www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13406456
Would this type of sentence, imposed here in UK improve standards?
Alcohol manufacturers and distributors have responsibility which they will always deny.
HMRC should also shoulder some of the blame. Politicians will not choke off the revenue stream.
Phil I
|
>> Would this type of sentence, imposed here in UK improve standards?
No. A 5 year sentence is plenty of deterrent for anybody who stops to think about it.
>> Alcohol manufacturers and distributors have responsibility which they will always deny.
>> HMRC should also shoulder some of the blame.
Why? They don't make people into idiots. People do that themselves.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 31 Oct 10 at 09:19
|
Maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving in the UK is 14 years.
No-one gets that, but this woman has killed two, and the drink is an aggravating feature.
Sentence here would have been 10-12 years.
|
>> Sentence here would have been 10-12 years.
Which I think is probably sufficient deterrent to any normal person.
America has a record of stupid sentencing, its not uncommon to give life sentences of 99 years to a person who is 50.
"Gee I can be out when I am 116 with good behaviour"
|
|
My experience in the US is that a lot of the people I deal with (middle class professionals) have a very cavalier attitude to drinking and driving. I used to run projects in the US with mixed teams of Europeans and Americans. When organising team dinners I had to go to great lengths to persuade the Americans to not drive to the restaurant themselves (i.e. I would arrange taxis) if they were going to drink. They seemed insulted at the idea that someone thought they couldn't drive properly after half a bottle of wine and a couple of large whiskies. I don't know whether this attitude has some bearing on the sentencing in such tragic cases.
|
|
Do they have blood alcohol limits yet, or is it still a question of being able to stand on one leg, walk a straight line and touch the tip of your nose?
|
Its a bit wierd. And its all down to the naming of the offence.
DUI - Driving under the Influence.
Firstly the police has to confirm the driver is influenced by alcohol. (Hence the Sobriety test)
Then he can get you back to the station house, and breath test you where a reading of .08 will legally confirm being influenced. However, if you get a reading lower than that, the police can still charge you if they feel you have been influenced.
(for example if they feel you were influenced at the scene, and you sobered up on the way to the station house, they can still charge you).
This all varies state by state.
|
|
I should have added, that punishment for DUI is very patchy indeed, amounting in some counties and states as nothing more than a slap on the wrist, until you do something seriously fatal when it all becomes very serious indeed, in theory in some states, leading to execution or life in jail. (the yanks mean life when they say life)
|
(the yanks mean life when they say life)
>>
Quite right nothing wrong with that, the ending of a victim's life is pretty permanent too.
We could do with some of the benefits of the US to compensate for the dafter trends that find their way here.
|
|
They have as many daft trends there as we have here.
|
|
If you take a life and the reason was to much alcohol then the sentence should be death and in countries with out the death penalty then it should be life(meaning life)in prison.I do not think there is a person alive who does not know the consequences of drinking to much alcohol, the problem being for some people they cannot tell when they have had enough.
|
Sure.
Back in the real world, how about a lifelong income tax after release from the clink, perhaps 10-20% of earnings/benefits/pension to the family of the dead guy?
|
|
We ought to have road gangs, as in Cool Hand Luke.
|
Sentencing in the US of A - Manatee
