So, today I woke up to the news of four innocent kids passing away in Sydney due to one perons's drink driving. May their souls rest in peace. I believe one of the big reasons behind this is weak judicial rulings. These judges give stricter punishments for downloading pirated stuff but much weaker punishments for traffic offences, drug / alcohol possession charges, sexual assaults etc.
Do you think there should be much more severe punishments for these as well?
Eye for an eye? They should let a drunk driver run his family down? Doesn't really seem fair on them…
Let them run him down 4 times?
hmmm does not sound too bad actually, AdosHouse 2020
What was unintentional about DUI?
I get where you're coming from but the bad guys could abuse such a system by contriving their crimes to appear accidental. See the 'affluenza' defence, for example.
There also needs to be some kind of negative repercussions to satisfy the mob's thirst for 'justice', and to ensure that you can't 'win' by just doing the crime until you get caught. For example, if the penalty for rampant corruption is simply to resign after it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt and get paid a lifetime pension well above the average wage, there is no incentive for Bridget McKenzie people to be honest.
The other penalty for people like McKenzie should come at the ballot box (you would expect the public to want to vote for those with honour and dignity).
Unfortunately too many people don't think critically and they keep voting the liberals and nationals in. When this happens, people like McKenzie and the LNP have no incentive to be honest.
you would expect the public to want to vote for those with honour and dignity
I would prefer the public vote for those with honour, but, like you, I can't ignore the mountains of evidence that far too many people are swayed by stupid arguments [1] and/or short-term selfishness [2]. Traditional and social media don't exactly help people make well-informed decisions either.
I still don't know if any crime should have repercussions especially if it's not intentional
You're part of the problem.
Part of the problem of not wanting a violent society? Why does everything have to be an eye for an eye or revenge, justice and severe punishment? What gives you or anyone the right to judge such a sentence on another person. People like you that will forever hold this world in a primitive state of mind.
@Whisper Quiet: I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate against a violent society.
It's all well and good to hold hands and sing kumbaya, but the fact is that evil exists in our society and it should be dealt with in the harshest of possible terms to remove it once it manifests itself.
What gives you or anyone the right to judge such a sentence on another person.
The laws of our society.
People like you that will forever hold this world in a primitive state of mind.
When you're dealing with primitives, you sometimes need to adopt primitive approaches.
@Seraphin7: The laws of our society that were made by people who have different agendas they want to use. Our society never got a chance to vote on these laws. They were given to us by "leaders" but yet affect everyone of us. Remove evil by the harshest way possible sounds like you would be willing to do anything for revenge or to protect people you know… It's that kind of mentality that creates fear and violence in the first place. Sad that there can be such a huge difference in our judgements of someone's life.
Remove evil by the harshest way possible sounds like you would be willing to do anything for revenge or to protect people you know
Hmmmm … let me think about all the things I would do to protect my family from evil.
Our society never got a chance to vote on these laws. They were given to us by "leaders" but yet affect everyone of us.
We voted for the leaders.
Seems almost inhuman to intentionally punish someone for decades for an unintentional crime.
My children sometimes fight with each other. Every now and again they will injure each other. Their defense will be something like 'I didn't mean to poke them in the eye' (i.e. it was unintentional). Sure, they didn't mean to cause that specific harm - but they were fighting. Causing harm wasn't an accident - it was a foreseeable outcome of the behaviour they chose. In my view - if they were walking through the kitchen and slipped on some water and as a side effect tripped their brother over - that would be an accident (or unintentional). But if you are fighting, you need to take some responsibility for your behaviour.
When people drink and drive of course they don't (in their mind) intentionally injure anyone. It is rare to swerve all over the road to try and hit someone. But people know that driving abilities are negatively impacted by alcohol consumption. Injuring someone is a foreseeable (not guaranteed, but foreseeable) outcome of the behaviour they chose.
Maybe have the perps take a year course for becoming a better person
They have a course similar to that for drink drivers. I know some people who have gone through it. Suffice to say it did not result in a complete reformation of their character.
