Drink driver posts video from dash cam
Discussion
RogerDodger said:
Evolved said:
I just can’t fathom the justice system in this country. She gets a slap on the wrist for what is absolutely mental, dangerous driving. She could have wiped out loads of times.
She was totally and utterly wasted based on that driving! She should be doing time.
Why? She comitted the offence of drunk driving and failing to stop. Not usually an offence that puts you in prison. The fact you have seen her driving doesn't make the offence different, just your perspective. Other people done for the same offence are most likely quite often the same or worse, just it isn't filmed.She was totally and utterly wasted based on that driving! She should be doing time.
The justice system works as intended. 2 years ban, and a lot of community service isn't a slap on the wrist. Her career will be finished too.
Sheepshanks said:
I always think it's a bit odd that the sentence varies with the consequences of the action. If, in one of those swerves, she'd hit and killed a pedestrian standing at the side of the road she'd have got a multi-year prison sentence.
The consequences should influence the outcome.Hypotheticals f
k over those constrained by the Law as well as those that deserve to be fked over.Sheepshanks said:
I always think it's a bit odd that the sentence varies with the consequences of the action. If, in one of those swerves, she'd hit and killed a pedestrian standing at the side of the road she'd have got a multi-year prison sentence.
You can't sentance someone based on what might have happened if the circumstances were different, she could have wiped out a bus stop full of kids if she had crashed into a bus stop full of kids, but she didn't crash into a bus stop full of kids.Where do you draw the line?
HardtopManual said:
Two year ban isn't long enough. Someone with so little regard for others' safety, such poor judgment as to continue after driving clean off the road and such stupidity as to film it all deserves a much longer ban.
But what about that day something happens that causes you to hit the booze. Someone dies , you lose a job, your wife leaves you? You get drunk and then your judgement is severely impaired (as you say, "such poor judgement"). So you drive. How long should you be punished? You'll prob never do it again. Alcohol affects you decision making severely. She might not even remember getting in the car. She might have felt everything was ok ( which alcohol has an amazing ability to do ).In a society where alcohol is not merely accepted, but encouraged, people are going to make a bad decision and we have to give the benefit of the doubt that it was a one off. Or we'd just as well ban all firsr time offenders for life.
The point of fines and bans is to discourage offences and repeat offences.
I'm not being contrary for the sake of it, I just believe a bit of perspective is needed and it's become too easy to see things like this and immediately say "hang them".
RogerDodger said:
But what about that day something happens that causes you to hit the booze. Someone dies , you lose a job, your wife leaves you? You get drunk and then your judgement is severely impaired (as you say, "such poor judgement"). So you drive. How long should you be punished? You'll prob never do it again. Alcohol affects you decision making severely. She might not even remember getting in the car. She might have felt everything was ok ( which alcohol has an amazing ability to do ).
I'm sure there was a case of a very senior cop who claimed he was so drunk he didn't know what he was doing.HTP99 said:
Sheepshanks said:
I always think it's a bit odd that the sentence varies with the consequences of the action. If, in one of those swerves, she'd hit and killed a pedestrian standing at the side of the road she'd have got a multi-year prison sentence.
You can't sentance someone based on what might have happened if the circumstances were different, she could have wiped out a bus stop full of kids if she had crashed into a bus stop full of kids, but she didn't crash into a bus stop full of kids.Where do you draw the line?
Sheepshanks said:
If, in one of those swerves, she'd hit and killed a pedestrian standing at the side of the road she'd have got a multi-year prison sentence.
Had there been pedestrians / cyclists / more traffic then perhaps her driving would have been different. I suspect that the open and relatively sparsely populated roads encouraged more speed than would have been comfortable otherwise.Osinjak said:
I don't think that's what he's saying. He's talking about the variation in sentencing based on the offence. I understand what he's said but it doesn't make sense; why wouldn't there be a variation on sentencing according to the criminal act? Otherwise one might argue that we should have a two year term for anything from dropping litter to mass murder. For the sake of discussion of course!
No, I'm saying it seems odd that the same piece of bad / drunk driving could have vastly different sentencing depending on what happens during that piece of bad driving. What happens is purely down to luck. So the sentence shouldn't depend on luck.speedking31 said:
ad there been pedestrians / cyclists / more traffic then perhaps her driving would have been different. I suspect that the open and relatively sparsely populated roads encouraged more speed than would have been comfortable otherwise.
She swerved (almost) around a couple of sets of active road-works in a built up area, and it would have been a bit unfortunate if someone had been retrieving an item from the boot of the car she crashed into.Sheepshanks said:
No, I'm saying it seems odd that the same piece of bad / drunk driving could have vastly different sentencing depending on what happens during that piece of bad driving. What happens is purely down to luck. So the sentence shouldn't depend on luck.
I get what you mean, but as HTP99 said, where then do you draw the line. Almost any criminal act could potentially result in a death if you add in enough "what ifs" into the scenario, so do we just give life sentences for everything? The most consistently fair (I didn't say perfect, you'll note) way of doing it is to prosecute and sentence based on what someone actually did, and what actually happened as a result.
HardtopManual said:
Two year ban isn't long enough. Someone with so little regard for others' safety, such poor judgment as to continue after driving clean off the road and such stupidity as to film it all deserves a much longer ban.
2 years is a big ban for a person in her position of responsibility. Willy Nilly said:
HardtopManual said:
Two year ban isn't long enough. Someone with so little regard for others' safety, such poor judgment as to continue after driving clean off the road and such stupidity as to film it all deserves a much longer ban.
2 years is a big ban for a person in her position of responsibility. 12 month, 18 month, 2 year ban etc, it's what drunk drivers get because this is how they drive when 3 times over the limit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff