Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1096 – Drink Driving Penalties Bill 2017 (Second Reading) Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    But the laws at the moment are that if you're caught driving/attempting to drive a vehicle, you're banned for a minimum one year so there must be provisions if it's deemed that someone drove with good reason whilst drunk, allowing for them not to be banned for a year, which would extend to the fine.
    Indeed. But your bill contains no such equivalent provisions. If you want a minimum fine to be discretionary you cannot make it mandatory as magistrates and judges can only do what the law tells them to do. I don't think you have yet perfected your understanding of how the law works.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Indeed. But your bill contains no such equivalent provisions. If you want a minimum fine to be discretionary you cannot make it mandatory as magistrates and judges can only do what the law tells them to do. I don't think you have yet perfected your understanding of how the law works.
    So how does the minimum ban work then as is that not a mandatory penalty given it has a minimum?

    (And no, my understanding of the law especially for this kind of thing, is far from perfect, but then I think if we had a requirement of having great knowledge of something for being able to write a Bill on it, I think we'd have very few Bills proposed)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Theoretically yes - but that's the current law, and that's why people have to be charged, and go to court... In this example, it's incredibly unlikely that they'd actually be prosecuted for being in charge of the vehicle...
    I'm personally not too keen on it being down to the common sense of the police. Surely it would just make sense to add a clause in that drunk people in the driver's seat will only be punished if the car is moving?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    So how does the minimum ban work then as is that not a mandatory penalty given it has a minimum?
    It is mandatory for certain offences (though I understand even then there can be mitigation against exceptional hardship) and discretionary for others. You have made the fine mandatory and allowed no mitigation.

    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I think if we had a requirement of having great knowledge of something for being able to write a Bill on it, I think we'd have very few Bills proposed
    So you prioritise quantity over value, practicality and benefit? That explains a lot.

    Here's a radical suggestion for those who want to see what is realistic and meaningful: read some laws.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It is mandatory for certain offences (though I understand even then there can be mitigation against exceptional hardship) and discretionary for others. You have made the fine mandatory and allowed no mitigation.



    So you prioritise quantity over value, practicality and benefit? That explains a lot.

    Here's a radical suggestion for those who want to see what is realistic and meaningful: read some laws.
    No, but I think that it's important that if someone feels a way about something, and has support from the Party, that they put the Bill forward and create debate, and have people critique it, even if the Bill is not, or far from perfect... Rather than feeling as though they're going to be ridiculed for having a go, and just enjoying the game...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    No, but I think that it's important that if someone feels a way about something, and has support from the Party, that they put the Bill forward and create debate, and have people critique it, even if the Bill is not, or far from perfect... Rather than feeling as though they're going to be ridiculed for having a go, and just enjoying the game...
    The whole process of creating laws is about considering the effects those laws might have, including unintended ones. To assume that a high mandatory fine will get rid of drink driving is ridiculous and, since all initial criticism of the idea was ignored, such a punishment needs to be ridiculed. There are good reasons why mandatory draconian measures are rarely taken in real life.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I do not care about heavy fines being imposed on poor individuals, if poor individuals did not want to get fined they should not have broken the law. If poor individuals cannot pay the fines, bailiffs executing a writ could seize property to cover the cost of the fine.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If poor individuals cannot pay the fines, bailiffs executing a writ could seize property to cover the cost of the fine.
    Hmm. What property do you think the average 17-year old owns that is worth that amount?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    But the thing is, if the fine is insignificant then why are people going to say no, I won't drink drive... Like, a large fine would motivate me a lot more than having my license taken away, because I can't pay it..

