game! (0)

eyenot (102141) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614707)

sounds like fun. this carries the potential for people to start up 'drunkard hall of fame' in their town and see who can stay 'on the charts' the longest. people will purposefully drive cars into one another, then splashing bottles of mad dog and mcmasters over their heads just to get 'top score'. remember that kid who rode down all those people on that busy night strip and then ran up and down the street cheering? well, top fucking score, man! first place! woo hoo! and best of all it'll probably end up cheaper than buying a new console and keeping yourself in new titles.

and then they lose their license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7616644)

and the fun ends

"Charged" (4, Insightful)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614713)


These people were simply "charged", and not convicted of the crime. If you charge me, print my name in the paper, and I am found "Not Guilty"--I'm going to sue you for defamation of character and slander. Sure, the article truthfully recounts that these people were simply "charged"--but I'll bet you that I could argue that there is no difference in perception or the repercussions that'll be felt by me.

OTOH, I have no issue with convicted lawbreakers being made public. But too often the line is crossed between "deliberated upon by a Jury of my Peers, and found Guilty" and "cop didn't like my looks".

Re:"Charged" (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 10 years ago | (#7616511)

I was astonished to be a victim of precisely "cop didn't like my looks". I was driving my big, expensive BMW wearing jeans and a geek T-shirt. Pulled onto the Motorway (Highway) behind a police car and over take him. Next thing I know, I'm being pulled over. The reason I was pulled over ? Because, and this is what the cop said, if the police car hadn't been there I would have been speeding !!! Not that I had been speeding (I didn't) but because if he hadn't been there I would have been.

I regret to this day not taking his number and complaining to the Chief Constable and the Police Authority.

Re:"Charged" (1)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 10 years ago | (#7618778)

These people were simply "charged", and not convicted of the crime. If you charge me, print my name in the paper, and I am found "Not Guilty"--I'm going to sue you for defamation of character and slander.

Loophole: you would be found "not guilty", but not "innocent". Still enough bile for the public to chew on to have you 'punished'.

Re:"Charged" (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7618865)

Well I charge you of molesting and raping very young children and savagely murdering them, as well as listening to Britney Spears music.

Oh by the way you may not be guilty.

Re:"Charged" (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7618911)

Note to mods: it's occured to me that my above comment might appear as flamebait, but I'm trying to make a rather valid point. Being found 'not guilty' is a perfectly acceptable justification for you to have the right not to have your reputation smeared. It'd be awful nice if you didn't mod it down.

Liar! Blasphemer! I'll Sue! (1)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 10 years ago | (#7619065)

Well I charge you of molesting and raping very young children and savagely murdering them, as well as listening to Britney Spears music.

I'll have you know that I've never listened to Britney, and I have several highly-paid expert witnesses prepared to testify on my behalf.

Re:"Charged" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7619510)

The newspaper would probably say you allegedly commited the crime. Thats the key word. You sue them and you just waste your money. Come on man, think it throught, don't you think the newspapers cover thier own ass.

Re:"Charged" (1)

Flwyd (607088) | more than 10 years ago | (#7623192)

I wonder if this might change "don't like the way you look" policies -- cops coming under pressure to arrest a more diverse crowd -- or just reinforce stereotypes.

Now, if they published the names and pictures of people who were found not guilty of drunk driving (after publishing them when they were charged), I wonder how that would change things.

Drunks have no shame (2, Interesting)

mbstone (457308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614797)

What, publishing the names of convicted (I hope) DUI offenders will deter them? Fat chance. Whoever thought this one up enjoys the good fortune not to know any alcoholics.

For example, here's a story from today's wires about a 74 year-old who has amassed over 400 DUI arrests:

ANDERSON, Ind. (AP) -- A 74-year-old Anderson man who's been arrested at least 400 times for drunken driving was sentenced Monday to 17 years in prison for his latest drunken driving conviction.


Virldeen Redmon was arrested in July for driving even though his license had been suspended for life.

His latest conviction was on charges of driving while intoxicated, endangering a person and driving while suspended.

Police have been arresting Redmon since 1947, including three times since June. He's had his driver's license suspended for life five times.

In 1996, a judge sentenced Redmon to 9-1/2 years in prison. That sentence was reduced in 2001 and he was released after a doctor testified that Redmon suffers from health problems.

Re:Drunks have no shame (2, Insightful)

barzok (26681) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615315)

Suspension/revokation does nothing. It can't stop the person from driving. Chaining him to his house might.

