Drink driver posts video from dash cam
Discussion
at the video.The Surveyor said:
The only difference between her drunk driving and every other drunk driver is that we can watch it via the dash-cam, this is how lots of drunk drivers drive which is why it already carries a more serious sentence that merely speeding, or passing a red light, or any other driving offence.
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.
You're dramatising it somewhat.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.
She was obviously drunk and the majority of other people would probably drive like her when drunk.
Being over the drink-drive limit doesn't equate to being drunk in the vast majority of cases.
And so most of those termed as drink-drivers will be doing it whilst nobody else is any the wiser, and also presenting little if no risk to anybody else.
NickofName said:
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.
It's the "what actually happened as a result" bit that I'm not comfortable with. You're being punished for the consequences, rather than the offence.A little mistake could kill someone and you'd get a hefty sentence. A really bad piece of driving but where no-one was injured could result in a trivial sentence.
Maybe that's OK. Just seems like we're focusing on the wrong thing.
Sheepshanks said:
It's the "what actually happened as a result" bit that I'm not comfortable with. You're being punished for the consequences, rather than the offence.
A little mistake could kill someone and you'd get a hefty sentence. A really bad piece of driving but where no-one was injured could result in a trivial sentence.
Maybe that's OK. Just seems like we're focusing on the wrong thing.
Your thinking on that is the same as mine. The thing you did wrong in two instances can be the same, but your luck or misfortune (and others) at the outcome can be massively different. You have control over the thing you do wrong, but not so much the outcome. A little mistake could kill someone and you'd get a hefty sentence. A really bad piece of driving but where no-one was injured could result in a trivial sentence.
Maybe that's OK. Just seems like we're focusing on the wrong thing.
I think it's odd that we quite happily make things illegal, like drink driving. No problems with that alone, but then strangely we add the outcome into the mix when it comes to sentencing.
cmaguire said:
The Surveyor said:
The only difference between her drunk driving and every other drunk driver is that we can watch it via the dash-cam, this is how lots of drunk drivers drive which is why it already carries a more serious sentence that merely speeding, or passing a red light, or any other driving offence.
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.
You're dramatising it somewhat.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.
She was obviously drunk and the majority of other people would probably drive like her when drunk.
Being over the drink-drive limit doesn't equate to being drunk in the vast majority of cases.
And so most of those termed as drink-drivers will be doing it whilst nobody else is any the wiser, and also presenting little if no risk to anybody else.
That is "very close" to where I live and I was on that road at about that time (clearly remember the oddly parked / abandoned dark estate on the duel carriage way verge and the chaps digging up the road). Didn't see her on the day or my car in her vid. It does make me think though.....
As an aside, a friend of my daughters has just been caught for drink driving. Similarly over the limit, but luckily was spotted and stopped by police before she had the accident. Lengthy ban and large fine. No community service. The really scary thing is, apparently "she used to do it all the time. We kept telling her to stop and not to drive". My daughter was in the car when she pulled and caught "because otherwise I would have had to pay for a taxi". Apart from being really stupid to get in the car with her, that is almost aiding and abetting. They could have shared the taxi and cost of it and both have (had) good jobs so the cost of a taxi would not have been the end of the world.
As an aside, a friend of my daughters has just been caught for drink driving. Similarly over the limit, but luckily was spotted and stopped by police before she had the accident. Lengthy ban and large fine. No community service. The really scary thing is, apparently "she used to do it all the time. We kept telling her to stop and not to drive". My daughter was in the car when she pulled and caught "because otherwise I would have had to pay for a taxi". Apart from being really stupid to get in the car with her, that is almost aiding and abetting. They could have shared the taxi and cost of it and both have (had) good jobs so the cost of a taxi would not have been the end of the world.
phil4 said:
Your thinking on that is the same as mine. The thing you did wrong in two instances can be the same, but your luck or misfortune (and others) at the outcome can be massively different. You have control over the thing you do wrong, but not so much the outcome.
I think it's odd that we quite happily make things illegal, like drink driving. No problems with that alone, but then strangely we add the outcome into the mix when it comes to sentencing.
There should be real consequence considered.I think it's odd that we quite happily make things illegal, like drink driving. No problems with that alone, but then strangely we add the outcome into the mix when it comes to sentencing.
Consider 3 cases:
Her case where she is 3x the limit and obviously unfit to drive and crashes at the end, but also knocks someone down putting them in hospital.
