Article: Drink driving killer footballer offered contract at Swindon. |Football Southampton

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
There seems to be more than one issue here. The emotional one and the practical one. Under British law he has been released on licence. In other words he has not been let out early but has been allowed to serve the rest of his sentence in the community. The emotional one is that he should be locked up for the rest of his life for his stupidity. Not forgetting the parents and their satisfaction perhaps that he got what he deserved no doubt. So he rots in Jail and contributes nothing to society for the rest of his life.
The question I would like to pose is......How would that actually help the situation? Improve the situation or solve the problem! Would it bring the boys back? Can it undo that horror which has occurred? The simple answer is no. The parents are entitled to feel aggrieved. The reality is they have to suffer for the rest of their lives too. So nothing society can do will alter that.
So back to the goal keeper......do you let him rot or do you give him another chance to contribute to society? I am sure the emotional side of you will say "let him rot". Under law though that cannot happen he has to contribute to society if it is possible as has every one. The fact he is a goalkeeper or a ice hockey player or a rugby player has no bearing on the case at all. That is coincidental. Trust me when I say it is not going to be a picnic for him either. Yes he made a tragic mistake and two little boys suffered the ultimate fate. He cannot turn the clock back as much as he would like to.
There is not one of us in this society that has not done something really stupid, or will do at some time. The consequences will have varied. Rare would it have been with the possible consequences of what happened on this occasion. Life is tough and has consequences, the quicker you accept that the better person you will be........
 
Very difficult situation to get the morals right. I can't imagine how hard it is for the family to come to terms with something like this but I also can imagine that Luke McCormick must be haunted by what he has done as well.

However, he is not a criminal in the sense that he deliberately went out and harmed someone else. What he did was firstly stupid and secondly unlucky. I say that because how many people on this forum alone can swear that they have never driven whilst being over the alcohol limit and have never broken the speed limit.

If you can honestly say that you have never done either of these things then you have the right to take the moral high ground. If you can't then you have simply been very lucky where he was unlucky.
 
Rickie Lamberts Golden Boot said:
All he is trying to do is trying to rebuild his career and try and get back to normal.

He has to live with the fact that he is a killer every day of his life. I'm sure he is not proud of it in any way, nor do I think a day goes by without him thinking about.

Good luck to him.

However, as a parent it would be extremely tough to see him free and earning thousands per week...

I hope ye does his bit in the community to help tackle drink driving and help support the family in some way.

<ok>
Click to expand...

My feelings as well
 
Two questions here. Was his sentence too lenient? IMO yes. However, he has served the sentence given and should be able to get on with his life. If he has any feelings at all then he will be riddled with guilt for the rest of his life. Secondly, would I be happy if he played for Saints? The answer is no I would not. Brave move by Swindon. Goalkeepers are exposed more than other players to abuse from fans and I'm sure he will be reminded of his crime every game he plays by opposition fans. Surely can't help his performance.
 
Very difficult one. I understand the father is in a wheelchair as well. This was a very serious case of drink driving....not belittling any case of drink driving but this wasn't a case of misjudging by one drink. He served too short a sentence, but has served it. For the family, no sentence would have been big enough. If he was a bricklayer no one would be surprised that he obtained work. What is difficult for the family is that they are not seeing a man back doing a normal job but one who is back training for a job that most consider fun. The family are suffering for the rest of their lives, but what is the answer?
 
Beddytare said:
There seems to be more than one issue here. The emotional one and the practical one. Under British law he has been released on licence. In other words he has not been let out early but has been allowed to serve the rest of his sentence in the community. The emotional one is that he should be locked up for the rest of his life for his stupidity. Not forgetting the parents and their satisfaction perhaps that he got what he deserved no doubt. So he rots in Jail and contributes nothing to society for the rest of his life.
The question I would like to pose is......How would that actually help the situation? Improve the situation or solve the problem! Would it bring the boys back? Can it undo that horror which has occurred? The simple answer is no. The parents are entitled to feel aggrieved. The reality is they have to suffer for the rest of their lives too. So nothing society can do will alter that.
So back to the goal keeper......do you let him rot or do you give him another chance to contribute to society? I am sure the emotional side of you will say "let him rot". Under law though that cannot happen he has to contribute to society if it is possible as has every one. The fact he is a goalkeeper or a ice hockey player or a rugby player has no bearing on the case at all. That is coincidental. Trust me when I say it is not going to be a picnic for him either. Yes he made a tragic mistake and two little boys suffered the ultimate fate. He cannot turn the clock back as much as he would like to.
There is not one of us in this society that has not done something really stupid, or will do at some time. The consequences will have varied. Rare would it have been with the possible consequences of what happened on this occasion. Life is tough and has consequences, the quicker you accept that the better person you will be........
Click to expand...

Beddy has said what I think here. McCormick could have been locked up for the rest of his life, but it still wouldn't have brought those kids back. He is not the only person who will be released on licence, in fact most non-dangerous people will be after half their sentence, it just happens that this one is more high profile. If you think he should have served longer then that is your opinion, personally I think four years in prison is a considerable amount of time. No it is not fair on the family, but until someone finds a way of reversing what has happened, nothing ever will be.
 