The system really blew it with that guy. How he was allowed to go 50 years before being imprisoned long-term for repeat offenses boggles the mind.

Re:Drunks have no shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7618920)

..
Obviously you didn't grow up in Anderson, Indiana as I did.

It's really a shame. Get rid of the chain and cement his foot to the foundation. Let him make the choice of driving or not at that point.

It's too bad that our system allows this crap to happen.

Wonder if he ever killed anyone?

This is why I think... (1)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 10 years ago | (#7627149)

...that there should be a new criminal charge created called 'Attempted Vehicular Manslaughter' designed specifically for Drunks. If you are a repeat offender, it's off to prison for you for a good 8 to 10 years.

For a first time offense, with no priors, you get a slap on the wrist and probation, but you still carry having been charged with attempted vehicular manslaughter.

This kind of charge may stop the occasional drunk from getting behind the wheel, it won't stop those that don't care, but then again, do we really need people like that in society?

Re:This is why I think... (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#7699884)

Is it really anyone's place to decide what kind of person we have in society? That generally sounds elitist to me.

Re:This is why I think... (1)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 10 years ago | (#7726823)

So, you are saying that it's elitist for the vast majority of society to decide that certain individuals, based upon past behaviours, should be removed from society...

Hmm... That's funny. I always thought it was prudent to lockup those that have and will continue to cause murder and mayhem upon greater society by being left to their own devices...

Ooooh... Wait a minute... you must be one of those Fresh out of Liberal College kids... Wake up and take a look at reality.

These people need help, not shame (2, Interesting)

Yohahn (8680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614839)

I'm sick and tired of the "retrabution" method of "rehabilitation".

Most alcoholics are sick people. They should receive therapy not shame. They will receive shame enough, especially if they killed somebody in the process of abusing.

Punishment may be appropriate too, but come on, deal with the problem. If a drug addict is caught, they must undergo therapy.

Now, incarseration until they are willing to cooperate with detox/treatment would be a good idea.

Apparently, millions of Americans agree (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7615324)

Because that's how many elected someone who drove drunk [google.com] as leader of the free world.

Re:Apparently, millions of Americans agree (1)

Zeriel (670422) | more than 10 years ago | (#7617666)

I hope you never want to run for political office or get involved in something where politics are heavy (higher corp. management, university prof, etc.).

Since you believe that it's not possible to atone for things you did decades ago, after all.

Re:Apparently, millions of Americans agree (1)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | more than 10 years ago | (#7626380)

Umm... dude. He admitted it. He said it was wrong. The more important part: He stopped doing it, and at that stopped a long time ago. I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone of legal adult status who has not at some point committed a misdemeanor, if not a felony. Only difference is, most people don't get caught.

Now get over the whole "Bush did something stupid while he was young" kick already, mmmmkay? Or must I remind you that Gore claimed he invented the internet, and Clinton screwed around with an intern while in office (and married, I might add) and purjured himself when asked about it. And people are worried about Bush once driving drunk, many years ago. Sheesh.

Re:These people need help, not shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7615886)

Please, do you really buy into the myth that all drunk drivers are alcoholics? Are you that naive? With the .08 limit, an average sized woman is legally drunk after only 3 drinks.

So if she goes out one night with some friends, has a before dinner drink and a couple glasses of wine over dinner and drives home, she's an alcoholic and "needs help"? Bullshit, she's just dumb (played the odds and lost)

The "shame" might bother some people, others wouldn't be affected. Some people are bothered by the fines and higher insurance, some people are bothered by having to find another way to work for a while, some by a couple days in jail. The more little things you do, the higher the percentage of people will take notice.

If she's drinking a half dozen drinks every other night, then she's got a problem and maybe therapy can help. If she has three drinks once or twice a month therapy is a waste of her time and more importantly wastes the time of those who actually do have a problem forced to endure people like her in their therapy sessions.

Re:These people need help, not shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7652545)

If something that you do habitually causes damage to you, it's an addiction.

Yes, DUI's are caused by addicts.

I would however question the lowering of Blood alcohol levels to .08.

This may hardly even affect eye movemnt.

Re:These people need help, not shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7622036)

Most drunk drivers are not alcoholics, just irresponsible.

Re:These people need help, not shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7627578)

Drunks don't want help, they want booze, and their craving renders them incapable of rehabilitation.
Crush them as an example to others.

