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?
Planes haven flown themselves for YEARSSSSSSS and yet we need pilot. I personally don't see fully self-driving car anytime soon.
Some automotive manufacturers believe we'll never see fully autonomous cars.
It's more likely we will see cars that have a lot of driver assistance features that will protect us from ourselves but may only engage fully when on freeways.
In saying that, if auto manufacturers could agree on an awareness system that links all vehicles with each other in a certain radius, meaning they never come in physical contact, that would be the silver bullet when used In conjunction with road hazard awareness sensors.
If a system like this existed it would need to be iron clad tight security wise. Imagine the havoc that could be had hacking it.
Yep, in fact autopilot has been responsible for countless airplane crashes because the systems malfunctioned and the pilots were clueless without it.
The solution to bad driving habits is not to make drivers more stupid and incompetent.
Driving has the same problem as prison. It's treated like a money making scheme. The government wants to give any idiot a license so long as it means they will be able to fine them for stupid behavior.
I’m not trying to excuse this bastard but what would, probably, work better is if the Government subsidised, and encouraged, people to use properly calibrated home breathalysers. If the “blow in the bag” became part of the party ritual then somebody might’ve called him an Uber, rather than let him drive. People don’t, necessarily, know how drunk they are. Also we all need to step in and stop mates driving when they are drunk. Offer them a bed or call them an Uber. Harsher penalties probably won’t have much of an effect on the behaviour of these sort of guys and, by the time of sentencing, the damage has been done to the victims. More needs to be done on changing the drinking/driving attitudes than just sentencing laws.
Sorry, there's Too much sense in your post. Only pitchforks and fire sticks allowed in this thread.
Oh Cars with Breathalyzers, and if you blow over they don't starts.
AI built into cars that recognize bad driving behaviors and shuts the car down.
Quite possible. They have the breathalyzer equipment inbuilt for offending drivers, so quite possible for ALL vehicles. Far as I am aware many cars gave lane departure warnings, seatbelt alarms as it knows ehen people are seated in yiur car, so a little more tinkering is all that is needed, now not later though.
LOL. The guy blew three times over not 0.051. He'd have to be one hell of a knuckle dragger to need a machine to tell him he was high range. I struggle to believe he somehow didn't know he was impaired yet managed to cause such mayhem. Are you his lawyer?
Most low cost machines have questionable accuracy and decent accuracy costs a lot of money. Even the police need to retest with more accurate equipment after the roadside tests which are properly calibrated. Does the government send one to every household? Get it back every 6 months for a recalibration? What about my tea total grandparents? Should they get one? Does the type of person who drinks and drives (high range) sound like the kind of person who calls up the government and asks them to send over a breathalyzer in advance of any planned drinking? Then there's also a lag between consumption and BAC to consider. So while I agree that people might not necessarily know if they are just over but for this guy it would have been a basic counting exercise to work out he should be nowhere near a drivers seat. If simple counting is a struggle then there's an app for that.
There's no way a breathalyzer would have helped here. He would have either not used it or driven anyway. There aren't many good technological solutions for a severe lack of personal responsibility unfortunately.
There is no way on this earth that this idiot was not aware he was driving drunk.
Some peoples actions prove that there is no place in society for them. The sentence should be solitary confinement 24/7/365 in a cell with a bed, a toilet, one meal a day through a slot and a rope.
Seriously?
yes
That is EASILY the most insensitive comment in the entire thread. It is not even remotely close to the kids, or the parents fault.
It is solely the drunk drivers fault. Get out from under your rock.
It is not even remotely close to the kids, or the parents fault.
You're right.
But….
Kids should not be joy riding at night on their bike and walking when it's pitch black.
Keep kids in the house at night and don't let them ride around on a bike at night without supervision.
How about you get your parents off the road before they cause something similar?
I cannot believe that you'd even say something like this, even if trolling. Kids will be kids.
How about you get your parents off the road before they cause something similar?
Ageist. What's wrong run out of a valid argument? Pathetic.
Kids will be kids.
That's not an excuse. Parents need to be more responsible.
Ageist. What's wrong run out of a valid argument? Pathetic.