Its a tricky one. Many jobs wouldnt look at you if you had a criminal record and as a footballer you are representing the city/area. I think it comes down to the individual club and how they want to go about things they make take a hard line or be abit more forgiving. I think if you serve your time its better the more chances they are given especially if they prove they are changed and will work hard.
However the real thing here is how he got out in under four years. Absolutly ridicolous driving at 100mph and killing someone is murder in my book he should have served 15years absolute minimum.
 
Someone is a career criminal with a history of violence and finally kills someone. Another person is a rapist who kills a victim. Another person is a young man who has a career and does a dreadful thing. Which one is most likely to get into trouble again? The end result is death in all cases but subsequent behaviour is different.
 
Qwerty said:
Beddy has said what I think here. McCormick could have been locked up for the rest of his life, but it still wouldn't have brought those kids back. He is not the only person who will be released on licence, in fact most non-dangerous people will be after half their sentence, it just happens that this one is more high profile. If you think he should have served longer then that is your opinion, personally I think four years in prison is a considerable amount of time. No it is not fair on the family, but until someone finds a way of reversing what has happened, nothing ever will be.
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to your ideas about punishment. I think this country needs to instill a greater sense of responsibility to the individual. I dont think the point of punishment is for the victims family if you followed that line their would be no point in imprisining anyone who wasnt a risk to society. I think the point of punishment is to prove that we are responsible for our actions and long prison sentences do that. Unfortunaltly we dont have the resources to do so.
 
The guy's done his time and it's ultimately down to Swindon to decide whether it's appropriate. Footballers are in demand and if Swindon didn't take him on, someone else would have. Marlon King and Joey Barton found clubs after doing time, Ched Evans probably will too when he gets out.
 
The way to think about it is from a normal citizen's point of view, such as you and me. If we'd gone to jail for that, we'd not only find ourselves serving the full (and probably lengthier) sentence, and subsequently find our future employment prospects severely damaged.

It's ridiculous that footballers e.g. Barton, McCormick, Hughes, King are able to find employment relatively easily with our football clubs following their (normally early) release from jail, and yet we'd never be able to find a job if we had been to jail for such offences.
 
Just to throw it out there, why should somebody who was drink driving and accidentally killed somebody be punished any more heavily than someone who was drink driving and caused no accidents?
Looking at it on the other side, why should the person who drink drives without causing an accident not be punished to the same degree as the man who does cause an accident?
 
Only because you are usually caught only after an accident, unless a passing policeman sees you weave across the road. It's the same in other crimes...if you kill with a single punch you will be punished more than if you give him a blood nose...outcome is everything. An area I do feel needs looking at is where an innocent person is killed during a crime. It still gets argued that the burglar/robber didn't know you had a bad heart/brain aneurysm when he attacked you or frightened you...the fact is that the person would still be alive if the crime wasn't committed. In America (not sure if it is in all States) it is murder if someone dies during a crime.
 
Beef_Dripping said:
The boys' angry father Phil, of Partington, Greater Manchester, who was also seriously injured in the crash, said:.................... ‘As far as I am aware he clearly has an alcohol problem.’
Click to expand...

Clearly has an alcohol problem? Really?? Where exactly did he hear this? It's terrible what happened to his children and McCormick will live with that for the rest of his life, but to say things like this is wrong. Thankfully I have never been in this guy's position and I think it must be very hard to start insulting someone who'd killed my kids but this is just wrong.
 
KingslandKate said:
Clearly has an alcohol problem? Really?? Where exactly did he hear this? It's terrible what happened to his children and McCormick will live with that for the rest of his life, but to say things like this is wrong. Thankfully I have never been in this guy's position and I think it must be very hard to start insulting someone who'd killed my kids but this is just wrong.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take those comments at face value because I think he will have been baited into some of them by the tabloids trying to write a story, which is also sad. Unless we have been in a similar situation we can't say how we would feel afterwards. So all we can really do is offer our sympathies (not that they change anything either). My final word on this is that justice does not equal revenge.
 
Saint Birdsnest said:
Just to throw it out there, why should somebody who was drink driving and accidentally killed somebody be punished any more heavily than someone who was drink driving and caused no accidents?
Looking at it on the other side, why should the person who drink drives without causing an accident not be punished to the same degree as the man who does cause an accident?
Click to expand...

I think because there are two crimes committed:-

1) the act of drink driving which is an offence in itself

2) causing death by dangerous driving which carries an additional tariff

likewise someone carrying a knife would get a lesser sentence than someone who carried a knife and stabbed someone to death.
 
I dont think its fair that while in jail he got out to train, that is wrong. But i hate the way the parents words make it sound like the player doesnt care, I know it would be horrible and no doubt would act similarly, but seriously i bet that night haunts him every day of his life. If he has served his time, even if it has been shortened or not when he is released i dont see any reason he cant play football.
 
Not the same as actually losing someone, but I'm sure that he is suffering. I would replay that moment forever, even if I wasn't drink driving. I know of someone who killed a child through no fault of their own (she ran across the road)...she never drove again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back