Oh great, another thread for CL's authoritarians to flex their justice biceps in :P
I take it you don't know anyone who's been killed by someone else drink driving?
Think about those people who have maybe a family member who was just on their way home when some idiot decided to drink and drive and killed them.
Think about the family of those people who see the person who killed their family member get given a short sentence they get let out early a few hours community service and will be back driving in a couple of years. They'll probably ignore the ban anyway (85% of people banned for drink driving carry on driving).
In my view if you kill someone through being drunk in charge of a vehicle it should be considered murder and you get life. No other way to look at it.
This woman was lucky not to kill herself (frankly I couldn't care less) but more lucky not to kill her child or another innocent. Could easily have happened and they should throw away the key.
Never ever any excuse.
Of course not but justice is meted out for things that happened, not things that could have
But why, when the actions of the perpetrator are the same?
Chap who sparked Barkley yesterday - do we give him the same sentence as those who one-punch killed their victim? Obviously not. Justice has to reflect the outcome of the perpetration.
No, but I think 3-4 years in prison would stop 99.9% of people doing things like that.
We are too lenient in general. Not enough deterrents. Prisons should be tougher so no one wants to go back. In my opinion of course.
Not that she shouldn't serve 10 years in the case of her child dying, but don't you think the child dying would be in some way part of the punishment and the deterrent?
Meanwhile, you want some sort of Byzantine macho warlord hell instead of jail - like that'll reform people
That's not quite what I said but ok... Surely if something is unpleasant then people will be less keen on going back, thus putting themselves in fewer situations that may cause a return. Makes sense to me anyway.
I think the greater incentive to not go back would be if our prisons actually worked on reforming their inmates so the cycle of reoffending was broken and they became productive members of society. I don't believe there's much of a link between "tough" prisons and reoffending rates, probably the opposite.
35 years ago I sat an English O level exam & one of the questions was ...." half the world is overweight whilst the other half is starving - discuss". I suggested that the prison population could spend their time building houses & infrastructure for the poor & needy like the chain gangs in the USA did years back. I stand by this today.
Secondary Reaction (because I have to have my say on everything, no one should be surprised by now): 1) I suspect that increasing punishment as a deterrent has a point of diminishing returns. This is something that comes up when we talk about the death penalty here: it does not stop murder, and at times murder has increased in areas that have the death penalty (I'll. 2) Keep in mind this is one example of type of offense 3) We're starting to have conversation about Criminal Justice/Prison reform here (one of the things I'm really proud of in this country), and it's worth remembering that prison should be in large part there to help change and reform people. Of course there is part of it that is "a debt to society," a time served in penance, but I believe that should only be part of the equation.
We are too lenient in general. Not enough deterrents. Prisons should be tougher so no one wants to go back. In my opinion of course.
Have you been inside a prison recently. The inmates are brutalising or brutalised. A huge number come out scarred for life. The majority have mental health and/or drug and alcohol problems. A disproportionate number have come through the care system. If prisons were tougher we would simply be creating even more people damaged beyond help. It really fuck me off when the idea that prison is some sort of soft option is perpetuated. Our prisons are a disgrace.
There's no defence for drink driving. But three things ought to be taken into consideration, in terms of mitigation. First, she pleaded guilty, saving the courts and police both time and expense; second, she was over the limit not because she had been out drinking that day, but because she had been drinking the night before (which of us knows that we have always been below the limit; and which of us are kidding ourselves?); and third, she was of previous "good character", that is, it wasn't something she has a hatful of convictions for in the past.
She'll be doing time, which, of course, is designed to do three things: punish, protect the public and rehabilitate. The first two are given. I hope, when she's out, and when she's finally - if ever - given the privelege of holding a driving licence again, she's uses that privelege properly.
