Should criminals that use their cars as a tool for crime be banned from driving?

Run_to_da_hills

A guy got two years and a ten year ban from driving because he was caught swiping eight mature ash trees from Declan Ganleys estate and fourteen from his neighbour.

It is unusual for a judge to hand out a driving ban in such circumstances that may not involve a breach of driving regulations other than using his vehicle for criminal activity. I guess that the driving ban will probably be appealed in time to come.

Would this deter other criminals that use their vehicles as a tool for crime?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/father-jailed-for-stealing-ganleys-ancient-ash-trees-2823232.html

Atlantic Dawn

I doubt it, I think most of them don't give a damn about the consequences of their crimes. If a toe was removed from the right foot after each crime it would be the best deterent and less prison costs for the tax payer.

Big Nasty

I always wanted to be a wheel man!

cadaliac

Won't matter to the criminal imo, won't matter at all.

CardBordWindow

It's not a bad idea, but doubt it'll be a deterrent.

Dartz

I think it's kind of daft really. It strikes me as some sort of double punishment that doesn't really fit the crime. The crime was 'stealing trees', and really, could've been done just as much without a car. He could've cycled around looking for the things. Or walked.

Driving bans should really only be for motoring offences, doing something specific with a car that is dangerous to other road users.

KingIsabella

Thats a bad example of a kind of good idea in my opinion. More appropriate for crimes where a car is used but in a dangerous way would be more fitting. Like a bunch of guys do a post office and theyve a getaway driver ready to tear off after its done. In this case i think the priviledge of driving should be withdrawn, maybe not for ten years but it should come into play. Driving is a priviledge and using it for criminal activity is an abuse of that priviledge. Having said that i dont think someone who'll be into criminal activity like that will be too bothered about whether or not theyve a licence or not.

Bob Cratchet

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A guy got two years and a ten year ban from driving because he was caught swiping eight mature ash trees from Declan Ganleys estate and fourteen from his neighbour.

It is unusual for a judge to hand out a driving ban in such circumstances that may not involve a breach of driving regulations other than using his vehicle for criminal activity. I guess that the driving ban will probably be appealed in time to come.

Would this deter other criminals that use their vehicles as a tool for crime?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/father-jailed-for-stealing-ganleys-ancient-ash-trees-2823232.html

It was a pure skanger thing to do, but it still seems a bit excessive considering the very soft fine and sentences far more serious crimes get these days. Typical of cowardly judges.

corktina

Will just keep on driving anyway probably... the only way to deal with crime is to get back to the situation where people were afraid of the Law and therefore respected it a lot more... I suppose deportation to Australia would probably not be an option now,

Esel

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is unusual for a judge to hand out a driving ban in such circumstances..

Probably thought the case involved hash, not ash.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

They're crim's they dont care about driving when banned.....

Judgement Day

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

It was a pure skanger thing to do, but it still seems a bit excessive considering the very soft fine and sentences far more serious crimes get these days. Typical of cowardly judges.

If he had attacked Ganley he probably wouldn't have received a much longer sentence. :mad:

kippy

In the case in question, not much has been reported about why he got the driving ban.
Could here have been issues with tax/insurance/a previous ban from driving for whatever other reason, and this ten year ban was as a result of this moreso than the main crime being reported on?

Cabaal

Yeah I think go for it and add the ban,
While it may not work in all cases it might make some scumbags think abit

Magic Beans

KingIsabella wrote: »

Driving is a priviledge

Horsefeathers. I'd really love to know where this concept originated and why people are swallowing it. The only privilege associated with driving is the privilege of charging people to do it. :mad:

Back on topic.

KingIsabella

You're not born with the right to drive, but you're lucky enough to be able to. Very few people NEED a car, and alot of people WANT one. Good enough to be called a priviledge in my books. And breaking the law with the use of a car should have that withdrawn for a period of time. Same as most other things.

CreepingDeath

The Prime Time investigates episode on taxi drivers has obviously faded in peoples memory.
Wasn't there a guy who killed someone in a drunk driving incident, who got their licence back when they claimed it was there only method of earning a living ?

He'll get his licence back.

Anan1

KingIsabella wrote: »

Thats a bad example of a kind of good idea in my opinion. More appropriate for crimes where a car is used but in a dangerous way would be more fitting. Like a bunch of guys do a post office and theyve a getaway driver ready to tear off after its done. In this case i think the priviledge of driving should be withdrawn, maybe not for ten years but it should come into play. Driving is a priviledge and using it for criminal activity is an abuse of that priviledge. Having said that i dont think someone who'll be into criminal activity like that will be too bothered about whether or not theyve a licence or not.

I'd imagine in a case like that they could be charged with dangerous driving. As a general point, though, being able to drive is often very important to getting a job. Make it harder for someone to find honest work and crime becomes more attractive as an alternative.

Paparazzo

I remember reading a story where a drug dealer beat a guy for spilling a pint. Such a bad beating that yer man had to learn to walk again. He served less that a guy gets for cutting down a few trees. Judges in this country are living in cloud cuckoo land

kippy

KingIsabella wrote: »

You're not born with the right to drive, but you're lucky enough to be able to. Very few people NEED a car, and alot of people WANT one. Good enough to be called a priviledge in my books. And breaking the law with the use of a car should have that withdrawn for a period of time. Same as most other things.

Nobody "needs" a car.
I mean we got on perfectly fine without them for thousands of years..........

Start thinking about the dark ages and we'll soon be back there.