Injuring someone is a foreseeable outcome of sober driving as well…
@Emerald Owl: https://www.nrspp.org.au/resources/fact-sheet-drink-driving/ suggests alcohol is the main contributor in 30% of fatal crashes. The same page suggests an offence rate of 0.6% (i.e. 0.6% of breath tests come back over the limit).
So yes it is true that all driving has some risk (given that 70% of fatal crashes don't have alcohol have the main contributor). But, statistically, those numbers suggest that roughly 0.6% of drivers are causing 30% of accidents. That is about 50x higher than you might expect (30 / 0.6).
Is any driving unwise due to some level of risk? Maybe - I wouldn't argue with people who felt that way.
But if you choose to partake in an illegal activity (drink driving) that, on the face of it, appears to increase overall chance of fatal crashes by a factor of 50 or so - that seems unwise to me. Arguing that it was unintentional seems like a weak argument to me at that stage.
@mjwills: I dispute the interpretation of those numbers. I am curious as to how they decide drink driving was the number one contributor. Firstly, you compare that 30% figure, which is if any alcohol is in someone’s system to the police conviction rate of 0.6%. That interpretation involves saying that someone under the alcohol limit who has an accident, that alcohol was a main contributing factor. So, although someone wasn’t breaking the law, alcohol was considered a contributing factor, which would make that 0.6% a lot higher.
Secondly, the conviction rate would be lower than the rate illegal drunk driving happens because people use apps and Facebook pages to fin doubt where rbts are and learn the spots where they get.
Further, the bias is to blame alcohol for a crash if anybody has had a bit. I highly doubt that can safely say alcohol was the number one contributing factor.
Other factors common with drinking such as lack of sleep, being distracted, driving at night and driving in unusual locations should all be considered and in my opinion is why the alcohol crash numbers are so high.
Finally, I would very much like to compare the accident rate of drivers >0.05 but <0.08. We heavily punish people in this range, but in other countries with lower accident rates, it is perfectly legal
The best way to stop people drink driving isn’t harsher penalties, it is lowering the tax rate on late night Uber/ride share, running more frequent at night public transport, building more smaller pubs near houses so people can walk home more, letting people but take home alcohol at all times and allowing people to ask the police to check if they are over the bac limit.
And here we go again. Always the alcohol. I can tell you, as a person who did drink in the past, that you are not that impaired to run a red light, drive on the wrong side of the road, and mount the greenstrip with 0.15, if, when sober, you are a cautious driver.
BUT if you are a dick driver when sober, one of those who needs to change lane all the time, just to get ahead by one car, and push in with your ute, then you might mount the kerb even sober. But dick drivers are not punished.
@cameldownunder: The alcohol still plays a factor. It may not affect everybody the same way (some people have higher tolerance, same as with pain/allergens/etc), but laws need to accommodate for the lowest common denominator, which, while low for you, may be reasonable for the average human.
Also, while "no noticeable impairment" may be acceptable to some, I actually do prefer the security afforded by "no impairment whatsoever".
Dick drivers should be punished. Drunk drivers should be punished. Drugged drivers should be punished.
This is where prisons are useful.
Some people are simply not capable of reforming. No matter how much you educate them or try to make them a better person, they just can't do it, for whatever reason.
The government has a moral duty to deliver the greatest good for the greatest number. For someone whose repeated bad behaviour has already killed or maimed others, and who is likely to continue that behaviour, there are two ways to protect the innocent.
One is to kill the offender. But as moral beings, we don't want to kill anyone if it can be avoided. So the alternative is to isolate them from the rest of society in such a way as to minimise the possibility of harm. In other words, to put them in a cage.
We don't yet have the resources to keep all prisoners in safe and comfortable conditions, so unfortunately sometimes they kill or maim each other, or the guards. But most of the time they don't, because they can't, or because they know they will be punished.
Ideally, jail is a place where prisoners can be reformed and eventually rejoin society as good citizens. But for some, reform is not possible and they stay in jail until they die, or until they are too old to hurt anyone.