Other people on this thread think her sentence is unduly lenient, even though no-one was hurt. But it's a punishment to at least three people (her, her child and her husband). Every single day and night of that sentence, she will be regretting the shere, selfish stupidity of what she did. I hope when she comes out, she can go back to leading a law-abiding life
Have to agree with @Wheresmeticket's post a couple up. This idea that a tough, hostile prison environment will turn out rehabilitated, too-scared-to-return ex-offenders back into society is quite frankly a load of crap and is in fact likely to create angrier, more anti-social individuals. Yes there has to be discipline and punishments available to be used in prison and there is but sparse conditions, bread and water and breaking rocks in the midday sun for all is most definitely NOT the answer.
Guys I'm not talking about a rough hostile environment, simply a boring one. No tvs, no playstations, no pool tables etc. Just books. Prison should not be enjoyable.
35 years ago I sat an English O level exam & one of the questions was ...." half the world is overweight whilst the other half is starving - discuss". I suggested that the prison population could spend their time building houses & infrastructure for the poor & needy like the chain gangs in the USA did years back. I stand by this today.
I got a B grade.
I sat my O Level English exam 33 years ago. I went to the pub first and had a few beers.
35 years ago I sat an English O level exam & one of the questions was ...." half the world is overweight whilst the other half is starving - discuss". I suggested that the prison population could spend their time building houses & infrastructure for the poor & needy like the chain gangs in the USA did years back. I stand by this today.
I got a B grade.
I'd say the exam marking was definitely too lenient there.
A couple of years ago, i went too a fatal RTA in Well Hall Road. The driver who was disabled (leg amputated due to a previous crash caused by a drink driver, where she was the innocent victim) had now crashed her car and killed someone because she was over the limit. So, she had lost a leg because of drink driving, yet she didn't learn and killed someone because she was drunk, yet we still think that people ever learn? I don't think so.
And herein lies the dilemma. Did either of those accidents happened because those drivers would have failed the breath test or would it have happened anyway? Because they were just crap drivers? Should crap drivers - and you see them every hour of every day - be subject to the same penalties as some are suggesting here for those over the limit? ("Over the limit" does not necessarily mean drunk in my opinion). If not why not? A friend's daughter has just passed her test after 17 attempts. The fact that she is on the road frightens me more than the idea of someone driving after a couple of pints frankly. If you fail more than three tests you should be banned for life. Some people just can't do it properly, drunk or sober. Another friend's son has dyspraxia. That's developmental coordination disorder for those that don't know. He's a mathematical genius but can't catch a ball. He drives but can only manage an automatic because his feet can't do different things at different times. Should he be on the road at all? Anyway, this thread, aided and abetted by me, has gone all Daily Mail and is therefore disturbing in the extreme.
Guys I'm not talking about a rough hostile environment, simply a boring one. No tvs, no playstations, no pool tables etc. Just books. Prison should not be enjoyable.
Call me a contrarian if you like. But I'd say somewhere with books but none of the other gimcracks you mention would be the exact opposite of boring.
Guys I'm not talking about a rough hostile environment, simply a boring one. No tvs, no playstations, no pool tables etc. Just books. Prison should not be enjoyable.
Call me a contrarian if you like. But I'd say somewhere with books but none of the other gimcracks you mention would be the exact opposite of boring.
I had a feeling someone would say that, but I think you'd agree for most prisoners that wouldn't be the case.
Guys I'm not talking about a rough hostile environment, simply a boring one. No tvs, no playstations, no pool tables etc. Just books. Prison should not be enjoyable.
Call me a contrarian if you like. But I'd say somewhere with books but none of the other gimcracks you mention would be the exact opposite of boring.
I had a feeling someone would say that, but I think you'd agree for most prisoners that wouldn't be the case.
Yes. Particularly as prison inmates have shockingly low literacy levels. Apparently two thirds of prisoners have a reading age of an 11 year old or less.
Guys I'm not talking about a rough hostile environment, simply a boring one. No tvs, no playstations, no pool tables etc. Just books. Prison should not be enjoyable.