Ageist? No, I am likening these kids out on their bikes to your parents that can't decide where to legally and illegally drive among each other.
That's not an excuse. Parents need to be more responsible.
So do your parents that enter roads illegally, while clearly signed.
Oh, and the driver that blew 3x over the legal limit and killed 4 kids.
Ageist? No, I am likening these kids out on their bikes to your parents that can't decide where to legally and illegally drive among each other.
Hundreds of people get caught driving on that T-way, because it's convenient to get to Rhodes. It's also possible to miss the sign when driving in the evening or if you're new to the area.
illegally drive among each other.
It's not illegal to drive on a T-way.
So do your parents that enter roads illegally, while clearly signed.
Oh boo hoo. Broke a road rule by mistake. Call the police. Parents broke a road rule so let's justify irresponsible parenting. Good argument mate. Stop deflecting.
It's not illegal to drive on a T-way.
The fine your Dad incurred indicates otherwise.
Oh boo hoo. Broke a road rule by mistake. Call the police.
Reckon that'll work for old mate? See my point? How can you be so unempathetic?
The fine your Dad incurred indicates otherwise.
I'll let him know he's going to jail for braking a road rule.
Reckon that'll work for old mate? See my point? How can you be so unempathetic?
Your point is dumb and has no relevance. I assure you my parents will not be running over pedestrians after missing a T-way sign.
@Numlock: Not replying any more. You have got to be trolling. There is no way that you can blame this on the parents and kids.
There is no way that you can blame this on the parents and kids.
Kids are not to blame.
Parents were dumb. They have 3 other kids in the family to educate and warn of the dangers when walking around at night.
@CMH: Agree. Learned my lesson on his trolling a few days ago on another thread. Luckily it’s all just “Comment Blocked” now. :D
They were on the footpath.
the driver ran them over ON THE FOOTPATH you dmbfck. Had the parents been there, they would have been dead too.
LOL.. if they have supervision it will probably only add the death tally. You think an adult cant get killed by an out of control vehicle? Anyone walking on that footpath at that time could've been killed regardless
Sad thing is there's hundreds of people everyday who drive with the same or more amount of alcohol as this guy in their system. They just haven't gotten caught or killed anyone yet. No amount of penalty increases stop people from breaking the law. Especially if they haven't been caught before and felt the sting.
That's why in a way I like Vic rules regarding drink driving. Mandatory interlock on your license for ANY drink driving offense.
Interlock standard on all new vehicles would be another solution. Not sure how viable, but couldn't add to the cost of a new car that much. Might even end up cheaper than the cost of medical care for people involved in crashes. Just spitballing here…
Makes sense but would be annoying for people who genuinely don't drink and just want to drive.
@Herbse: Yeah but imagine balancing that annoyance with the knowledge that nobody, or almost nobody, on the road was intoxicated with alcohol. Could be a little like being searched for weapons at a nightclub or an airport.
@ozbjunkie: Yea, I guess I could live with it.
Similar to how any regulations or restrictions on dangerous items makes it harder for people who genuinely don't use them the wrong way but keeps everyone safer.
You do realise that the judiciary doesn't establish the law, it just applies it right?
Sentencing is based on legislation drafted by the relevant state/commonwealth bodies.
Judges do have discretion but these discretion are based on the law.
If you have an issue with jail times it might be better to question and lobby for the applicable law to be changed, rather than the judiciary's interpretation of the law which is often hard to fault without a full understanding of the facts of the case and a deeper understanding of statutory interpretation.
What a stupid comment - judges have a huge amount of discretion in the ranges for sentencing. If they were slamming out maximum sentences more often the public would be a lot happier; it makes a lot more sense to question whether this would actually be beneficial overall rather than claim something patently false
I think you are overstating the amount of discretion they have.
Maximum sentences can only be given if the facts of the case meet the criteria set in the law.
The criteria for maximum sentences have a very high threshold that the facts of the case may not meet.
