Even drunk drivers have civil rights
The city of Sudbury, Ont. is preparing an unusual response to the continuing problem of drunk driving. Starting next week, every Tuesday, a list will be published online, naming all the individuals charged with impaired driving over the prior seven days. It is hoped that this public shaming of those charged with driving while impaired will deter others from getting behind the wheel after having had too many drinks.
It might indeed. And drunk driving is certainly a serious issue that Canadian governments and courts do not take seriously enough. More should be done, especially to address the threat posed by chronic drunk drivers: Too often we hear about someone being killed by a drunk driver with numerous prior convictions who had on prior occasions been let off with the proverbial slap on the wrist. But the appropriate response to impaired drivers, whether on their first or 10th offence, is stiff punishment and mandatory alcohol rehabilitation for those found guilty, not the shaming of those who are still presumed innocent.
To be fair, many drunk driving cases are fairly open-andshut affairs. If pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint and found to be drunk, the essential facts of the case are established. But the fundamental tenets of our justice system must still apply. Anyone caught driving drunk can of course plead guilty, but they also have the right to contest the evidence (however futilely), to consult with legal counsel and to argue their case -if any -before a judge. The Sudbury police have no right to usurp these fundamental rights from any citizen, not even in the name of deterring a crime.
It is true that the media regularly report the names and hometowns of those arrested and charged with a crime, even though the presumption of innocence still applies to them. But reporters generally report such information impartially and without judgment. The Sudbury police can claim no such motivation -they have been quite clear that their intention in publishing the names of those charged with drunk driving is to deter further acts by humiliating those they arrest.
This is clearly a punitive measure, in other words. And it is meted out by the police before the suspect is permitted to have his day in court. The police would never publish a central list of white-collar criminals who had not been convicted in a courtroom, and for good reason. The same principles of justice should apply to all those under arrest and facing trial. Impaired driving's social stigma should not negate one's civil rights.
The proposal is especially worrisome because of some ambiguity that already exists in Ontario's laws concerning driving while intoxicated. In recent years, Ontario has begun to shift the definition of drunk driving from its current, federally set level of .08% Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), to the much lower BAC of .05%. Though Ontario does not have the ability to change the Criminal Code to make .05% the point at which one is guilty of driving while impaired, the province has used its authority over its own highways and roads to make life unpleasant for those found driving with a BAC between .05% and .08%, the so-called "warn range." Anyone found driving while in the warn range has their license immediately suspended, their car impounded and their insurance company notified. Arguably that already goes too far, in that it essentially criminalizes non-criminal behaviour. Thus far, the Sudbury police say they have no intention of publishing the names of those caught in the warn range, but given their existing willingness to publish the names of the presumed innocent, it must be asked if posting the names of those suspected of almost drunk driving will be the next target, should this latest deterrent campaign fail to provide satisfactory results.
If the Sudbury police can make a convincing case that public shaming provides a credible deterrent effect for drunk driving, they should feel free to list the names of those who have been found guilty of their charges by the courts, making their public listing simply another part of their punishment. In the meantime, the police have no right singling out some suspects for pre-emptive punishment over others.
0 comments:
Post a Comment