Call me a contrarian if you like. But I'd say somewhere with books but none of the other gimcracks you mention would be the exact opposite of boring.
I had a feeling someone would say that, but I think you'd agree for most prisoners that wouldn't be the case.
Yes. Particularly as prison inmates have shockingly low literacy levels. Apparently two thirds of prisoners have a reading age of an 11 year old or less.
35 years ago I sat an English O level exam & one of the questions was ...." half the world is overweight whilst the other half is starving - discuss". I suggested that the prison population could spend their time building houses & infrastructure for the poor & needy like the chain gangs in the USA did years back. I stand by this today.
I got a B grade.
I'm surprised you got a 'B'. You didn't address the statement. I got an 'A' in pedantry.
There's no defence for drink driving. But three things ought to be taken into consideration, in terms of mitigation. First, she pleaded guilty, saving the courts and police both time and expense; second, she was over the limit not because she had been out drinking that day, but because she had been drinking the night before (which of us knows that we have always been below the limit; and which of us are kidding ourselves?); and third, she was of previous "good character", that is, it wasn't something she has a hatful of convictions for in the past.
She'll be doing time, which, of course, is designed to do three things: punish, protect the public and rehabilitate. The first two are given. I hope, when she's out, and when she's finally - if ever - given the privelege of holding a driving licence again, she's uses that privelege properly.
Other people on this thread think her sentence is unduly lenient, even though no-one was hurt. But it's a punishment to at least three people (her, her child and her husband). Every single day and night of that sentence, she will be regretting the shere, selfish stupidity of what she did. I hope when she comes out, she can go back to leading a law-abiding life
I'm sorry but there's no way someone can be 3 times the limit from drinking the night before without topping it up during that day. It's just physically impossible. It's not like she was just over the limit from the previous days drinking (still not excusable) she was 3 times the limit. That requires a lot of drinking in the couple of hours immediately before the test. Given there is usually a couple of hours between the roadside test and the official test back at the nick she had to have been drinking just before.
Not buying that. And the police won't have either.
Really does depend on the circumstances. I think justice/punishment is one area where my left leaning politics probably go out the window.
As an example, that group of youths that attacked the asylum seeker the other week in Croydon. The main perpetrators I would have up on attempted murder, not causing actual bodily harm.
I don't care how young they are or whether or not they intended to go that far, to do what they did was despicable and for me I would like to see those particularly responsible serve long prison sentences
There's no defence for drink driving. But three things ought to be taken into consideration, in terms of mitigation. First, she pleaded guilty, saving the courts and police both time and expense; second, she was over the limit not because she had been out drinking that day, but because she had been drinking the night before (which of us knows that we have always been below the limit; and which of us are kidding ourselves?); and third, she was of previous "good character", that is, it wasn't something she has a hatful of convictions for in the past.
She'll be doing time, which, of course, is designed to do three things: punish, protect the public and rehabilitate. The first two are given. I hope, when she's out, and when she's finally - if ever - given the privelege of holding a driving licence again, she's uses that privelege properly.
Other people on this thread think her sentence is unduly lenient, even though no-one was hurt. But it's a punishment to at least three people (her, her child and her husband). Every single day and night of that sentence, she will be regretting the shere, selfish stupidity of what she did. I hope when she comes out, she can go back to leading a law-abiding life
I'm sorry but there's no way someone can be 3 times the limit from drinking the night before without topping it up during that day. It's just physically impossible. It's not like she was just over the limit from the previous days drinking (still not excusable) she was 3 times the limit. That requires a lot of drinking in the couple of hours immediately before the test. Given there is usually a couple of hours between the roadside test and the official test back at the nick she had to have been drinking just before.
Not buying that. And the police won't have either.
Just setting out the facts of the case, as set out.
She claimed - and wasn't challenged - that she had been drinking the previous night, until about 1:00am and that she hadn't had a drink that day.
