Turn on thread page Beta

Killer drivers to receive life sentences in law change watch

    Offline

    20
    (Original post by hannxm)
    You can murder someone without premeditating it. Any sane person knows it is not right or safe to drive drunk or on drugs, as well as using their phones whilst driving. They have been warned numerous times that it can lead to serious accidents and lead to death but they are willing to drive dangerously.

    I have been absolutely off my face drunk but I still know that driving is no go. These people simply have a disregard for their safety and others.
    Indeed. However, I believe the punishment in case of premeditation and intent should be severer.

    I drive drunk rather frequently. Many "sane" people use their phones while driving.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Oh I forgot, you're that arrogant troll.

    (Original post by usualsuspects)
    Indeed. However, I believe the punishment in case of premeditation and intent should be severer.

    I drive drunk rather frequently. Many "sane" people use their phones while driving.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by hannxm)
    Oh I forgot, you're that arrogant troll.
    I'm not a troll in the strict sense. And not even arrogant.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Bodycams would note if the suspect was plucking a daisy in the driving seat with a stupid grin on his face, but is hardly likely to spot more realistic cases of impaired reaction times etc.
    Surely reaction times aren't hard to test?

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    There are 12 drugs only where maximum limits have been set. The limit for cannabis is 2 microgrammes per litre of blood and the feeling is that levels will fall below that very quickly and certainly within times that are reasonably comparable with alcohol.
    A feeling, Christ that's reassuring, I've a very strong feeling they're wrong in the case of a regular smoker at least.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrDystopia)
    Drivers who kill someone in the most serious cases of dangerous and careless driving will now face life sentences.

    Causing death by dangerous driving, or death by careless driving while drunk or on drugs, will carry the top-level punishment.

    Jail terms in cases involving mobile phones, speeding or street racing will now be the equivalent of manslaughter, the Ministry of Justice said.
    Whilst there should be harsh punishments available to the courts, I disagree that it should only be where someone has been killed. In many cases, the difference between no one being injured, and a death, is luck. IMO, the intent of the person and their level of recklessness is more important.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the beer)
    Surely reaction times aren't hard to test?
    In a psychologist's lab, yes but not at the roadside in the rain at midnight.

    The breathalyser got rid of a lot of "folk wisdom" tests of sobriety.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    In a psychologist's lab, yes but not at the roadside in the rain at midnight.
    Why not? What's wrong with in the back of a car with an ipad?

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The breathalyser got rid of a lot of "folk wisdom" tests of sobriety.
    Yes, with a test that was an improvement over folk wisdom, the testing we have for cannabis isn't an improvement.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Whilst there should be harsh punishments available to the courts, I disagree that it should only be where someone has been killed. In many cases, the difference between no one being injured, and a death, is luck. IMO, the intent of the person and their level of recklessness is more important.
    No, the difference is that the juridical fact (not sure if that's the proper way to refer to it, private law exam was a while ago) of someone dying has not taken place. You can't sentence someone for murder if no one was killed, especially since the person in question didn't premeditate the unrealised homicide, nor did they try to kill someone. Intent means I want to kill person X. If I take a car and dry to use it to kill a person I want dead, that's attempted murder with intent. "Recklessness" and "intentional murder" are not on the same level.
    Offline

    20
    The problem with you guys is that you lack sympathy for drink drivers since half of you don't drive, and the other half don't drink.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the beer)
    Why not? What's wrong with in the back of a car with an ipad?
    Where is the control? What were the driver's reaction times without a spliff?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usualsuspects)
    You can't sentence someone for murder if no one was killed, especially since the person in question didn't premeditate the unrealised homicide, nor did they try to kill someone. Intent means I want to kill person X. If I take a car and dry to use it to kill a person I want dead, that's attempted murder with intent. "Recklessness" and "intentional murder" are not on the same level.
    I never said that you should sentence for murder. What I said is that the punishment should be for the intent and recklessness, not the outcome, which depends upon luck.