If you want tougher laws, you need to lobby to changing the sentencing act to have stricter MINIMUM laws, e.g. a minimum penalty for one punch
manslaughter
Skim through this if you actually care:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files…
Do you believe that common law is fixed and can't be adjusted over time by adjusting societal views and the arguments of judges?
I'm quite happy with some discretion sitting with judges - increasing the minimum sentences also increases the chances of a miscarriage of justice by taking more of this discretionary power away. If you think legislation needs to be the point of change then I would lobby for harsher maximum sentences.
Also your link doesn't work but I found the Qld version
They have discretion but this can't just be applied arbitrarily.
If the judge gives a sentence outside the 'norm' for the circumstances then the perpetrator will appeal and have it reduced.
So it is the law that needs to change.
$1000 fine for mobile phone use while driving in Queensland is a good start.
yes it is a great start, but education to the public of the fines etc by heavy ad campaigns would also be good.
slam it home to impress it into peoples minds 1k and 3 demerits or whatever it is, then on a double demerit 6poinjts or whatever it is, will
problem is the money that would be spent to do so, takes money away from other needed programs.
Sentencing serves two functions:
There's a limit to how severe a sentence can be before it stops becoming a deterrent, and actually causes people to escalate their behaviour (eg. Drunk Drive > Running from the cops. Rape > Murder). Any rational person would not risk the existing punishment for this crime, so you're left with trying to provide a further deterrent to someone who already thinks they will get away with it. There's also a balance in cost, decades of locking someone up, or even capital punishment, costs an enormous amount of public money, that is probably better off spent on treatment, prevention and other measures that will save more lives.
As to prevention that basically applies to people that are likely to offend in the future, eg, violent criminals, likely repeat offenders etc. There are better ways to stop that than longer sentences, a longer sentence is basically society admitting this particular person is unredeemable and we have no lesser measures capable of preventing repeat offending.
Sorry this sounds dispassionate, but there's no punishment that will bring these kids back, the focus really should be on ways that work to prevent a repeat rather than vengeance.
Someone was also giving weird information before about them getting a reduced sentence because they were drunk, if you are stone cold sober, driving 'safely' and negligently kill someone the maximum sentence is 1 year. If you are under the influence of any alcohol / or speeding / driving dangerously the maximum sentence is 10 years. If you're over the prescribed limit of blood alcohol, speeding more than 45km/h or fleeing a police pursuit the maximum sentence is 14 years.
Also I'm pretty sure there aren't stricter sentences or in fact any custodial sentences for 'downloading pirated stuff'. We do have some laws with crazy high sentences though, forgetting your password can, theoretically, get you in jail for 5 years. Not even joking.
Do not overlook retribution.
Our 'contract' with the law removes our natural right to retribution, but this will not last long if the system isn't seen to be sufficiently taking care of this on our behalf.
The countries that don't overlook retribution tend to pretty much be permanent war zones. It's actually overlooking retribution which sustains the system.
Without a robust legal system that brings victim satisfaction, people feel compelled to seek their own retribution.
I think that they need a 0 blood alcohol limit for all licence types. For people caught drink driving and/or drug driving immediate 1 week incareceration. I.e. leave the car where it is go to the station, wait 30 mins, do another test (breath and blood). If positive, straight to jail for 1 week without trial… This will be common and widespread enough for people to start to fear the ramifications.
It's kind of mind blowing that people actually think this way.
Alcohol dependency clouds judgment and blows people's minds. You should see a doctor.
What does 'dependency' mean in your mind? 0.01 BAC? lol
To all the people who said that having harsher penalties wont change anything, look at south east asian countries during the opium epedemic. Once the death sentence was introduced, illegal drug related offences and trade fell drastically.
If the public wants drunk driving related offences to fall, the only option is harsher penalties or people will not ever change/learn.
You would trade our political system for those of SE Asian countries? What would the impact be on our standard of living and way of life? Can you imagine if people protested against climate change and were then murdered by the government? Our elections would probably be corrupted. Our governments could also be corrupted by money and influence moreso than now. Overall crime rate increases. Crime isn’t an isolated issue. It’s intertwined with the rest of society.
If you bothered to read that authors source material, you'll see:
It should be noted, however, that any comparison of estimates over time should be undertaken with caution, given the wide uncertainty intervals of the estimates.