There is no evidence that she'd been drinking immediately prior to the accident. (It's a bit worrying that some people think it's not possible still to be three times over the limit late in the morning after a heavy session the night before).
She refused a roadside breath test and had a blood test later, with her reading at the time of the accident based on a count back.
Guys I'm not talking about a rough hostile environment, simply a boring one. No tvs, no playstations, no pool tables etc. Just books. Prison should not be enjoyable.
The problem is that prison IS a rough hostile environment. A few individuals use all the tools they did to get them there - controlling, abusive, violent, and those individuals set the scene for everyone else with the most aggressive and manipulative coming out on top. The rest then go on to learn to use those tools, inside and out, to survive in that environment.
We know the prison system is already in crisis with experienced staff getting out as soon as they can and high levels of sickness due to stress, leading to prisoners being more likely to being locked up for very long periods, or "supervised" free association being inadequately supervised. Drug use is endemic in prisons, with novel psychoactive drug use rampant and difficult to detect. These substances can be incredibly damaging to mental and physical health and are used by prisoners to control other prisoners. Inevitably the most vulnerable suffer the most.
Anyway. Not what this thread is about. I suggest this woman needs treatment for her alcohol problems and supervision at the very least for her children from social services. She should not be given her driving licence back until that treatment is shown to be effective.
There's no defence for drink driving. But three things ought to be taken into consideration, in terms of mitigation. First, she pleaded guilty, saving the courts and police both time and expense; second, she was over the limit not because she had been out drinking that day, but because she had been drinking the night before (which of us knows that we have always been below the limit; and which of us are kidding ourselves?); and third, she was of previous "good character", that is, it wasn't something she has a hatful of convictions for in the past.
She'll be doing time, which, of course, is designed to do three things: punish, protect the public and rehabilitate. The first two are given. I hope, when she's out, and when she's finally - if ever - given the privelege of holding a driving licence again, she's uses that privelege properly.
Other people on this thread think her sentence is unduly lenient, even though no-one was hurt. But it's a punishment to at least three people (her, her child and her husband). Every single day and night of that sentence, she will be regretting the shere, selfish stupidity of what she did. I hope when she comes out, she can go back to leading a law-abiding life
I'm sorry but there's no way someone can be 3 times the limit from drinking the night before without topping it up during that day. It's just physically impossible. It's not like she was just over the limit from the previous days drinking (still not excusable) she was 3 times the limit. That requires a lot of drinking in the couple of hours immediately before the test. Given there is usually a couple of hours between the roadside test and the official test back at the nick she had to have been drinking just before.
Not buying that. And the police won't have either.
Just setting out the facts of the case, as set out.
She claimed - and wasn't challenged - that she had been drinking the previous night, until about 1:00am and that she hadn't had a drink that day.
There is no evidence that she'd been drinking immediately prior to the accident. (It's a bit worrying that some people think it's not possible still to be three times over the limit late in the morning after a heavy session the night before).
She refused a roadside breath test and had a blood test later, with her reading at the time of the accident based on a count back.
Except how I read it it wasn't the morning after it was late afternoon through next day. I'd that not correct?
It is possible to be well over the limit immediately you wake up the next morning although difficult to be that far over the limit. By the afternoon impossible. I may have read the details wrong.
There's no defence for drink driving. But three things ought to be taken into consideration, in terms of mitigation. First, she pleaded guilty, saving the courts and police both time and expense; second, she was over the limit not because she had been out drinking that day, but because she had been drinking the night before (which of us knows that we have always been below the limit; and which of us are kidding ourselves?); and third, she was of previous "good character", that is, it wasn't something she has a hatful of convictions for in the past.
She'll be doing time, which, of course, is designed to do three things: punish, protect the public and rehabilitate. The first two are given. I hope, when she's out, and when she's finally - if ever - given the privelege of holding a driving licence again, she's uses that privelege properly.
