Jail Sentence For Death By Drunk Driving

[JAStewart]

Peeriewan (and others against the jail sentence)

 

I think that you have highlighted a problem with the prison service rather than the sentence. I agree that a sentence will not be a deterrent and have read enough to know that prison can turn young men both worse and turn them onto hard drugs, which are almost easier to get in rather than out.

 

But then you have those who argue that a criminal is a criminal and cannot be rehabilitated and shouldn't be given a chance to. Personally I think a criminal can be rehabilitated, but it all comes down to one's philosophy on what you believe. I believe that every single case needs to be looked at in great details, including family histories and such, because we all know people who have had a bad upbringing and their life has suffered for it.

[Ghostrider]

Dontcha just love living in a semi-Communist nation! Being criminalised for what you know, but choose to keep to yourself, is only but one tiny step away from being criminalised for what you're thinking.

 

If I knew someone had murdered someone, and then did again, should I keep it to myself? Of course not. I should share it to spare lives.

 

What if said "murderer" was a very close relative? What if they had something on you, so that if you hung them out to dry, they could return the compliment?

 

It twists people's arms very tightly behind their backs to force them to give up information, with no regard for the person in question and their circumstances whatsoever.

 

The Yanks have copped no end of flack for a few odds and sods of low level "physical torture" in a military war situation, yet we have laws like this on the statute books, backed to the hilt by successive Governments and all their lackeys, which are nothing else than psychological torture, which in my book is far, far worse than physical.

 

The giving up of information should be by the carrot method only in a "free" society, the stick method has no place in one. There is no difference in my mind between forcing a person to give up information under threat of puntive punishments should they fail to comply, than under threat of physical harm. I've never been able to tell where bribery stopped and blackmail began, but pressurising someone in to doing that which they do not freely wish to do falls under one or the other, and they're both illegal too. It makes any Goverment who enacts and upholds such laws a complete collective hypocrite.

[JAStewart]

But no one is being forced to give up the information.

[Smeeth]

Everyone knows the consequenses of drink driving and in knowing so put their own lives and that of their passengers at risk each time they do it, a car as we are told IS a lethal weapon.

 

Its terribly sad a young life was lost but he had a choice to get in the car with someone he knew had been drinking , all i can say is thank God they didn't hit another car or mount the kerb and hit a pedestrian/child/family. The risk these people pose to innocent bystanders not themselves is the reason the sentencing should be so harsh against drink driving.

[JAStewart]

^ In that case why not just ban from driving for.. 10, 15 years? For life?

 

If it they are a threat on the roads...

[JustMe]

Radio Shetland news tonight reported on a boy who drove wildly through Brae and did not get a custodial sentence. Similar sort of case except that this time, and perhaps more by luck than judgement, nobody was hurt. Question has to be whether people are judged on the offence they committed or the outcome of that offence.

[JAStewart]

Question has to be whether people are judged on the offence they committed or the outcome of that offence.

 

Both?

 

Drunk driving is a crime

Drunk driving resulting in a death is a crime.

[DamnSaxon]

^^^

And if he was just a boy, he presumably didn't have a licence either, another crime.

[Muppet]

^^

 

He was 21. Old enough to know the consequences of his actions. It was also his second drink drive conviction if I heard right.

[JAStewart]

^I think that DS was referring to JustMe's post about the 'boy' in Brae.

[Ichorus]

Well atleast he can drive 4months after he gets out of jail....

 

It's weird that the driving ban doesnt reflect the crime,

unless it starts after his time in jail.

[JAStewart]

I would imagine that it would start after he leaves Prison, because any other way would be a mockery of the system. That is unless of course he is (inevitably) released early.

[Muppet]

^I think that DS was referring to JustMe's post about the 'boy' in Brae.

 

As was I.

[Spinner72]

Question has to be whether people are judged on the offence they committed or the outcome of that offence.

 

This is the fundimental issue I have with these sentences.

 

One can end up psycologically damaged for knowing his stupidity caused the death of his friend and have to go through a jail sentence, the other can be laughing about their incident at the pub the next night.

 

Yet both commited the same crime.

 

It's quite a common scenario though. Look at this weeks other case involving the embezzlement of HIE grants. No jail sentence because a family member was well-off enough to pay it back. Why does that make the crime less serious?

[Hobbiniho]

Yet both commited the same crime.

 

how can you say they have commited the same crime???

the boy in brae was alone in the car on a relatively quiet bit of road, ok the car was a wreck and he was being watched by a guardian angel the fact that he survived is nothing short of a miracle, whearas ross had TWO passengers, therefor not only putting his own life in danger but those of his passengers and sadly one of his passengers died. now tell me that is the same crime!!!!!! ross was charged with causing DEATH by dangerous driving, the boy in brae didnt kill anyone so cannot be charged for that!!!!!!!!!