Someone else 3x the limit also obviously unfit to drive but isn't stopped until they pull up on their drive without actual incident.
And the last one that is 3x the limit, no obvious signs from the driving, gets pulled up on a random stop and is breathalized as they smell of alcohol.
All punished the same?
Crazy in my book.
Or it turns out like this horrendous waste of a human being - can we not just euthanise pieces of crap like this person? Just out of prison, extensive criminal record, no insurance, no driving licence, on cocaine and he does this...
https://news.sky.com/story/hit-and-run-driver-robe...
I mean he will be out again within 5 or 6 and probably do it all over again. Who is the next victim because of a legal system not fit for purpose for properly punishing child killers like Robert Brown?
https://news.sky.com/story/hit-and-run-driver-robe...
I mean he will be out again within 5 or 6 and probably do it all over again. Who is the next victim because of a legal system not fit for purpose for properly punishing child killers like Robert Brown?
Sheepshanks said:
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.One is clearly worse than the other in its consequences so why shouldn't the punishment be different? It isn't luck at all, far from it and is entirely dependent on what happens during that piece of bad driving.
Are you saying that SPA should get the same sentence as SPB because he could have killed someone? If you are, you're barking up the wrong tree old son.
Edited by Osinjak on Saturday 28th April 09:51
Let's spell this out for those that are having trouble understanding what punishment for crimes is based on what actually happens, not what might have happened.
You go out on the street with a gun threatening people.
A) the police talk you out of it. You go down for armed assault / threatening behaviour, for , let's say, 8 years.
B) you shoot 10 people. You go down for life.
Now all the people who are saying the drunk woman should have had a harsher punishment because she could have killed someone - are you also saying that the person above should have got punishment (B) regardless of the outcome ? Bacuase if you are then your world would be one made mostly of prisons, a very unhappy place with no second chances.
You go out on the street with a gun threatening people.
A) the police talk you out of it. You go down for armed assault / threatening behaviour, for , let's say, 8 years.
B) you shoot 10 people. You go down for life.
Now all the people who are saying the drunk woman should have had a harsher punishment because she could have killed someone - are you also saying that the person above should have got punishment (B) regardless of the outcome ? Bacuase if you are then your world would be one made mostly of prisons, a very unhappy place with no second chances.
RogerDodger said:
You go out on the street with a gun threatening people.
A) the police talk you out of it. You go down for armed assault / threatening behaviour, for , let's say, 8 years.
B) you shoot 10 people. You go down for life.
That’s like persuading the drunk woman not to drive.A) the police talk you out of it. You go down for armed assault / threatening behaviour, for , let's say, 8 years.
B) you shoot 10 people. You go down for life.
How would it be if both people with guns had fired them multiple times, but one didn’t hit anyone?
Sheepshanks said:
That’s like persuading the drunk woman not to drive.
How would it be if both people with guns had fired them multiple times, but one didn’t hit anyone?
If the police had persuaded her not to drive, she'd have still been done for drunk in charge, assuming she had the keys and intent to drive. I'm not sure how ti's relevant though.How would it be if both people with guns had fired them multiple times, but one didn’t hit anyone?
As for the shooting - exactly - one would be done for attempted murder, one for murder. The former sentence being considerably less than the latter. And that's the whole point. What you actually do, and what you might have done are different things. You could take it to the extreme ane ban every single speeder now because they "might" lose control and kill someone.
It seems inconsistent that something as dangerous as this doesn't earn a custodial sentence when people have received prison time for speeding (when the speed is sufficiently high that the CPS believe it's dangerous driving).
I am surprised that they elected to go after her with drink driving when those stunts around the workmen would easily pass the test for dangerous driving and could have earned her 6 months inside.
I am surprised that they elected to go after her with drink driving when those stunts around the workmen would easily pass the test for dangerous driving and could have earned her 6 months inside.
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 ).
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.
Do you not think that the sentence seems disproportionately light, considering that other IMHO less dangerous driving offences (150mph on a deserted motorway in the middle of nowhere for example) will land you in jail?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.
"Sorry, I was pissed, I didn't know what I was doing" isn't a defence for other crimes; why should it be a defence for this one? Most people manage to not get legless, get in a car and drive like a tw*t, so we can hardly blame society's acceptance of easily-available alcohol.
If the drunk driver had got p*ssed up and done anything remotely as dangerous with something other than a car, she'd be behind bars. If I wanted to kill someone, I'd run them over and claim it was an error of judgement.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff