Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

are we too lenient

just read on BBC news website about a women from Coventry who was done for drink driving. She speed past a police car & tried to overtake a lorry on a roundabout - ended up flipping the car over onto its roof. She was 3 times over the limit & a vodka bottle was found in the car........

oh.............she also had her 20 month old son in the car with her at the time. Both escaped unharmed. You can view the footage on the BBC website. Its shocking

She got 26 weeks in prison & a 3 yr ban !!! I'm sure that's going to stop her from doing it again.

They should have locked her up for 5 years & taken her child away. Detest anyone who drives whilst under the influence.


«13

Comments

  • Wait until you see her crash on the news. Lucky she and her baby are still alive.
  • Oh great, another thread for CL's authoritarians to flex their justice biceps in :P


  • She got 26 weeks in prison & a 3 yr ban !!! I'm sure that's going to stop her from doing it again.

    Maybe not. But her next insurance quote might just about do the trick. That's if she can even find a firm prepared to quote.
  • edited April 10
    Years ago, around midnight, I saw someone drive straight across that large grass roundabout, near the ferry/bottom of John Wilson Street Woolwich. I had been drinking & did a double take, because I thought I was more pi55ed than I realised. The car just carried on like normal towards Plumstead. Oh and I was walking Lol.
  • A custodial sentence is appropriate here but throw away the key? Come on.
  • Yes, we are too lenient.

    Obviously I don't condone drink driving whatsoever, but we're talking about someone 3x over the limit - not someone who had 2 pints for lunch and is accidentally over the limit a few hours later.

    I've always found it barmy that there's a differentiation between Murder and Attempted Murder, after all - the difference in the offence is not down to the actions of the perpetrator, but sheer luck.

    Why is luck taken in to account in the eyes of the law, when the actions of those responsible are the same? If I drive pissed out of my head and murder a pedestrian, why should it be treated different than if I drove with the same blood-alcohol level but was fortunate enough to miss that pedestrian by a matter of seconds?

    Not to mention the poor child involved; this woman is clearly not a fit mother whatsoever. Poor kid hasn't got a chance.
  • Leuth said:

    Leuth said:

    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?
  • Sponsored links:


  • 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.
  • Leuth said:

    Leuth said:

    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
    Yes
    She was 3 times over with a baby? Are you saying she should have got the lenient sentence because she managed to keep her baby alive?
  • Curb_It said:

    Leuth said:

    Leuth said:

    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
    Yes
    She was 3 times over with a baby? Are you saying she should have got the lenient sentence because she managed to keep her baby alive?
    Through no mechanism than sheer unadulterated luck.

    She clearly lacked the ability to control the car, and as soon as she turned the ignition on there was only one driving force in that journey - luck.
  • Leuth said:

    A custodial sentence is appropriate here but throw away the key? Come on.

    Yep throw away the key.

    You've got to be a complete idiot to drive while that far over the limit and with a kid in the car? Come on!. And idiots are the ones who will do it again. I can guarantee you she will be one of the 85% who go straight back to driving after shes served (half) her (pointless) sentence, even though shes got a ban.
  • OK, well if by 'throw away the key' you mean a life ban from driving, I'm with you.

    Half a year in jail seems appropriate for endangering a child.

    Had the child been harmed, longer, and had the child been killed, a manslaughter sentence.
  • Leuth said:

    OK, well if by 'throw away the key' you mean a life ban from driving, I'm with you.

    Half a year in jail seems appropriate for endangering a child.

    Had the child been harmed, longer, and had the child been killed, a manslaughter sentence.

    Life ban from driving is pointless.... as I said 85% of those banned for drink driving then go on to drive whilst banned.

    4 years jail a lifetime ban from driving and another 4 years inside every time you're caught in the car.

    And if you do hurt anyone whilst drunk in charge of a vehicle then they should throw away the key.

    Never any excuse for risking anyone else's life like that.
  • Leuth said:

    A custodial sentence is appropriate here but throw away the key? Come on.

    Yep throw away the key.

    You've got to be a complete idiot to drive while that far over the limit and with a kid in the car? Come on!. And idiots are the ones who will do it again. I can guarantee you she will be one of the 85% who go straight back to driving after shes served (half) her (pointless) sentence, even though shes got a ban.
    she's probably served her time by being in custody awaiting the trial. In any case you only serve 50% so she'll be out in a couple of months.
  • Surely a man should be responsible for her actions and punished accordingly.
  • edited April 10
    Leuth said:

    OK, well if by 'throw away the key' you mean a life ban from driving, I'm with you.

    Half a year in jail seems appropriate for endangering a child.

    Had the child been harmed, longer, and had the child been killed, a manslaughter sentence.

    Bloody hell, Leuth. Don't go in to childminding with that attitude mate! ;)
  • Sponsored links:


  • anyone caught drive driving should never drive again, a car is a lethal weapon. About time drink driving was taken seriously.
  • Talal said:

    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
  • Anyway think I'm gonna leave it there. It's a pretty emotive topic so I'd rather not get worked up about it.
  • Leuth said:

    Talal said:

    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
    For her it undoubtedly would dissuade her from offending again, but for other people..?

    Part of prison is to stop offending in general, not just reoffending from those already exposed to it.

    Increase the tariffs, publicise the changes and convince others that it's not a risk to be taken likely.
  • LuckyReds said:

    Leuth said:

    OK, well if by 'throw away the key' you mean a life ban from driving, I'm with you.

    Half a year in jail seems appropriate for endangering a child.

    Had the child been harmed, longer, and had the child been killed, a manslaughter sentence.

    Bloody hell, Leuth. Don't go in to childminding with that attitude mate! ;)
    I work with children!

    I would never act negligently enough to endanger one.

    We don't know what justice this woman's family are going to impose on top of the custodial sentence. In all likelihood the choice to keep the child won't be hers
  • Leuth said:

    LuckyReds said:

    Leuth said:

    OK, well if by 'throw away the key' you mean a life ban from driving, I'm with you.

    Half a year in jail seems appropriate for endangering a child.

    Had the child been harmed, longer, and had the child been killed, a manslaughter sentence.

    Bloody hell, Leuth. Don't go in to childminding with that attitude mate! ;)
    I work with children!

    I would never act negligently enough to endanger one.

    We don't know what justice this woman's family are going to impose on top of the custodial sentence. In all likelihood the choice to keep the child won't be hers
    I just went to edit my post when I realised that you do tutoring!

    I would hope that the poor kid has a better shot at life than this story suggests, and hopefully there will be a bit of family intervention. They're all very lucky.
  • edited April 10
    LuckyReds said:

    Leuth said:

    Leuth said:

    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.
  • Leuth said:

    Talal said:

    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.
  • Lots of complicated factors at play here that you and I as regular Joe on the street aren't well placed to to judge.

    -Past offences or lack there of, out of character behaviour, mental health record (possible extenuating circumstances)
    -Damage that denying that child its mother might do to the child. On face value she's no mother of the year contender, but my wife is a child protection social worker and it just isn't as simple as this kid automatically being better off without her mother - the care system is far from a perfect surrogate parent.
    -If every criminal gets locked away for 5 to 10 years minimum, we'd need about 3 times as many prisons as we have and besides, lots of evidence to suggest the threat of longer and harsher sentences does not necessarily deter criminal behaviour. The US has a very heavy handed justice system compared to Europe but has similar overall crime rates.

    Plus others I have likely overlooked or don't even know about because I;m far from well educated on this subject.
  • 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.