There is no direct link with harsher punishment = lower usage, but it's also just as ingenious to completely write it off as a factor.
Maybe this stat is clearer.
Murder rates in death penalty states is higher than in non death penalty states. The is no stronger punishment than death
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates…
I know there are many factors. But there is little evidence anywhere that supports tougher penalties and crime falls significantly.
I have written nothing off, just linked an article refuting the claim made by the OP that illegal drug related offences and trade fell drastically, when in fact they increased. An increase in drug activity is the exact opposite of what the OP stated.
That is all I was pointing out. You made assumptions on
And you were wrong on both accounts.
@blawler05: You originally posted a link with no commentary or clarification, therefore your motives can be interpreted many different ways whether you like it or not.
First of all what OP said "Once the death sentence was introduced, illegal drug related offences and trade fell drastically" is not accurate. No one knows if that, in isolation, is a major contributing factor.
But then you posted an article trying to push your agenda/narrative saying it is not, which is disingenuous because you can't make any accurate claims about the effectiveness of the death penalty either from what is reported in the link. The journalist doesn't even mention the death penalty.
HELL YEH!!!!
As others have stated, harsher penalties often have the reverse affect of leading to further crime. Say there was mandatory jail for drink driving offences then nobody under the influence would stop when being pulled over. Next we would have our jails filled with usually non-criminal
Types leading to further crime once these people are released. The cost to society would be massive as it would open up a large black market for illegal weapons, costs to house all the criminals (possibly higher taxes). Society would suffer as a whole because now ex-criminals looking for work and being rejected from jobs they would have gotten before being sent to jail. More people on the dole, using Centrelink, filling hospitals due to poorer health and so on. Instead, look to European countries with lower crime rates and higher standards of living. Crime prevention is more about early intervention. Yes this person responsible should probably spend some of his life in prison but very strict punishment can lead to broader problems in society. You can see some of this in America where their prisons are full of people of lower socioeconomic background. It’s better to invest early on prevention and raise people’s standards of livings and then the crime rate falls. The death penalty isn’t a solution because once the government starts killing people then you have given the government too much power to bend the law to suit itself. You need checks and balances to keep a government honest and accountable for its actions. The people need to be able to trust their government and it’s not really 100% possible if people fear for their lives by challenging their government. It’s about balance between having an open and fair society and having a low crime rate.
Also regarding downloading pirated content. I don’t believe an individual has ever been punished for downloading content for personal use here in Australia. One of the standout court cases from memory is where judges decided that an IP address isn’t enough to properly identify an individual in Australia. The movie companies have gone after people profiting from piracy but punishment against an individual for consumption would probably considered overly harsh, I.e the punishment would not suit the crime.
Whilst mandatory jail time doesn't seem the cure all I am still in favour of harsher penalties. Obviously more intense rehabilitation sessions are required. Tired of hearing about repeat drink-driver offenders, licenced or not too, getting off with a slap on the wrist. Obviously repeat offenders have no regard for the Law or other peoples lives, so there has to be more serious consequences for that kind of behaviour.
I personally knew someone (passenger not wearing a seatbelt) who was killed by a drink driver. That particular driver got off because he drank alcohol immediately after the accident. Then I came across a drink driver that killed one of his passengers, and received jail time for it. He was bitter as his logic was that it just must have been his friend's time; fate. Seriously! Made me feel ill.
That's my understanding regarding harsher penalties as well. For example, one of the reasons rape is punished by a lighter sentence than murder is to discourage rapists from killing their victims.
On a brighter note, happy Monday!
Murder is a demonstrably worse crime than rape though, so punishment should be more.
Yep, that is another reason.
But in my mind, there does come a point where "less worse crime" doesn't necessarily deserve lower sentence. Eg beat someone to death slowly, vs quickly. I know which I'd rather have happen to me. But I'm not sure anyone should get a discount for making it quick.
Watching too much false confessions on Netflix makes me fear being accused of either crime though.
@ozbjunkie: Being killed slowly vs quickly is still killed though, much worse than being raped.
