Judges are too lenient

DonJose

Its about time mandatory sentences were applied to drink driving cases. Over the past year or two I've seen cases were one man mows down 3 men in Meath killing them all and receives 4 years. Now another scumbag crashes into two motorbikes while drunk, killing both drivers and gets 5 years. "The sentence Mr O'Regan received was half the maximum penalty."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1107/oregant.html

Seth Brundle

Don't expect to much from some of them - www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/1031/1193444203871.html

Robbo

Just out of curiosity DonJose, what would you deem to be an acceptable sentence or punishment? You do seem to start quite a few threads on lenient sentencing, perhaps you could throw a few suggestions at us.

MrPudding

DonJose wrote: »

Its about time mandatory sentences were applied to drink driving cases. Over the past year or two I've seen cases were one man mows down 3 men in Meath killing them all and receives 4 years. Now another scumbag crashes into two motorbikes while drunk, killing both drivers and gets 5 years. "The sentence Mr O'Regan received was half the maximum penalty."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1107/oregant.html

Stuff like this can be hard to swallow, but I presume there was a reason. I think you have a maximum sentence and then there are "discounts" for certain things. For example the guilty party may get a discount for pleading guilty or co operating with the gardai. Mitigating circumstances may also be taken into account. I would expect that a person with no previous offences, a job, perhaps a family that has made a mistake and appears to be genuinely remorseful might attract a lesser sentence than a repeat offender that obviously doesn't give 2 fcuks about the consequences of his or her actions. Or, the judges are idiots.

MrP

DonJose

Robbo wrote: »

Just out of curiosity DonJose, what would you deem to be an acceptable sentence or punishment? You do seem to start quite a few threads on lenient sentencing, perhaps you could throw a few suggestions at us.

Drink driving causing death should carry a minimum sentence of at least 7 years. Drink driving should carry a 3 month sentence, a 5 year driving ban plus confiscation of the car used in the offence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1107/russellf.html
Russell faces a sentence of between 10 and 14 years. He is expected to be sentenced in three weeks' time.

Owen

If someone kills another person with a car, it's usually an accident, even if drink is involved. That's a whole other kettle of fish than someone actually committing murder, or raping someone, or brutally beating someone to within an inch of their lives. I'd much rather see someone with criminal intent serve the longer sentences, and someone who had the misfortune of killing another soul on the road serve a shorter sentence, and live with the guilt and remorse for the rest of their lives.

You've an awfully simplistic view of the world DonJose, there are worse people out there who should be filling the prisons.

jimmycrackcorm

If someone was just slightly over the limit - say after drinking one pint and killed someone, then should they get 7 years, particularly if it could be shown that the accident would equally have happened if the driver without any alcohol involved.

heyjude

ned78 wrote: »

If someone kills another person with a car, it's usually an accident, even if drink is involved.

Every driver knows that drinking increases your risk of being involved in an accident and heavy drinking increases the risk massively, so you choose to drink, you choose to drive, so is a subsequent accident really an accident or not ? Knowing that it was illegal and knowing that it posed a serious risk to yourself and others, you carried on without regard to the consequences.

ned78 wrote: »

That's a whole other kettle of fish than someone actually committing murder, or raping someone, or brutally beating someone to within an inch of their lives. I'd much rather see someone with criminal intent serve the longer sentences,

If one of my loved ones was mowed down by a drink driver, especially one that had previous convictions, then I'd expect him/her to pay a very high price not just suffer a little inconvenience. I think the current system is all about being fair to the guilty with little or no regard to the innocent 'victim'.
A car is a lethal weapon and if you intentionally do something that impairs your ability to handle it safely, then you should pay a heavy price. Driving is a privilege not a right. Choosing to drive after you have been drinking is criminal intent since drink driving is a crime!

ned78 wrote: »

and someone who had the misfortune of killing another soul on the road serve a shorter sentence, and live with the guilt and remorse for the rest of their lives.

Trouble is, many of the same 'mis-guided poor creatures' don't show much remorse and are far more concerned about when they can get behind the wheel again, than they are about the innocent person they KILLED.

ned78 wrote: »

You've an awfully simplistic view of the world DonJose, there are worse people out there who should be filling the prisons.

You wouldn't say that if a close friend or relation was the victim, the problem is we are too lenient with murderers etc, with a life sentence really only meaning 10-12 years. This needs addressing, so that a life sentence means a minimum or 20 years in jail, then a sentence of 7 years for causing a death while drink driving wouldn't seem so severe.

I can't remember who said it, but I heard someone on TV before say that if they wanted to kill someone they'd run them down in a car. For if you shoot someone its murder, if you run someone down(even if you are caught and if you were drunk) you can claim it was an accident and probably escape with a licence suspension or at worst a short jail sentence

None of these comments relate to the actual case that was mentioned.

unkel

ned78 wrote: »

If someone kills another person with a car, it's usually an accident, even if drink is involved. That's a whole other kettle of fish than someone actually committing murder, or raping someone, or brutally beating someone to within an inch of their lives. I'd much rather see someone with criminal intent serve the longer sentences, and someone who had the misfortune of killing another soul on the road serve a shorter sentence, and live with the guilt and remorse for the rest of their lives.

@DonJose - I can't even start to comprehend what it is like for you to have lost someone close in an accident with a driver that was over the legal alcohol limit. For your own sake though, try understanding the point ned78 is trying to make

High&Low

DonJose wrote: »

Drink driving causing death should carry a minimum sentence of at least 7 years. Drink driving should carry a 3 month sentence, a 5 year driving ban plus confiscation of the car used in the offence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1107/russellf.html
Russell faces a sentence of between 10 and 14 years. He is expected to be sentenced in three weeks' time.

While I agree with you to some extent you can compare the Russell case in the US to Ireland. In addition to the US having a far more punitive system re jail sentences, Russell is also being jailed for skipping bail, which has added to the suffering of the family of the victims.

However, repeat drink driving offenders, whether or not they cause death/injury should be jailed and face a possible life time ban...

Snarler

Drink driving should carry a 3 month sentence,

I'm all for tougher sentences for serious crimes but drink driving is not one of them. You don't even get 3 months for assaulting somebody.

galwaytt

Snarler wrote: »

I'm all for tougher sentences for serious crimes but drink driving is not one of them. You don't even get 3 months for assaulting somebody.

That's the problem, you're allowing your judgement for this offence to be coloured by that of another. Effectively, driving drunk, you're potentially assualting someone........but with a vehicle, which is a deadly weapon. The outcomes of incidents like that are very rarely light.............

mthd

I used to know this guy and tbh he deserved a lot more, complete scumbag. Was always just a matter of time before he killed someone :rolleyes:

Snarler

But nobody goes to prison for potentially assaulthing somebody and only the odd time for actually assaulthing a person.

wet-paint

Just a small thing - cars aren't weapons. Guns are weapons. Swords are weapons. Cars can be used to kill and maim, but they're not weapons. Stop sensationalising things, it stops people from taking your post seriously, or at least it does me.

E92

Mandatory sentencing never has and never will be a good idea.

I agree with the idea of tougher penalties, but remember newspaper journalists only give you all the juicy bits of a case, whiich can be and often is quite misleading from what actually happened.

In saying all that if you mow someone down on purpose thats the same as killing someone on purpose IMHO.