TORONTO

Santa Claus is right into it.

Every year he writes a list of who has been naughty and who has been nice. He even checks it twice.

This year Durham Regional Police will be doing it, too, but without the nice bits.

Go to their official website and you’ll find the names of drivers charged after being stopped at RIDE (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) checkpoints.

The digital outing is part of the Durham force’s determination to screen motorists for impairment by drugs and alcohol in an effort to promote road safety over this Christmas season.

Sgt. Nancy van Rooy insisted it is an annual custom that works.

“The listing is common for us and part of our strategy to reduce fatalities on our roads over the busy holiday season,” van Rooy said. “We believe it is a good, sound deterrent that gets results. We are committed to saving lives and this is another weapon in our arsenal.”

The rationale for police naming — and yes, ultimately shaming — is straightforward but unsophisticated. It rests on untested notions that owe less to practical argument than wishful thinking.

The belief is that drivers will consider their actions more carefully if they know any charge will result in online publication of their alleged crime.

The reason follows that recidivism rates will therefore be reduced by this very public embarrassment.

Maybe. Perhaps. Possibly.

At any other time of the year it is accepted that the identity of individuals arrested for impaired driving will be withheld until police information is sworn before the courts.

At that point, the information is open to the public.

Abby Deshman, director of the public safety program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), maintained that publication before any charges have been tested at law runs counter to our accepted concept of the presumption of innocence.

“The practice is concerning,” Deshman told the Toronto Sun. “The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a cornerstone of our justice system.”

She argued that indiscriminately posting people’s personal information on the Internet before they have even appeared in court — much less been convicted — runs contrary to the presumption of innocence.

“There are also serious implications for the right to privacy,” she added. “Keep in mind that all these people will now have this record appear any time someone runs a search for their name. The police should be upholding our rights, not undermining them.”

Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly upholds the legal status of a citizen answering to a criminal charge.

It states: “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”

There is no sound counter argument against preventing deaths on our roads. One death caused by drunk or drug impaired driving is one too many.

Yet surely the accused must not be expected to forfeit their individual rights in the name of the broader, common good?

Note the key word is accused — not convicted.

“Our justice system should not stoop to using individual shaming as an instrument of crime prevention, and certainly not by holding out the names of those who are legally innocent,” said Deshman.

“If there is empirical proof that this form of stigmatization will lead to reduced rates of impaired driving, I have not seen it,” she added. “We know from numerous studies that mandatory minimum jail sentences do not deter crime — most people do not know what the likely jail sentence is, much less factor it in to their decision-making before committing an illegal act.

“If jail time does not deter crime, I fail to see how this practice would.”

Exactly. It is a sad fact that anyone who gets behind the wheel while impaired by any variety of substances does it while thinking (if they are thinking at all) they will not be caught.

So the prospect of Internet outing as a deterrent is weak on evidence, weak on practice and ultimately weak on application.

Drunk drivers are bloody idiots. They deserve everything they get before the courts.

But their embarrassment should only follow conviction. Not precede it.