It's not a perfect solution, but we don't live in a perfect world. It's about the best we can reasonably do until something else comes along.
So the alternative is to isolate them from the rest of society
We should ship them some place far away. I heard there was a place called Austra- oh wait.
Much cheaper just to inject somebody with a lethal dose of morphine than to keep them in jail at $80,000 per year for 40 years.
Humans have no qualms about murdering other species or destroying their habitats, so why should we, in an overcrowded world of 7 billion people, quibble about exterminating unrepentant recidivists of our own species.
The government has a moral duty to deliver the greatest good for the greatest number.
That might have been true in the past, all what the government and the sheep citizen are doing is bowing for the minorities.
You are getting unfairly down voted. I think the system here is good. It just takes time to shift our current penal system, and as a result, public perception of it.
geez champ..We all need to watch out for you on the road…
"Seems almost inhuman to intentionally punish someone for decades for an unintentional crime." This statement is straight up crazy.
This world praises revenge in every form. It's easy for people to feel that way when they don't have an open mind about how a different society could be.
do u drink and drive?
This is completely intentional. He had the full awareness to make the right choice/arrangements before he started drinking but he chose not to
makes the whole world blind - Gandhi
Ghandi didn’t invent this quote. It has been mis-attributed to him via a book that was written about him were the author likened the phrase to Ghandi’s philosophy on punishment. There is no evidence that Ghandi ever said this quote.
The phrase can be traced back further than when Ghandi was supposed to have said it, where it was mentioned in 1914, from a speech to Canadian Parliament;
”an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless.”
The phrase was slightly altered and used once again in a book from 1944, a few years before Ghandi was wrongly attributed to saying it.
”If the Spirit, Who is Life, exacted an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, this world would indeed be peopled with the blind and the toothless.”
All of these sayings could possibly have been derived from a quote in the bible that relates to personal injury from Exodus 23-25
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
So, while I agree with the saying and what it is trying to imply, I’m just not convinced that Ghandi invented it.
Mic drop
An eye for an eye makes the whole world pirates
Ya mean 'aye for an aye'?
Eye for an eye
…leaves the whole world blind.
“Eye for an eye” (or “Equal and opposite”) is the punishment - it doesn’t precede judgement.
It is the one and only fair punishment because it is determined by the perpetrator him/herself.
You managed to condense so much incorrect information into 2 short lines.
Claiming "eye for an eye" is "the one and only fair punishment" doesn't make that true. Plenty of counter-examples involving diminished responsibility and other extenuating circumstances. Punishing people who had little or no choice in what they did is moronic.
In fact when you apply an equal punishment it isn't opposite. When you murder the murderer you don't bring the victim back to life, you create a new victim. 2 people are dead and society is diminished twice rather than being healed.
I prefer "stricker"
Oxford dictionary needs to add it
I gotta admit, I liked it too.
Kinda has a strikey ring to it.
My favourite was "persons's"
Not too good at the whole reading comprehension thing huh?
The problem with NK and other similar dictatorships (unlike our 2-party legislative dictatorship) is that they go OTT in terms of the 'rule of law'. And people end up killed and persecuted not for crimes against their fellow humans but for pseudo 'crimes' against the state. I think people keep forgetting that we no longer have a justice system here, we have a legal system instead where punishment is meted out not necessarily on the basis of 'have you committed a crime'? (i.e. is there a real flesh and blood person you have harmed in some way) but rather on the basis of 'have you broken one of their 'rules', regardless of whether there is a victim or not.) And the punishments are not proportional to the crimes and can usually be avoided altogether by those who can afford a better class of representation in the courts. While we don't need to go full 'North Korea' I reckon we could find a balance point somewhere, but not with the current system as it stands. I challenge anyone to go to the local court house and sit in on a few cases and see what a clownshow it is.
What we need (but wont get) is more punishment for crimes like this one and other crimes involving real victims and lesser punishment for victimless 'crimes' of mere disobedience. It wont happen of course but I suspect the west's controllers are planning to fix that through their implementation of the Chinese style social credit system which is already being rolled out.
