Naming and shaming
NAME and shame is how the
Mountain Scene newspaper describes its campaign against drunken driving. It, like the Otago
Daily Times, has published reports of the disgraceful rates in Queenstown. Judges have regularly aired their frustration at the number of cases before the court there.
The figures make dismal reading. Ministry of Justice statistics show 208 people were convicted in the Queenstown District Court last year. Another 100 have been convicted in the first six months of 2017.
New Zealand’s numbers have dropped steadily to 16,014 last year — 35% down since 2012. Figures across the South, including from the Alexandra District Court, show similar falls. Queenstown, though, is going in the other direction, up 23% for the same period. The growth of Queenstown’s population is an insufficient reason for such a startling divergence.
The Scene, like the Otago Daily
Times owned by Allied Press, launched its campaign by printing the names of those convicted since the beginning of last year over its front page this week. The practice for new convictions will continue each week for the rest of 2017. Names will also be posted online.
Scene editor David Williams wrote it was clear the court system was not serving up sufficient deterrent. The Name and Shame campaign would add an extra disincentive. Even if it stopped just one person from driving drunk it would be worthwhile.
Queenstown, with its reputation as a party town and visitors and residents from many parts of the world, can be isolated from changing social attitudes. For views have been shifting, even if the numbers who drink before getting behind the wheel are still far too large everywhere. Much of society now recognises those whose drink and drive are dangerous ‘‘bloody idiots’’. They put themselves and others at risk.
Many in younger generations accept arranging for a sober driver or alternative transport is just what you do, a contrast to the complacency, negligence and what amounted to dangerous criminal behaviour of many of their parents or grandparents when they were young.
The ODT itself ran a drinkdriving campaign several years ago, and highlighted the names of offenders. We also believe the matter needed regular focus.
The additional attention on particular individuals is just too bad. Their names are public and they have been convicted of an offence which can easily result in others being killed.
It is unfortunate some drinkdrivers, especially repeat drinkdrivers, are alcoholics. They have a susceptibility and an illness. But anything that might help stop anyone driving drunk is worthwhile.
Many a case will have circumstances that elicit sympathy and include mitigating circumstances. Fundamentally, though, if the court sees fit to convict and not to suppress names and details (suppression should apply in only the rarest of instances) then wider publicity can result. This might not always be strictly fair to the individuals involved. But they transgressed on a serious matter and are liable. It is not a time to be sorry for them, whatever the situation.
Attitudes still need improvement throughout the country, and there is a long way to go. But Queenstown is a notable hot spot for drinkdriving. A sharp change in prevailing outlooks there is required.