Aggravating factors (like torturing someone to death) will result in a longer sentence even though technically the same crime.
All this coming from someone who watches videos on their mobile phone while they are driving their car to and from work.
I often have a two hour drive home from work late at night. Perfect duration to listen to a film with my phone down low and sitting on cruise control. I listen to the film mostly and look down occasionally to see what’s going on.
You will have to forgive me if I don't take anything you say with any sincerity. It's ironic that you are proffering up solutions for issues that you are a part of. You need to clean up the mess in your own back yard before you go offering advice on how others should clean theirs.
The law is already quite strict for driving under the influence
But when you kill someone whilst DUI then manslaughter should be added to the charge!
Def: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.
I agree with manslaughter charge as that definitely applies. Possibly should up that to murder for repeat drink drivers though; aforethought.
I disagree with "The law is already quite strict for driving under the influence" though. If it was strict enough then surely we would have far fewer repeat offenders.
You can DUI and be slightly over, driving home sensibly and not be an issue but be caught by RBT.
Recall 0.08 was the limit before 0.05 which 5 drinks instead of 3.
For high range DUI the judges apply very heavy fines
Thats why the penalties are considered strict.
Ask anyone that been caught…they will complain bitterly about the penalty.
Remember it doesnt hurt until you are caught and when you are drunk you dont think about getting caught
While borderline DUI penalties may seem heavy they have to serve as a warning to the driver, who may possibly lose only a few months of licence. I once had a breath analysis of .01 when I had not drunk any alcohol at all, so I complained as I assumed the equipment was faulty. Could only put that down to eating a hot cross bun; dried fruits. A situation like that would be unfair to a driver that was really under the limit.
I don't care about those repeat offenders who complain bitterly about being caught; that's simply their fault.
…when you are drunk you dont think about getting caught
I definitely do think about being caught! If I'm driving, I have one drink max. If I happen to drink more than that, I leave the car or get someone else to drive me home in it!
That extra drink or two on the night isn't worth having my license taken away. Plus, no matter how drunk I've been, I always still know that my ability is impaired.
@bobbified: It's a pity more people are not as responsible aa you. I also value my licence and just don't drink more than one alcoholic drink when I go out.
There's already a different maximum sentences for if you DUI, DUI causing GBH or DUI causing death. It's not like they just ignore the death part, it multiplies the sentence up to 20x vs an injury. And negligent driving without an aggravating factor (eg Speeding / DUI) has much lower sentences.
The problem with the Judicial System here is that it's flawed from top down.
People under the influence are given a concession card, whether they stab someone in the head or run someone over.
The defence will always be "my client was under the influence due to (add depression/mental issue/anguish/stress) and is out of character"
Re-visit the scenario with someone not under the influence and simply ran over these poor kids because they were checking their Instagram account.
This has been a repeat occurrence with men raping women or smashing people on the streets and given a reduced sentence given they acted "outside their normal capacity"
just WTF does that mean?
Unless the driver had his drinks spiked - he knew well in advanced when taking his first drink that this is going to cloud his judgement and ignored it.
As such, IMO - people under the influence of alcohol that commit murder/rape/assault should be given harsher penalties for being selfish pigs.
BUT WAIT! we can't demonise alcohol because Sydney's Night Life would be hit
The punishment for killing someone is more severe if you've consumed alcohol and more severe again if you're over the limit. It's 1 year max sober / driving 'safely', 10 years under the influence and 14 years over a prescribed limit. It's normal that not everyone gets the maximum sentence but it's simply not true that we're treating alcohol based offenses as lesser than other accidents.
Stricter punishments wont solve anything, problem with stupid people is that they're stupid.
Yes it will solve. It works in other countries. The rate of idiots driving drunk will reduce dramatically. Of course this will then be a lost revenue for the nation.
The best solution is education so that people understand the real consequences of drink driving.
The main problem stems from Australia's drinking culture.
Ban drink driving altogether. No limits.
Remove license on the first offense for 3 months
Remove it completely for 3 years on the second offense
The third offense you never drive again.
Watch how quickly people learn.