Things that'll help the drunks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7668138)

  • Steep fines
  • Public shaming
  • A swift kick in the ass

Y'know, it's people like you that are the reason our prisons are full of murderers that get YOUR tax dollars to stay alive when they don't deserve life. But then again, their freedom has been taken away, so life in a hell on earth.. NO WAIT! Thanks to you pussy liberals the people who have no qualms about killing you and your kids are getting better treatment than me!

This is reason number 117 why the human race is doomed.


P.S.
Try a Dictionary [dictionary.com] next time you want to use those big words of yours.

Lets develop this idea (2, Interesting)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614843)

Okay, so we have sex-offenders and over-the-limit drivers. If this is a good idea for two crimes, it follows that it might be a good idea for others.

Maybe this should be extended to:
Corporations convicted of tax evasion
Police that assault members of the public
Politicians convicted of area re-zoning or taking back handers.

If it's good enough for the public, why isn't it good enough for the law makers? the law enforcers? and the "Legal People"/Corporations?

This reminds me of lawyers advocating software patentability, but they'd never suggest that "legal innovations" should be patentable.

There you go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7614892)

Maybe this should be extended to:
Corporations convicted of tax evasion


Yeah, baby. Print a picture of the Tyco or Enron buildings in the paper. That'll deter 'em.

hmm, you're new to reading, aren't you? (2, Interesting)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615150)

> Yeah, baby. Print a picture of the Tyco or
> Enron buildings in the paper. That'll deter 'em.

If I said that drink drivers should be given free space for a personal ad, your sarcastic reply would make sense. But I didn't.

The topic of this discussion is Name'n'Shame campaigns. So how about making Enron pay for a full page ad that lists their real accounts, the number of lay-offs, the average cost to US industry, etc.

Maybe the RIAA should have to list the number of minors they have sued, Bush could print the real election results and the number of WMDs found in Iraq, etc...

This sounds like a great idea... (1)

Gregg Alan (8487) | more than 10 years ago | (#7614983)

...but you should know that I've been drinking...

Violation of free speech (2, Interesting)

Jerf (17166) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615060)

I would consider forcing somebody to fund an advertisement saying, well, anything to be a violation of thier free speech. Free speech includes the choice to not speak. For instance, the fifth amendment.

Come to think of it, it's a violation of the spirit of the fifth amendment too, if perhaps not technically the letter.
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...
You could read that as one can not be forced to "witness" against one's self (which being forced to proclaim to all their guilt could be considered) as part of the "trial" (including punishment) as being protected here.

Really, this strikes me as a bad idea over all. "Innovation" in punishment is something that should generally be discouraged, and held to a very high standard.

Re:Violation of free speech (1)

toast0 (63707) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615187)

You know, I doubt many Canadians would be able to use fifth (or first) ammendment reasoning to get out of this proposed punishment, considering that in Canada, the US Constitution doesn't apply.

Re:Violation of free speech (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615805)

The fact this occurred in Canada changes none of my post. I would still consider it a violation of the fifth or first amendment rights. Personally, I consider free speech an inherent right, not one "granted" by governments.

Re:Violation of free speech (1)

Simple-Simmian (710342) | more than 10 years ago | (#7616918)

Well you have no right to slience in the UK either. Staying silent "infers guilt."

Re:Violation of free speech (2, Interesting)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615575)

I would consider forcing somebody to fund an advertisement saying, well, anything to be a violation of thier free speech.
The suspect isn't the one doing the speaking: the police department is (with their words). The suspect is merely paying for the ad as an additional fine. It's actually kind of dumb to me: the police department could just add, say, $50 to the fine that would cover the cost of the ad and then the suspect would be paying for the ad indirectly.
Come to think of it, it's a violation of the spirit of the fifth amendment too ...
No it isn't because, again, the suspect isn't the one doing the speaking.

Hobson's Choice (1)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 10 years ago | (#7618815)

I would consider forcing somebody to fund an advertisement saying, well, anything to be a violation of thier free speech. Free speech includes the choice to not speak. For instance, the fifth amendment.

I think something like this would be worked out in a deal by the DA to avoid a trial, considerable legal costs, and jail.

Sort of like the RIAA's "You downloaded illegal MP3s -- Give us $3000 and Sign This Form".

Re:Violation of free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7668169)

That's nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7615075)

Where I come from, anyone who's charged with anything, from a speeding ticket to murder (though not much of that happens) shows up in the county newspaper. It's a matter of public record anyway.