    (On a side note, I personally think that any parent that drink drives should have their children taken away from them)
    The fine should never be insignificant - but it should take into account the fact that an insignificant amount to one person is very significant to another. A £2,500 fine for some people means taking a cheaper holiday next summer - nowhere near punishment enough. For others, it means not feeding their children adequately, not heating the home despite an elderly relative living in, or being totally unable to pay and getting caught in a cycle of poverty, debt and crime - far too harsh a punishment that has a huge impact on innocent parties. In some of those cases £1,000 would still mean having no money for non-essentials for a very long period of time and would still be a strong deterrent with an appropriate impact on quality of life, not to mention the option of community service and other impacts of the conviction.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    What exactly is the justification for making the current maximum fine a minimum fine? So all those times when someone got fined below £2500 they weren't being fined enough? Presumably there are situations where people got fined significantly below what you are now making the minimum.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I do not care about heavy fines being imposed on poor individuals, if poor individuals did not want to get fined they should not have broken the law. If poor individuals cannot pay the fines, bailiffs executing a writ could seize property to cover the cost of the fine.
    Here's a question then. You're a 15 year old, and you single mother gets convicted of drink-driving. She can't afford the fine, so she loses her (rented) house and is moved by the council to temporary accommodation in the form of a hostel 150 miles away from home. While preparing for your GCSEs, you have to move school to a badly performing one which has a spare space, and have no friends there or emotional support. You're not eating properly because your mum's bankrupt, you can't make friends as you have no money to go out and no house to invite them to, and eventually fail to pass your exams. Are you now more or less likely to go into a life of crime? The answer, as far as I can see, is certainly far more likely - which is why these kinds of policies have huge impacts on the lives of those who aren't responsible, and are often also counter-productive for society as a whole. It's a matter of having to put the greater good of our society ahead of our natural instinct to punish rulebreakers and wrongdoers as harshly as possible.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Here's a question then. You're a 15 year old, and you single mother gets convicted of drink-driving. She can't afford the fine, so she loses her (rented) house and is moved by the council to temporary accommodation in the form of a hostel 150 miles away from home. While preparing for your GCSEs, you have to move school to a badly performing one which has a spare space, and have no friends there or emotional support. You're not eating properly because your mum's bankrupt, you can't make friends as you have no money to go out and no house to invite them to, and eventually fail to pass your exams. Are you now more or less likely to go into a life of crime? The answer, as far as I can see, is certainly far more likely - which is why these kinds of policies have huge impacts on the lives of those who aren't responsible, and are often also counter-productive for society as a whole. It's a matter of having to put the greater good of our society ahead of our natural instinct to punish rulebreakers and wrongdoers as harshly as possible.
    If she is poor she should not be drinking because alcohol is more expensive than other drinks, and if she cannot afford the fine that is her fault. I do not accept the consequences would be as large as you state because local authorities have measure in place to stop individuals losing their home. The likely result is the mother receives reduced benefits to cover the fine, or has personal possessions seized. But it is her own fault, the mother would be ruining the lives of her children because she is incapable of looking after herself. The case you present is an argument to have her children taken off her, not to reduce punishments for poor individuals.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    But the thing is, if the fine is insignificant then why are people going to say no, I won't drink drive... Like, a large fine would motivate me a lot more than having my license taken away, because I can't pay it..

    (On a side note, I personally think that any parent that drink drives should have their children taken away from them)
    What I shall and isn't a large fine is subjective depending on who is paying the fine. I couldn't pay a £40 fine right now, let alone £5,000. But for some that £5,000 is nothing, and indeed for some a fine of tens of thousands would be small. Perhaps we should set the fine to be more flexible, so it affects everyone the same? Say put it as a percentage of yearly income? It's the same across the board with fines though tbf, a parking fine is nothing to a high end banker, but unplayable to someone jobless.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If she is poor she should not be drinking because alcohol is more expensive than other drinks, and if she cannot afford the fine that is her fault. I do not accept the consequences would be as large as you state because local authorities have measure in place to stop individuals losing their home. The likely result is the mother receives reduced benefits to cover the fine, or has personal possessions seized. But it is her own fault, the mother would be ruining the lives of her children because she is incapable of looking after herself. The case you present is an argument to have her children taken off her, not to reduce punishments for poor individuals.
    Definitely her fault, don't disagree with that, but children shouldn't suffer. Ideally I'd probably agree with you, but in reality there are nowhere near enough foster parents for children past toddler age as it is and the care system is a crock of shite.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. More evidence of not understanding what you are meddling in. The CPS decides who is prosecuted, and they do it on the basis, mainly, of the chances of conviction. In the case of drink driving the blood alcohol figures are pretty cast iron evidence so virtually all cases go to court.

    Killing in defence of life is a defence to murder, so that accused person shouldn't be convicted even if they go to court.
    To be fair to mobbsy, to a certain degree with motor crime issue the police decides who is prosecuted.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I'm personally not too keen on it being down to the common sense of the police. Surely it would just make sense to add a clause in that drunk people in the driver's seat will only be punished if the car is moving?
    Same and I will be voting Nay when this is sent to division.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This bill is in cessation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 29, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.