Harsh DD penalty?
Discussion
Afternoon, looking for your opinions.
A friend of mine (no, not me) was done for DD the other week. I appreciate that there is NO excuse for this, she was 2x over the limit but driving within the speed limit etc and was picked up on a spot check (4am). She has taken it all quite well, but her punishment was a 2 year ban but also 6 months probabtion (against the advice of the probabtion officer in court). I have never heard of this and it sounds quite ridiculous - it escalates the offence from a driving offence to a criminal record apparently. I appreciate that there will not be much sympathy, but I do feel this is a really harsh penalty for a stupid act that she admitted to etc.
Bill
A friend of mine (no, not me) was done for DD the other week. I appreciate that there is NO excuse for this, she was 2x over the limit but driving within the speed limit etc and was picked up on a spot check (4am). She has taken it all quite well, but her punishment was a 2 year ban but also 6 months probabtion (against the advice of the probabtion officer in court). I have never heard of this and it sounds quite ridiculous - it escalates the offence from a driving offence to a criminal record apparently. I appreciate that there will not be much sympathy, but I do feel this is a really harsh penalty for a stupid act that she admitted to etc.
Bill
billflin said:
but I do feel this is a really harsh penalty for a stupid act that she admitted to etc.
Bill
Hello Bill...
I don't think it's harsh in the slightest....and doubt if there will be many PHers who will sympathise either...
Do you believe that the fact the admitted it, should be viewed as some sort of saintly act? She could have admitted it, or deny it. However, if there is proof of her guilt, doesn't really matter whether she admits it or not, or even if she can't remember it as she was so drunk...
Lets hope the inconvenience of the next couple of years will give her time to reflect....
Pretty much what can be expected these days.
If she had been unfortunate enough to have been in an collision where someone died in her state, she could have been looking at several years stripey daylight!
She has not been dealt with too harshly. If however she feels that she has, if she appeals within the statutory time limit (14 days from conviction), then she may get the sentence reduced!
If she had been unfortunate enough to have been in an collision where someone died in her state, she could have been looking at several years stripey daylight!
She has not been dealt with too harshly. If however she feels that she has, if she appeals within the statutory time limit (14 days from conviction), then she may get the sentence reduced!
I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear. The ban is fine (too light in my opinion) but probabtion does increase the impact of the sentence - arguably above a longer ban etc. It is quite a serious thing to be put on probabtion, and escalates the penalty greatly. That is what I think is harsh.
Although I don't believe that admitting something when you are wrong is 'saintly', it does save considerable hassle for the courts in some cases. Put another way, which is better, lie and deny or admit that you are wrong?
Although I don't believe that admitting something when you are wrong is 'saintly', it does save considerable hassle for the courts in some cases. Put another way, which is better, lie and deny or admit that you are wrong?
billflin said:
I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear. The ban is fine (too light in my opinion) but probabtion does increase the impact of the sentence - arguably above a longer ban etc. It is quite a serious thing to be put on probabtion, and escalates the penalty greatly. That is what I think is harsh.
Although I don't believe that admitting something when you are wrong is 'saintly', it does save considerable hassle for the courts in some cases. Put another way, which is better, lie and deny or admit that you are wrong?
lie and deny it=...perhaps 3 years ban and longer probation....
Not much sympathy I'm affraid. Drunk drivers put themselves, and more importantly (in my mind) others in danger.
We all know the limits, there's no excuse.
One thing I have noticed though, is the sentences do seem to be a bit inconsistent at times ie a mate of mine got stopped for his third drink drive offence (luckily for him the last one was more than ten years ago), and he got 20 months, with 5 off for attending a drink awareness programme. Compare that with your mates situation?
Phil
We all know the limits, there's no excuse.
One thing I have noticed though, is the sentences do seem to be a bit inconsistent at times ie a mate of mine got stopped for his third drink drive offence (luckily for him the last one was more than ten years ago), and he got 20 months, with 5 off for attending a drink awareness programme. Compare that with your mates situation?
Phil
Phil,
Yep, it does seem very inconsistent. It was her first offence.
Please don't think that I in any way support DD - the risks that it causes and the ease in avoiding it do make it inexcusable. However I still think that probabtion is harsh in the circumstances. It is all well and good saying that she deserves no sympathy, and I agree, but the punishment must fit the crime - in this case, I don't believe that it does. In fact I wasn't even aware that you could be put on probation for DD.
Yep, it does seem very inconsistent. It was her first offence.
Please don't think that I in any way support DD - the risks that it causes and the ease in avoiding it do make it inexcusable. However I still think that probabtion is harsh in the circumstances. It is all well and good saying that she deserves no sympathy, and I agree, but the punishment must fit the crime - in this case, I don't believe that it does. In fact I wasn't even aware that you could be put on probation for DD.
Don said:
Sorry mate. But 2x the limit is not a "mistake". 1.1x the limit might well be. But 2x is knowingly driving whilst inebriated.
WHilst I appreciate her punishment may seem harsh - the consequences could have been so much worse.
I think she must just accept it and move on.
agreed. if you hear of anyone questioning DD punishment - ie, the usual "but i was fine" - here's a little game for them that i have successfully tried on a few such friends (note i tried it on myself 1st as i think i was in danger of potentially becoming complacent about a glass or two too many and driving):
load your playstation or xbox with your chosen driving game - at start of a sober evening race one another and record your times and accidents. try same races as evening goes by and more booze is imbibed and in 100% of cases you will see more and more accidents, and so much much slower "race" times, etc. after a few drinks very few people can even finish the race without dozens of "accidents".
i think they should adopt this type of training at senior school. ok this means giving 16+ yr olds a drink or two, but it would set one hell of an example. hey, they drink anyway and will drive anyway so at least show them what a danger they can be when combined.
thankfully this test is all on a console in the safety of your living room, not on the road. if you can't handle a virtual drive in your living room after some drinks, how can anyone think they can safely handle a ton or so of metal at 40+ mph on the road?
not a lecture, just a sobering (no pun intended) thought.
ttfn
I wasn't either Bill.