    If I hit someone with a car, should the sentence depend on how well they're able to cope with the injuries? A young person may recover, but an older person may die. The crime was the same except for the person hit, so the sentence should be the same IMO.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Where is the control? What were the driver's reaction times without a spliff?
    Would you need it? It would be up to them to explain anything out of the ordinary but i guess you could have semi regular tests, have it as part of the driving test, probably also help get some of the most dangerous drivers off the road, old people!
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by usualsuspects)
    The problem with you guys is that you lack sympathy for drink drivers since half of you don't drive, and the other half don't drink.
    eh? Why on earth would anyone have sympathy for someone who gets drunk and then gets into a car and drives?

    I'm sure your opinion would be different if a family member had been killed by a drunk driver.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    eh? Why on earth would anyone have sympathy for someone who gets drunk and then gets into a car and drives?

    I'm sure your opinion would be different if a family member had been killed by a drunk driver.
    One should have sympathy for everyone. To understand all is to forgive all. Try to put yourself in this person's shoes: you had fun and got drunk, your friends are asking you to drive them home/to a club, it sounds like great fun, you are drunk and less inhibited, so you lack perception of danger. You are otherwise a good person, and don't intend to kill anyone.

    If a family member was killed I'd rather have the driver stripped of all his property in my favour than see him spend the rest of his life in jail, which is of no advantage to either of us.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usualsuspects)
    I don't like it. Life sentences should be for people beyond rehabilitation or very serious cases (terrorist attack, serial killer). You shouldn't spend your life in jail because you killed a person while driving drunk. There is no intention or premeditation and the culprit was not reasoning and acting with complete consciousness.
    You should absolutely spend life in jail if you kill while drunk. The fact you commit in itself an illegal act (drink driving means) shows disregard for other in the highest sense. They book should be thrown at every one of them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usualsuspects)
    Let's not put harming and killing together, we were discussing death. If you use a knife against a person, there is explicit intention to harm. If you run over a person by mistake while texting and driving, you didn't intend to kill them. I feel the law should make some kind of distinction between these two acts.
    If you're commuting an illegal act (texting while driving) then there are no mistakes. It shows a complete disregard for public safety and shows the texting driver is willing to harm others. Again the book should be thrown at them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usualsuspects)
    The problem with you guys is that you lack sympathy for drink drivers since half of you don't drive, and the other half don't drink.
    I drink and have a drivers liscence. I have the good grace to know to not drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It that same about keeping my car in good condition.

    I have no sympathy for anyone who puts life at risk when they get in a car drunk or high or knowingly in a car of poor repair.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by usualsuspects)
    One should have sympathy for everyone. To understand all is to forgive all. Try to put yourself in this person's shoes: you had fun and got drunk, your friends are asking you to drive them home/to a club, it sounds like great fun, you are drunk and less inhibited, so you lack perception of danger. You are otherwise a good person, and don't intend to kill anyone.

    If a family member was killed I'd rather have the driver stripped of all his property in my favour than see him spend the rest of his life in jail, which is of no advantage to either of us.
    There's this wonderful thing called a taxi service.

    Alternatively, tell your friends no, you're not willing to put your life and other peoples lives in danger.

    What sort of friends are stupid enough to ask a drunk person to drive them home? I wouldn't.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    There's this wonderful thing called a taxi service.

    Alternatively, tell your friends no, you're not willing to put your life and other peoples lives in danger.

    What sort of friends are stupid enough to ask a drunk person to drive them home? I wouldn't.
    Not particularly concerned by the idea of dying, maybe even careless. I've been driven home by "drunk" friends. It depends on the level of drunkenness: if it's fading away then no problem for me at all. My friends are more reckless, once I was totally drunk and in order to have me fit for driving they made me have a short refreshing swim in the pool. It kind of worked, although I scratched my father's new car. It always makes for interesting stories and near-death experiences which seem fun when you are too drunk to realise the danger and once you survive to narrate them.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    If you're commuting an illegal act (texting while driving) then there are no mistakes. It shows a complete disregard for public safety and shows the texting driver is willing to harm others. Again the book should be thrown at them.
    Same punishment for "texting while driving" and committing a terrorist attack with guns? Doesn't seem fair to me.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,180

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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

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