You don't watch RBT/Highway Patrol very often then. Most of the offenders that they catch are repeat offenders that have either lost their license, have a heavily suspended license, or never had a license to begin with. They have no problem driving while intoxicated, what makes you think they will suddenly give a shit if they don't have that plastic rectangle?
That doesn't mean the show is representative of reality. A dozen people just blowing over the limit doesn't make engaging television.
That's not the point. The show goes to show that the removal of someone's license has little to no affect on what they do post conviction. If they are happy to drive while intoxicated and usually without a license/repeat offender, what affect will taking their license off them (if they even had one anyway) have on those that don't give a shit in the first place?
You only have to drive past a late night booze bus blitz and see the 20 or so cars parked up with more then half of them with the number plates removed because they were unregistered.
And while it isn't "engaging television", there certainly seems to be enough of a steady stream of (fropanity) head road users out there ready to pad out the shows run time.
What I think they need to do is start impounding cars and squashing them. Once they lose their license, it then should be illegal for offenders to purchase or own a car. Friends and family would get really pissed off really quickly if the suspended driver started getting other people's cars impounded and people would stop lending cars on the risk it too may be impounded.
Would that solve the problem? No, but it would go closer to slowing the problem than just handing out a small monetary fine and taking a plastic card off them.
@pegaxs: This is really the answer, there's no way to provide a 'theoretical deterrent' to people who aren't behaving rationally by driving unlicensed knowingly. At that point the prevention has to be something they cannot avoid, loss of vehicle then loss of freedom.
Sorry, I tend not to watch garbage.
"I dOn'T wAtCh gArBaGe."
Then you totally missed the point. It's not a remark on the quality of the TV show, it's proof that even without a license or as a repeat offender, people will still go out and drive illegally.
Ergo, taking the license off someone who doesn't give a shit anyway, isn't going to change anything.
Watch how many unlicensed (and therefor uninsured) drivers will be out on the roads.
Its bad enough already, this would make it worse.
I get where you're coming from but I don't see it changing anything.
A zero limit would just punish responsible people who have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home. A knee jerk reaction for sure that will lead to pain for people doing the right thing.
It will have no affect on this guy and other binge drinkers like him who would've had to have drank 12 beers to reach 0.150.
Exactly! If .05 didn't stop this guy .02 or .00 wouldn't have stopped him either.
What about the passenger.. Why didn't they say anything
If I recall correctly the passenger was also arrested, but I don't know why. There was no mention of whether the passenger spoke up or not, or even if they contributed towards the accident.
Omg, what a sad news.
I don't even understand, why drink and drive in the first place.
If I were to have set the laws it would be:-
Law should be punishable by death for manslaughter drink and drive and complete 100% wealth transfer to the deceased family.
Or
Car manufacturer should have emergency auto countdown shutdown (will notify the police and emergency signal with start flashing with car speeds gradually slows till a complete stop when the car detects the the driver is not able to drive properly.)
Lost of License, 100K fines for first offender and 250k for repeated offence and can never drive ever again for 3rd offence.
Death penalty? You're joking right?
Sorry never been more serious as I have no pity for scums of the planet (same goes with child rapist). Happy for -ve.
Hope you don't ever get charged guilty of one of these crimes when you're actually innocent.
You just need to look at the US for how many wrongful convictions there have been including those on death row.
Matter of fact, you should just move there since you seem to have that mentality
@TEER3X: Excuse me, he was tested drunk?
This is not an accusation of an innocent man, this is manslaughter by a drunk driver.
Once these creeps kill one of your love ones maybe then it will open your eyes.
@luffyex2010: Death Penalty would just apply to one person then?
Thank goodness you're not running the country, but you probably are allowed to vote.
I don't think you understand what wrongful conviction means. A person is convicted and then sentenced, even if they are actually guilty. I'm not saying this idiot is innocent, probably no chance. I'm talking in a general sense.
.
I am not sure that the punishment itself is too lenient as Statue provides a maximum for various offences but not very many Judges or Magistrates ever give the maximum sentence.
No and I take offence to your religious rhetoric
10-20yrs we'll be close