Other people on this thread think her sentence is unduly lenient, even though no-one was hurt. But it's a punishment to at least three people (her, her child and her husband). Every single day and night of that sentence, she will be regretting the shere, selfish stupidity of what she did. I hope when she comes out, she can go back to leading a law-abiding life
I'm sorry but there's no way someone can be 3 times the limit from drinking the night before without topping it up during that day. It's just physically impossible. It's not like she was just over the limit from the previous days drinking (still not excusable) she was 3 times the limit. That requires a lot of drinking in the couple of hours immediately before the test. Given there is usually a couple of hours between the roadside test and the official test back at the nick she had to have been drinking just before.
Not buying that. And the police won't have either.
Just setting out the facts of the case, as set out.
She claimed - and wasn't challenged - that she had been drinking the previous night, until about 1:00am and that she hadn't had a drink that day.
There is no evidence that she'd been drinking immediately prior to the accident. (It's a bit worrying that some people think it's not possible still to be three times over the limit late in the morning after a heavy session the night before).
She refused a roadside breath test and had a blood test later, with her reading at the time of the accident based on a count back.
Except how I read it it wasn't the morning after it was late afternoon through next day. I'd that not correct?
It is possible to be well over the limit immediately you wake up the next morning although difficult to be that far over the limit. By the afternoon impossible. I may have read the details wrong.
There's no defence for drink driving. But three things ought to be taken into consideration, in terms of mitigation. First, she pleaded guilty, saving the courts and police both time and expense; second, she was over the limit not because she had been out drinking that day, but because she had been drinking the night before (which of us knows that we have always been below the limit; and which of us are kidding ourselves?); and third, she was of previous "good character", that is, it wasn't something she has a hatful of convictions for in the past.
She'll be doing time, which, of course, is designed to do three things: punish, protect the public and rehabilitate. The first two are given. I hope, when she's out, and when she's finally - if ever - given the privelege of holding a driving licence again, she's uses that privelege properly.
Other people on this thread think her sentence is unduly lenient, even though no-one was hurt. But it's a punishment to at least three people (her, her child and her husband). Every single day and night of that sentence, she will be regretting the shere, selfish stupidity of what she did. I hope when she comes out, she can go back to leading a law-abiding life
I'm sorry but there's no way someone can be 3 times the limit from drinking the night before without topping it up during that day. It's just physically impossible. It's not like she was just over the limit from the previous days drinking (still not excusable) she was 3 times the limit. That requires a lot of drinking in the couple of hours immediately before the test. Given there is usually a couple of hours between the roadside test and the official test back at the nick she had to have been drinking just before.
Not buying that. And the police won't have either.
Just setting out the facts of the case, as set out.
She claimed - and wasn't challenged - that she had been drinking the previous night, until about 1:00am and that she hadn't had a drink that day.
There is no evidence that she'd been drinking immediately prior to the accident. (It's a bit worrying that some people think it's not possible still to be three times over the limit late in the morning after a heavy session the night before).
She refused a roadside breath test and had a blood test later, with her reading at the time of the accident based on a count back.
Except how I read it it wasn't the morning after it was late afternoon through next day. I'd that not correct?
It is possible to be well over the limit immediately you wake up the next morning although difficult to be that far over the limit. By the afternoon impossible. I may have read the details wrong.
Sorry but that is utter bobbins. Let's say, for example, she drank a bottle of vodka the night before. That's 28 units of alcohol. The UK limit for driving is 2-3 units for a woman. Three times the legal limit is therefore 6-9 units. Let's say 9 to be on the (un)safe side. So 28 units, less 9 = 19 units. It takes 1 hour per unit to get rid of alcohol so that's 19 hours at best from the time she started drinking to the time she was breathalysed, which was 11.40am, before she is even less than 3 times the legal limit, let alone safe to drive.
