However, if you are taking 'causing death by drunk dangerous driving' as a seperate crime from 'drunk dangerous driving', then it would appear that whether you get a small punishment just for the drink driving, or the punishment for the death caused as well, comes down to pot luck. For example, if 2 men drove exactly the same, when drunk, with the same recklessness, and the first man happened to hit and kill an innocent bystander, whereas the second man didn't hit and kill somebody only by chance, because there happened to be no pedestrians walking when he drove, then even though they both commited the same crime intentionally of drink driving, the only reason the first man gets locked away for longer, is just because of pure chance. If there hadn't been a pedestrian there, he would have had a much less serious sentence, and that seems unfair, that if you drink drive, the punishment you get, in effect comes down to pot luck. To me at least it seems the crime of drink driving and the crime of death by drink driving are in effect the same crime, because the addition of 'death by' was an accident, that could have happened to either man, so it would seem that the jail sentence for 'dangerous drink driving' and 'death by dangerous drink driving' should be the same.
I hope Luke maybe commits part of his future to a drink driving awareness campaign. If he can get the message across & stop one kid from being hurt, then that would be on the road to rehabilitation for me. Not serving half of a soft sentence in a soft prison with more perks than you can shake a stick at. Thats just sending the wrong message to people who do these selfish acts with little regard of the consequences.
Then the world would just contain you and Cliff Richard! Did James Beattie get done for drink driving or was it another motoring offence? I seem to recall him only moving it from one side of London road to another but could be wrong.
Of course I know what murder is. I know he didnt initially intend to kill the person. However he made a concious choice to drive 100mph. He knew that at that speed he was endangering his life and everyones around him. While his motive was not to kill, his actions were life threatining and he was well aware of this. I dont know about english law but American law states that killing by extreme recklessness IS murder. You may have noticed I said 'in my book'. Obviously I was talking about my interpretation of the act which I clearly think is as good as murder. I dont care whether he tried to kill someone, intentionally putting peoples lives at risk while well aware of the danger is in my opinion on the same level as murder. I supose you think that the current U.K definition of murder is the only adaquate definition. This would be quite a small minded aproach, to neglect the fact that philosphers and lawyers have argued over centuries on issues such as this.
A definition of murder involves intention, but sometimes things are so reckless that any reasonable person would suggest that death could be the result. He presumably was so drunk that he lost all common sense, but have never been a fan of drunkeness being an excuse for any crime. I rarely drink because it upsets my stomach (not from any moral stance), but I wouldn't drive to a wedding because even I would probably have a couple during the course of the day. Never put yourself in this position.
Your right and I think any reasonable person knows drink driving could very likely result in death. To put yourself in the posistion to even have the oppurtunity to drink drive is reckless, to then continue to do so is even more so. Drinking provides no excuse if you cant controll your actions when drunk dont drink simple. This is what I was getting at I think people should be responsible for their actions not just their intentions. For me drink driving and excessive speeding show a fundemental lack of value for human life. To do is in my opinion so reckless that it can be considered on the same level as murder. The intention isnt to kill people but the act is intentional and the act is known to put peoples lives at risk so it could be argued that the person is intentionally putting peoples lives at risk.
This shows a lack of understanding of the effects of alcohol & drugs. One of the major effects is an increase in the confidence of the user. The intention of the drink driver is hardly to crash, but the drug drastically reduces the reactions. Any crash is still an accident, but avoidable and 100% the fault of the drink driver, but there is never any intention which is the definition of murder.
Drink driving AND going at 100mph is a recipe for disaster. I cannot believe there are some in this thread sticking up for someone who clearly had no care for the others in the vehicle or himself. You also need to add into it the fact he could easily have caused a multiple crash pile up or smashed up another car killing all their passengers. The fact the mother and father are so angry at the release says it all. This is the type of thing that is unforgivable
It seems some people don't know the difference between justice and vengeance. Prison is for people who may be a danger to society, not a mechanism for inflicting as much suffering upon the criminal as he has caused to others. Life isn't a Saw film. This guy killed someone because he was negligent, and it will haunt him for the rest of his life. The family of the person will understandably feel that his sentence wasn't sufficient, but that's because they are presumably distraught and are not thinking rationally. If I was in their position, I would want him killed too, but I would be wrong.
Ok I don't take drugs but have drunk as much the next guy I well understand the effects of alcohol that is why I would never allow myself to be in a position to drive when I drink. Also when I my drink I still know that certain things are things not to be done. I never said he intended to kill someone. However everyone knows the danger to human life of drink and dangerous driving. I don't think you can say he didn't intend to drive, and if he didn't it just shows how irresponsibly drunk he was. He did something everyone knows is life threatening. If he hadn't intended to it was his responsibility to prevent it from occurring (the driving). If he had intended to drive whilst drunk then he knowingly put people's lives at risk. I know too many people who don't take seriously the dangers of drink driving. However in the end a man has lost his life through no fault of his own his family will think of their loss for every day for the rest of their life. Punishment won't bring back th life but it will show we value life and actions which place it at risk will not be tolerated and punished severly.
You really think prison is just for protection to society? I think punishment is a deterrent but also a way as a society of declaring what is and isn't acceptable. Punishing severly shows those actions that are so deplorable that the perpetrators can't be allowed back into society regardless of whether they continue to pose a threat.
Oh please explain. (Quite rich coming from the person who thinks McCormick should be shot, isn't it?)
I'm not talking about capital punishment by the way. If you disagree fair enough, but I would argue that following your model to completion would result in a society I wouldn't want to live in. Oh also I didn't mean all criminals should never be allowed back into society just meant they shouldn't be allowed back into society for a long time in some way proportional to the crime. With the most severe crimes not allowed back atleast for the vast majority if not all of their lives.
I'm pretty sure I just described the society you do live in. I'm just saying that there is no sentence, and nor should there be, which determines from the beginning that the person will never be allowed back into society.
Ok I agree that the current system while not perfect is no reason to leave the country! What I mean is I strongly disagree with the idea of imprisonment just to keep dangerous people out of society. Also I would disagree about not having life long imprisonment (admittedly only used for most severe crimes) but we may have to agree to dissagree abOut that.