(let the negs commence)
well for starters you wouldnt have a car in the peoples republic of North Kimrea.
Fragment: Consider revising.
"So, it looks like you're trying to be funny, want some help with that?"
I am all for Strickter Punishments
Sphincter Punishments?
That's what happens when you drop the soap.
Yes daddy.
Please come home, son…
f'ing lol almost burst out loud laughing at work
The issue of punishment when caught or when something tragic happens is that most people feel that it will never happen to them.
Moreover, we are live in a society that wishes to dissociate cause and effect - blame someone else for the misfortunes/shortcomings.
A simple increase in penalties wouldn't change anything. Example - illicit drugs. People are aware of the criminality and natural consequences yet drug use is on the rise.
SEA countries produce most of the world's meth and do have drug use problems. I think you must have seen how harsh their primitive punishments are and just assumed that they are effective.
Sorry i should have said in particularly malaysia and singapore.
Care to provide your source for that statement. I think you will find the SE Asian countries have massive drug usage issues…
Care to provide your source as well?
@mrvaluepack: 2 second google search…..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-04/war-on-drugs-southeas…
SEA countries dont really have under influence of drug related problems.
You must be joking.
I agree (with parts 1 & 3, that is). My recollection of the science (read: CBF looking for sources) is that the chance of being caught is what deters people, not the punishment.
i.e. Catching 80% of drunk drivers and giving them a slap on the wrist is likely a much better preventative strategy than catching one in a million and summarily executing them.
China changed their drink driving laws and iirc it did have a positive impact but I need to find the numbers:
https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/china-harsher-p…
any criminal record in china basically means you won't be able to find a job and will be disowned by society.
It's China. There is absolutely no transparency in their reports or processes.
I wouldn't bother reading their stats without independent international review.
So the kids are dead and it's not right that we're blaming the driver who was DUI.
Increasing the punishment on those driver won't do anything to reduce the chance of that happening, apparently.
And 37 people agrees.
38 now :D
How did you get that he is not blaming the driver?
it's not right that we're blaming the driver who was DUI.
I'm confused. Who do we blame for this? God? Should we all just send "thoughts and prayers" to the family and call it a day?
Increasing the punishment on those driver won't do anything to reduce the chance of that happening
I might agree that it won't do anything, but I think the driver should be punished harshly for what he has done nevertheless.
And I think that it's the phrase below that people are upvoting, not that we should let the driver off, or not blame them for what happened.
The issue of punishment when caught or when something tragic happens is that most people feel that it will never happen to them.
That first quote was taken laughably out of context. Do you not detect any sarcasm or is this deliberate?
This accident happened because a selfish git got drunk and drove - a change to the sentencing laws would have done nothing to prevent this.
Public whipping on all tv stations is the only way. I'll volunteer to be the guy whipping them.
Judge seedy.
Thanks Christian Grey
Gota know what you love and how to get it lol
I prefer Judge Bao
Stricter sentence and he wouldn't be back on road in 6/7 years.
I'd say at least 15 years. Let it be a lesson to everyone else.
Too many people have gotten away and far too many innocent lives have been lost.
Why not jail people for 15 years for anyone who causes a collision regardless of influence?
Are alcohol related fatalities worse than distraction or incompetance related fatalities?
Food for thought.
If a sober person speeds up the footpath like a maniac and mows down a bunch of children, then 15+ years sounds good to me.
this is so true, also, people are calling for a zero limit.
I highly doubt that a zero limit would not have stopped this person from drink driving.
People still drive after losing a license and also make workarounds for in car alcohol key locks.
More importantly BAC of 0.01 has absolutely no effect on your driving ability, so why should it be illegal.
Apparently he was trying to illegally overtake.
maybe not, but we will never know. It might stop some people and that may save someones life from being taken away from them and there families.
Why wouldn't you want stronger penalties?
Eye for an eye