If she stopped drinking at 1am and wasn't tested until 11.40 am she would have been borderline at worse. The fact that she was three times the limit tells me she is telling pokies. I can't believe she wasn't challenged over this
I would say potentially killing an innocent, whether it was her child or somebody elses should be the deterrent! The extreme deterrent surely has to be aimed at everybody who drink drives, rather than just those that have an accident. If they know they will get 3 months, even if they don't have an accident - that should stop people doing it.
If she stopped drinking at 1am and wasn't tested until 11.40 am she would have been borderline at worse. The fact that she was three times the limit tells me she is telling pokies. I can't believe she wasn't challenged over this
Not to mention:
(a) Her refusal to do the breathalyser at the scene suggests she was aware that she was incapable of driving in her current state;
(b) There was a (open, if I recall correctly) container of Vodka in the car with her at the scene.
I will admit that my perspective on this is that of a non-driver, but I hardly think a prison term for being caught drink-driving is the way forward. Lengthier driving bans, however, are.
Comments
I got a B grade.
1) I suspect that increasing punishment as a deterrent has a point of diminishing returns. This is something that comes up when we talk about the death penalty here: it does not stop murder, and at times murder has increased in areas that have the death penalty (I'll.
2) Keep in mind this is one example of type of offense
3) We're starting to have conversation about Criminal Justice/Prison reform here (one of the things I'm really proud of in this country), and it's worth remembering that prison should be in large part there to help change and reform people. Of course there is part of it that is "a debt to society," a time served in penance, but I believe that should only be part of the equation.
She'll be doing time, which, of course, is designed to do three things: punish, protect the public and rehabilitate. The first two are given. I hope, when she's out, and when she's finally - if ever - given the privelege of holding a driving licence again, she's uses that privelege properly.
Other people on this thread think her sentence is unduly lenient, even though no-one was hurt. But it's a punishment to at least three people (her, her child and her husband). Every single day and night of that sentence, she will be regretting the shere, selfish stupidity of what she did. I hope when she comes out, she can go back to leading a law-abiding life
I got a B grade too.
Anyway, this thread, aided and abetted by me, has gone all Daily Mail and is therefore disturbing in the extreme.
I got an 'A' in pedantry.
Not buying that. And the police won't have either.
As for her the child etc not straightforward what is best for the child, and that should be the primary concern imho
As an example, that group of youths that attacked the asylum seeker the other week in Croydon. The main perpetrators I would have up on attempted murder, not causing actual bodily harm.
I don't care how young they are or whether or not they intended to go that far, to do what they did was despicable and for me I would like to see those particularly responsible serve long prison sentences
She claimed - and wasn't challenged - that she had been drinking the previous night, until about 1:00am and that she hadn't had a drink that day.
There is no evidence that she'd been drinking immediately prior to the accident. (It's a bit worrying that some people think it's not possible still to be three times over the limit late in the morning after a heavy session the night before).
She refused a roadside breath test and had a blood test later, with her reading at the time of the accident based on a count back.
We know the prison system is already in crisis with experienced staff getting out as soon as they can and high levels of sickness due to stress, leading to prisoners being more likely to being locked up for very long periods, or "supervised" free association being inadequately supervised. Drug use is endemic in prisons, with novel psychoactive drug use rampant and difficult to detect. These substances can be incredibly damaging to mental and physical health and are used by prisoners to control other prisoners. Inevitably the most vulnerable suffer the most.
Anyway. Not what this thread is about. I suggest this woman needs treatment for her alcohol problems and supervision at the very least for her children from social services. She should not be given her driving licence back until that treatment is shown to be effective.
It is possible to be well over the limit immediately you wake up the next morning although difficult to be that far over the limit. By the afternoon impossible. I may have read the details wrong.
The fact that she was three times the limit tells me she is telling pokies.
I can't believe she wasn't challenged over this
(a) Her refusal to do the breathalyser at the scene suggests she was aware that she was incapable of driving in her current state;
(b) There was a (open, if I recall correctly) container of Vodka in the car with her at the scene.