ans Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Every case has to be judged on it's own merits and what's wrong with a degree of flexibility? Flexible is choosing to only ban someone for three years instead of five because they were fractionally over the limit. Or fining them a nominal figure because they're on a low income with a family to support. Flexible should not extend to keeping someone three times over the limit out of jail. That exceeds the boundaries of a simple mistake or poor judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 That's a sentencing issue and based on precedent. Rather than looking at a law change we should ensure we appoint suitable deemsters and bailiffs. There are already automatic bans for those exceeding the limit by a certain amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 you would be three times over the limit if you drank 4 pints of strong lager,but not neccessarily pissed . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Anybody who doesn't know that it's wrong to drink four pints of strong lager and then drive is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 no of course its wrong,but its not so wrong we need to throw away the key Im just saying its not like they went out for a mad session then drove or anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I'd rather let the readings be the guide to what a person has done myself. If a person is three times over the limit, I don't really care if they've had four pints of super strength or 97 cans of shandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 What's with this blanket approach to the problem. Every case has to be judged on it's own merits and what's wrong with a degree of flexibility? Also, where would you put all these people you'll be jailing and who'll pay for the cost of their upkeep. I'm a devout hater of drink driving but there has to be some perspective. The threat of prison is unlikely to act as a deterrent because those who decide to drink drive have probably done so with no thought for their actions never mind the consequences. And quite often, those caught drink driving have an alcohol problem which won't magically disappear by the threat of prison. As far as I know, they wouldn't be allowed to drink in prison and I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't be driving. These are people who are so far up their own arses that they couldn't care less about seriously endangering the lives of others. If a hefty fine and lengthy ban doesn't do the trick - jail them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I'm sure some of the people who post on here will remember when drink driving WAS socially acceptable. It was a long time ago, Social attitudes against drink driving have changed more than the law and sentencing. It's about time the judiciary caught up with the times, and not just in this matter. I think that, above a certain limit, prison must be mandatory, together with some education and community service. I'd like to see the more extreme cases banned for life. Apart from, maybe, being forced to pick up drunks on a Friday and Saturday nght and drive them where they want to go - for free. Let them see just how much harm alcohol can do to some peoples lives. Leave the taxi drivers to deal with people who can handle their drink. I'm sure that, by the time you take into consideration people throwing up in taxis and running off without paying, it would not be that much of a loss to our cabbies. Edited to add:- Just checked the IOM OnLine site and found this:- IOM Christmas Drink Driving campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation rather than punishment isn't it? What good does jailing someone do anyway? Apart from cost to the taxpayer, lose the person their job, income, possibly home and family... Prison is more about punishment than rehabilitation otherwise people would be sent to cosy little evening classes or something instead. I'd say it's the punishment of having your liberty taken away from you hopefully in the realisation it'll give you plenty of time to think about how much you miss your freedom & how you don't want to be in there again. I wont even touch my car until 12 hours after I've finished if I've been on a session and even then, there are going to be trace elements. Sure I've read on some alcohol 'facts' site that it takes an hour for each unit of alcomohol to leave your system generally, meaning it can be quite a long time before you're 'safe' to drive after having a lot to drink so if that's true it'd be a lot longer than many people realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Prison is a deterrent as much as anything else. And also handy for keeping people out of harms way. Or away from harming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 I'd rather let the readings be the guide to what a person has done myself. If a person is three times over the limit, I don't really care if they've had four pints of super strength or 97 cans of shandy. I must agree. I understand that one person who's drunk 6 pints may be more pissed than someone else - I know as I'm a light-weight! Even so we can't go around weighing people to see if they're more pissed than others would be having drunk the same amount. Times have changed as someone said and this type of crime should be treated very severely. The reason I suggested a zero limit is because I think it's the only truely safe limit and this way no one can assume they're ok to drive if they've only had a pint and a half or whatever. Granted, there may be problems with regards to some mouth wash and other types of painkillers but it would be easy to see who's been drinking and who's just freshened their breath. Maybe the time's not right for a zero limit but it appears to work in many places where it is in force - except here in Poland where people think it's a jolly good idea to get pissed and then go speeding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Maybe the time's not right for a zero limit but it appears to work in many places where it is in force Which countries operate a zero limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Which countries operate a zero limit? Britain's limit is 0.08% for an alcohol count. Most other European countries have a limit of 0.05% - maybe this would be a better limit to standardize things? Countries with a zero limit include: Armenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Gibraltar (they have roads?), Hungary, Romania, Ukraine in Europe. There are other countries outside of Europe with zero limits but the list isn't as long as I originally thought. In Australia many states have zero limits for drivers of commercial vehicles. Interestingly China and a few other countries have no limts (!). Of course Iran and a few other countries also have a zero limit but that's probably because alcohol is illegal anyway. Some US states have a zero-limit for drivers under 21. In most countries zero limit is assumed to be 0.01% to take into account things like mouthwash. [source: Measuroo Statistics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 /troll Wouldn't the simple solution to that scenario be to not take illegal drugs in the first place? /troll In such statements, isn't it supposed to go, so to speak: 'troll on' with a bit of a statement followed by 'troll off' __________________ I see the above quoted statement, by ans : /troll blah, blah /troll meaning you are a troll that is turning 'troll off' to make a point and then switching to 'troll on' again, OR a non-troll that is turning 'troll on' and then back to 'troll off'. OR, more correctly, simply a 'non-troll' specific declared statement. You see, it sort of nullifies itself and shouldn't really have been proclaimed as 'troll off' and 'troll on' or anything in the first place. There are different levels of trollism and quite frankly, I expected better syntax. Unless it was intended, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 how about the Troll y I use at Tesco - If I loaded it up with booze would that be drink driving or driving drink or some might wonder if you arrive by car are you driven to drink?? anyhow more to the point I see a Port Erin woman has been banned for 7 years for having been picked up after driving 13 miles to Kirk Michael without a rear tyre!!! who says women drivers are shit..that must have taken some skill....does she do rallies?? Even more to the point though is the worrying aspect of people being banned who you then see back in the paper a few months or so later after having been caught driving before the ban expires..and with no insurance...what to do in these cases???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.