Reverie
Toronto Escorts

York police starts publicly naming people charged with impaired driving

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,591
1,193
113
This is pathetic. I strongly disagree with the police ever publicly shaming someone before conviction. Hell, even after a first-time conviction! I don't like the idea of using public shaming as a punishment, but if it's being used it should be used for repeat offenses only. If you do it on the first offense, you screw up their life to the point where further screwing up their life isn't enough deterrence from offending again.

For those of you who support this, do you also support public shaming of Johns? Remember, a very large percentage of the population believe (wrongly) that what we do is extremely harmful to women.
 

kugel2

Banned
Jan 13, 2017
310
0
0
This is pathetic. I strongly disagree with the police ever publicly shaming someone before conviction. Hell, even after a first-time conviction! I don't like the idea of using public shaming as a punishment, but if it's being used it should be used for repeat offenses only. If you do it on the first offense, you screw up their life to the point where further screwing up their life isn't enough deterrence from offending again.

For those of you who support this, do you also support public shaming of Johns? Remember, a very large percentage of the population believe (wrongly) that what we do is extremely harmful to women.
Accused serial killer Bruce Macarther has not been convicted. Were the media wrong for publishing his name? Once a criminal charge is laid, it is public record. The media can refuse to print it.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
Accused serial killer Bruce Macarther has not been convicted. Were the media wrong for publishing his name? Once a criminal charge is laid, it is public record. The media can refuse to print it.
You're actually comparing an alleged serial killer with someone charged with impaired driving? In the case of McArthur, they released his name and photo in an effort to get other witnesses to come forward and aid in their investigation.

The Police doesn't need the public's help with an impaired charge. Publishing their names serves no purpose other than public shaming. Not to mention there's no evidence that it's an effective deterrent.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
You're actually comparing an alleged serial killer with someone charged with impaired driving? In the case of McArthur, they released his name and photo in an effort to get other witnesses to come forward and aid in their investigation.

The Police doesn't need the public's help with an impaired charge. Publishing their names serves no purpose other than public shaming. Not to mention there's no evidence that it's an effective deterrent.
I'm curious why you imagine the police need no help with impaired charges? Testimony about an accused's drinking and/or driving behaviour and habits, the number of drinks they'd consumed or their interactions with others could certainly aid police in building a case, and the Crown in obtaining a conviction.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
I'm curious why you imagine the police need no help with impaired charges? Testimony about an accused's drinking and/or driving behaviour and habits, the number of drinks they'd consumed or their interactions with others could certainly aid police in building a case, and the Crown in obtaining a conviction.
If the Police need the public's help in an investigation, they will issue a news release asking for help. Media outlets will often report these at the request of the Police. Their motive for publishing names of people charged for drinking and driving offenses has nothing to do with building a case against the accused. I've spoken to friends who work for both Peel and TPS about publishing names. They agree it serves no purpose other than public shaming.
 

kugel2

Banned
Jan 13, 2017
310
0
0
The media isn't forced to publish the names. They can leave it out of their publication if they wish. No one is forced to go to any website and look them up. Why not complain to the media outlets, boycott those that do it. The criminal charge is public information.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
The media isn't forced to publish the names. They can leave it out of their publication if they wish. No one is forced to go to any website and look them up. Why not complain to the media outlets, boycott those that do it. The criminal charge is public information.
It's not media outlets who's publishing the names. York Region Police will be posting them on their website.
 

kugel2

Banned
Jan 13, 2017
310
0
0

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Are not arrest records public?
 

TeeJay

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
8,052
731
113
west gta
Pretty hard to think Marco Muzzo was "innocent" before proven guilty!!!!
Actually THAT is exactly what is wrong with the news today

He certainly WAS innocent until proven guilty

Could have been a million reasons for accident that had nothing to do with alcohol
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
So don't go on their site and look. Nobody is forced to.
It's not a question of going to the site or not. It's a question of naming people who were charged but not convicted. I have no problem publishing names of convicted impaired drivers.

Story in the news today....https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/soldier-accused-of-trying-to-murder-his-baby

Charged, not convicted. Name AND picture. So is that because the Sun is trying to shame soldiers? The investigation isn't looking for more of his kids to come forward.
This is nothing new. If you follow the news, you would already know Police regularly publish the names of people charged with serious offences. The one you pointed out fits that criteria.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
Actually THAT is exactly what is wrong with the news today

He certainly WAS innocent until proven guilty

Could have been a million reasons for accident that had nothing to do with alcohol
Police regularly publish the names of people charged with serious offences.
 

kugel2

Banned
Jan 13, 2017
310
0
0
Police regularly publish the names of people charged with serious offences.
Exactly....are you suggesting that they only publish the names of people charged with certain, and not all, criminal offenses? Who makes the determination of what that list is? There are those that would suggest that charging an impaired driver is equivalent to charging someone who fired a gun down the street but hit no one. Both commit potentially lethal criminal acts, yet fortunately no one is hurt.
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,518
2,368
113
Exactly....are you suggesting that they only publish the names of people charged with certain, and not all, criminal offenses?
That's what they currently do. Report the identity of people charged with serious crimes. Typically ones that involve sexual assault, weapons and/or cause bodily harm.

Who makes the determination of what that list is?
The Police service.

There are those that would suggest that charging an impaired driver is equivalent to charging someone who fired a gun down the street but hit no one. Both commit potentially lethal criminal acts, yet fortunately no one is hurt.
If each one is guilty, then yes, both of those scenarios are equivalent.

I would be all for publishing the names of those charged with impaired if it was a proven deterrent. But the evidence just isn't there to support that. Therefore it's nothing more than public shaming.
 

kugel2

Banned
Jan 13, 2017
310
0
0
That's what they currently do. Report the identity of people charged with serious crimes. Typically ones that involve sexual assault, weapons and/or cause bodily harm.



The Police service.



If each one is guilty, then yes, both of those scenarios are equivalent.

I would be all for publishing the names of those charged with impaired if it was a proven deterrent. But the evidence just isn't there to support that. Therefore it's nothing more than public shaming.
Is revealing the names of gang bangers, mass murderers (i.e MacArthur), gun runners or drug dealers a proven deterrent? If not, then ...shhhhhh......
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Is revealing the names of gang bangers, mass murderers (i.e MacArthur), gun runners or drug dealers a proven deterrent? If not, then ...shhhhhh......
If deterrent effect is what we are going by, and if we're demanding 100%, then nothing we tried since before the Romans has been a proven deterrent and we might as well give up all our laws and enforcement.
 

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,280
1,162
113
Oblivion
York Region LE is not really known as a stellar group. They carelessly pick their prey which is currently naming those charged with impaired or naming those who responded to an underage sting. York Region LE used to name almost anyone that they charged with almost any crime not so long ago before bill C36. The current trends might have something to do with the change of government at Queens Park, but it will not likely be an effective deterrent this public shaming.
 
Toronto Escorts