Originally posted by Policestateten years and confiscation and sale at auction of the vehicle. that would be better.
I know this comment is tounge in cheek, but I do find the prevailing attitude towards speed and poor driving (mobile phones etc etc) in this country absurd.
The same people who would utterly condemn an airline pilot for recklessly breaking the rules in the air, or a train driver for breaking the rules on the tracks, do not seem to feel the laws apply to ...[text shortened]... nergy to explain to someone so stupid just how many differences there are..... 🙂
Originally posted by z00tI think the problem is that on some roads i.e. motorways 70 mph is an unrealistic max speed and the police turn a blind eye. This imo causes 2 problems, firstly mororists have no clear indication of what the max safe (not legal) speed is and secondly on some dual carriageways I imagine that 70 mph would actually be a realistic max speed, but there is an ethos of accepting 80-85mph is acceptable. Then there is the subject of perfect and bad weather conditions. I think the speed limit should be increased on motorways to (perhaps) 80mph and enforced the same way that a lower speed limit on a minor road is enforced.
You know most smash ups on motorways happen because of such a fast speed. There is a reason that stretch of road is 70 mph people could have lost their lives before or there could be a school nearby.
Imagine if a school kid wandered onto the road and the guy was doing 172 mph?
Originally posted by Officer Dibblethey jail DWIs/DUIs, but not for long enough, probably.
I understand the point in banning him from driving, and I think it should have been for longer than 3 years - arguably for life. I also have no problem with fining him, and wouldn't object to a considerably larger fine. But I don't see what jailing him achieves.
1 edit
Originally posted by Officer DibbleI tend to also disagree with sending him to prison, but not for his sake, from the point of view of the taxpayer, why should we have to pay for his crime? If I were the judge I would have banned him for 5 to 10 years (life is too long as it's not impossible he will change in a few years, most deserve a second chance).
I understand the point in banning him from driving, and I think it should have been for longer than 3 years - arguably for life. I also have no problem with fining him, and wouldn't object to a considerably larger fine. But I don't see what jailing him achieves.
Regarding the imprisonment I think it would be better if the government could impose secondary fines that pay for at least assist in paying for their prison costs. Or perhaps find some way of making teh prisoners work to pay for or at least subsidise the cost of their sentence.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightwestIs that how you would feel if it was your car that he took? That isn't the major wrong that he did of course, statistically if 1,000 people (were stupid enough) did this then how many people would die? It is no defence to say no one was hurt
Honestly, where is the victim in this "crime"
Originally posted by knightwestAre failed attempts at burglary, rape, theft or muggings still classed as crimes?
Honestly, where is the victim in this "crime"
Thankfully, there were no victims in this particular case but just like the above examples there was still the intent. The driver knowingly broke the road laws for a bit of self satisfaction and by doing so he put anyone else using that road at the same time as him in danger. At the speed he was going, just about any collision would be unavoidable and fatal. If he wanted to fulfil his need for speed then he could have bought a day at a race track with the proper equipment and vehicle without forcing innocent motorist into a potentially deadly high speed crash. If you think it’s justifiable to do what he did then you might as well load a six shooter with one bullet, spin the barrel and then single out 5 innocent bystanders to shoot it at just for fun. Technically, it would be a ‘victimless crime’ unless you hit the live chamber.
Originally posted by stevetoddNevertheless, it was a victimless crime. If the police hadn't clocked him no one would be aware that this had ever occured.
Is that how you would feel if it was your car that he took? That isn't the major wrong that he did of course, statistically if 1,000 people (were stupid enough) did this then how many people would die? It is no defence to say no one was hurt
I am not excusing his behaviour, but I think there is no point in sending him to jail. Disqualify him from driving, and for a long time, yes.
Originally posted by Daemon SinThat depends, if a burglary fails because a burglar cannot get into a property it is not a burglary.
Are failed attempts at burglary, rape, theft or muggings still classed as crimes?
Thankfully, there were no victims in this particular case but just like the above examples there was still the intent. The driver knowingly broke the road laws for a bit of self satisfaction and by doing so he put anyone else using that road at the same time as him in dan ...[text shortened]... at just for fun. Technically, it would be a ‘victimless crime’ unless you hit the live chamber.
It becomes reclassified as attempted burglary or attempted rape etc.
What is the attempted in this?
Originally posted by Daemon SinWell, according to Dutch law, the guy did not actually TRY to kill anyone by driving that fast, so he cannot be punished for attempted manslaughter. If he WOULD have killed anyone during his speeding, then he could be punished for manslaughter because he should have known that with driving that fast he might kill someone, and he did it anyway, so he consciously accepted the fact that he might actually kill someone and chose to take the risk. That is enough in the Netherlands for a change with manslaughter. I don't know how the system works in the UK though.
Are failed attempts at burglary, rape, theft or muggings still classed as crimes?
Thankfully, there were no victims in this particular case but just like the above examples there was still the intent. The driver knowingly broke the road laws for a bit of self satisfaction and by doing so he put anyone else using that road at the same time as him in dan ...[text shortened]... at just for fun. Technically, it would be a ‘victimless crime’ unless you hit the live chamber.
(oh and yes, I did study law 😛)
2 edits
Originally posted by knightwest(see post above) I think he meant attempted manslaughter, or possibly attempted (euh, what's the word..?) hurting someone. We call it mistreatment (nice word for a bad thing), but in the Netherlands a failed attempt to hurt someone is not punishable (that's an exception the government found that the system made more sense that way).
That depends, if a burglary fails because a burglar cannot get into a property it is not a burglary.
It becomes reclassified as attempted burglary or attempted rape etc.
What is the attempted in this?