Gee... (1)

Phleg (523632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615076)

I thought we'd done away with the stockade punishment.

The further we head into the future, the more we do the same things we did in the past.

Re:Gee... (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 10 years ago | (#7627658)

>> I thought we'd done away with the stockade punishment.

An action which has done more to divorce a criminal from resposibility for his crime than any other.

Bring the "stockade" back and crime would drop dramatically. It doesn't have to be a stockade. Simply a holding cell with thick glass walls that passersby can see into.

How would this work? (1)

Ondo (187980) | more than 10 years ago | (#7615130)

If they're forced by the law to pay for the advertisment in the local paper, if I was the local paper I'd raise the ad rates very, very high.

For fuck's sake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7615389)

Will someone please just blow this whole country off the fucking map before it gets any worse?

I thought (1)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 10 years ago | (#7616296)

I thought that the Scarlet Letter was just a really bad old book, not reality...

We Should do more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7616439)

When we get that national microchipped ID, it should be required to bye alcohol for everyone of every age. Then if you're convicted the system should be updated to deny you access to alcohol, so that anyone selling or supplying you would be guilty just like they would be with a minor.

Addionally there should be a website were we can all go and make fun of the drunk driving losers. The more we can do to humiliate and shame them the better.

I also advocate a "beat up" squad. For all the guys convicted of beating women, the beatup squad comes on a regular basis, some days they are nice and just hang out other days they come and kick the shit out of the guy. The beauty is he never knows which day it will be, just like the poor woman.

The cool part is we could have "beat up" duty be like jury duty, so evry one gets to kick the shit out of losers on occassion. Though our luck would be that you'd have to be beaten by a panel of your peers, so all the shitty wife beaters would have to be each other up, and us normal folk would not get the opportunity to bust a move on the low-life scum bags. Too bad it would be a good way to relieve stress and teach a low-life scum a lesson.

Drug dealers we should force them to OD on the shit they sell. Hopefully they die, if not, we can still video tape the debachary and sell it on the internet. The proceeds can be used to offset taxes.

Murder is a tough one. How do you kill a guy several times over? Or half kill him if tehir was an accomplace? Maybe extended visists from the beat up squad. Anther fun one to watch on DVD. Perhas they let the family of the victim automatically be on the beat up squad (and they can get free copies of the video).

Rapist we should just shoot on site. Or perhaps we should publically castrate them. Too bad ebay does not allow the auction of human body parts. But the videos would sell too.

End of rant for now. We should all pray that I don't win an election for public office. . .

Re:We Should do more (1)

Simple-Simmian (710342) | more than 10 years ago | (#7616901)

I for one welcome our new Talaban overlords..

Re:We Should do more (0)

evilmuffins (631482) | more than 10 years ago | (#7622855)

You've got my vote.

Just make human driving illegal! (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 10 years ago | (#7618204)

I think that the government should make all human driven vechiles outlawed. The cars should drive you from point A to point B and decide on the safest course and speed there. You shouldn't even have to pay any car insurance other than theft because it is all on the car manufactur if it has an accident. Humans don't make good drivers. We get drive drunk, drive while talking on the phone, drive while talking/yelling at the kids in the back sit, drive while eating, drive while nearly falling asleep, drive while shaving, drive while putting on make up, and drive while looking for something in the passanger floor board. Human driving should be made illegal now! There are thousands of deaths a year because of this. We should sue the goverment for allowing the population to drive vechiles when it is proven to be unsafe.

IF I want to drink or eat or make out with my wife in my car, I should be able to do that at any time while going from point A to point B. I shouldn't have to drive a damn vechile. All I care about is getting from point A to point B.

Why don't we do the obvious? (1)

SamTheButcher (574069) | more than 10 years ago | (#7621216)

If you're caught and convicted of driving drunk, take the license away for (at least) 5 years! I know this is how it works in some European countries (I want to say Sweden or Norway...), so why don't we do it here? Yes, we're Americans, married to our cars, etc. But if you knew you could lose your license for 5 years if you got caught, I'm sure that would more than deter most every person who spins the wheel from driving drunk.

Last time I checked, having a license to drive a car was a privelige, not a right.

The Smoking Gun? (1)

today (27810) | more than 10 years ago | (#7637561)

Has no one heard of this site [thesmokinggun.com] ? It seems there is no law a celeb can break without making it there. Why is it a big deal to do this to non-celebs?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>