When my mate got stopped he was 2.5 times over,it was his third drink driving offence in 18 years. If I recall correctly, he got 2 years for his second offence. I was expecting him to be disqualified for at least 5 years, and taking his test again. That would have been appropriate, especially as the pub he drove away from is only 500 yards from his house (albeit up a steep hill). If he'd called a taxi, it wouldn't even have got off the "moving off" charge
IMHO, that should be grounds for a more severe sentence.
Phil
When my mate got stopped he was 2.5 times over,it was his third drink driving offence in 18 years. If I recall correctly, he got 2 years for his second offence. I was expecting him to be disqualified for at least 5 years, and taking his test again. That would have been appropriate, especially as the pub he drove away from is only 500 yards from his house (albeit up a steep hill). If he'd called a taxi, it wouldn't even have got off the "moving off" charge
IMHO, that should be grounds for a more severe sentence.
Phil
egoboss said:
Sorry mate. But 2x the limit is not a "mistake". 1.1x the limit might well be. But 2x is knowingly driving whilst inebriated.
WHilst I appreciate her punishment may seem harsh - the consequences could have been so much worse.
I think she must just accept it and move on.
agreed. if you hear of anyone questioning DD punishment - ie, the usual "but i was fine" - here's a little game for them that i have successfully tried on a few such friends (note i tried it on myself 1st as i think i was in danger of potentially becoming complacent about a glass or two too many and driving):
load your playstation or xbox with your chosen driving game - at start of a sober evening race one another and record your times and accidents. try same races as evening goes by and more booze is imbibed and in 100% of cases you will see more and more accidents, and so much much slower "race" times, etc. after a few drinks very few people can even finish the race without dozens of "accidents".
i think they should adopt this type of training at senior school. ok this means giving 16+ yr olds a drink or two, but it would set one hell of an example. hey, they drink anyway and will drive anyway so at least show them what a danger they can be when combined.
thankfully this test is all on a console in the safety of your living room, not on the road. if you can't handle a virtual drive in your living room after some drinks, how can anyone think they can safely handle a ton or so of metal at 40+ mph on the road?
not a lecture, just a sobering (no pun intended) thought.
ttfn
Doesn't bode well for me then, as I can't even play most of my games properly until I'm sozzled.
Never D&D though - not even one for the road. Although have had instances some 'mornings after the night before' where I 'felt' like I might be over the limit and used public shamsport instead.
twice the limit,
that's 70 miniweasels per teaspoon or something.
Which is about 4-5 pints (ish)in your system at the time (maybe less depending on her build)
IN YOUR SYSTEM. She can't drink 4-5 instantly of course and you get rid of half a pint an hour (ish)
So it was likely that she'd had far more than 4-5 pints then drove.
Mr beak should have picked up the book, and taken aim IMHO.
>> Edited by bryan35 on Tuesday 22 February 13:02
that's 70 miniweasels per teaspoon or something.
Which is about 4-5 pints (ish)in your system at the time (maybe less depending on her build)
IN YOUR SYSTEM. She can't drink 4-5 instantly of course and you get rid of half a pint an hour (ish)
So it was likely that she'd had far more than 4-5 pints then drove.
Mr beak should have picked up the book, and taken aim IMHO.
>> Edited by bryan35 on Tuesday 22 February 13:02
billflin said:
Phil,
Yep, it does seem very inconsistent. It was her first offence.
Please don't think that I in any way support DD - the risks that it causes and the ease in avoiding it do make it inexcusable. However I still think that probabtion is harsh in the circumstances. It is all well and good saying that she deserves no sympathy, and I agree, but the punishment must fit the crime - in this case, I don't believe that it does. In fact I wasn't even aware that you could be put on probation for DD.
Not only can you be put on probation for it, you can be put inside for it!
DD is, I believe, a criminal offence in itself, so having a probation order as well as the ban does not escalate the level of the offence, only the level of the penalty which, at 2x over, is unacceptable to most people.
Now she's got a criminal record, she's got a constant reminder not to do it again. The sentence highlights how seriously society feels about drink drivers.
Perhaps she should have found out about the likely sentence would be before committing what everybody knows is a crime ie. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Perhaps she should have found out about the likely sentence would be before committing what everybody knows is a crime ie. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
billflin said:
I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear. The ban is fine (too light in my opinion) but probabtion does increase the impact of the sentence - arguably above a longer ban etc. It is quite a serious thing to be put on probabtion, and escalates the penalty greatly. That is what I think is harsh.
Someone I know got the 2yr ban and a 12 month probation period, so perhaps she actually got of lightly. !?
>> Edited by M@H on Tuesday 22 February 13:11
m-five said:
Doesn't bode well for me then, as I can't even play most of my games properly until I'm sozzled.
Never D&D though - not even one for the road. Although have had instances some 'mornings after the night before' where I 'felt' like I might be over the limit and used public shamsport instead.
lol, nor me - but i can certainly fare a lot better when sober - if playing after a few drinks, i crash even more than colin mcrae!
re: public shamsport theme - you may like this little tribute to london undergound - some language but very funny and true. even better if you are already familiar with the jam's excellent "going underground" original tune.
http://empty.typepad.com/february30th/files/londonunderground.mp3
ttfn!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff