llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Drink drivers should be punished more severely. Intoxication is however a recognised defence to crimes of specific intent (such as murder, burglary etc) so something like attempted murder is not possible when drunk, unless being drunk is part of a prior plan. I know legally its a defence but I feel it should be a mitigating circumstance. They have got behind the wheel knowing themselves to be drunk. There isn't an intention to kill but there is an intention to drive dangerously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 I know legally its a defence but I feel it should be a mitigating circumstance. They have got behind the wheel knowing themselves to be drunk. There isn't an intention to kill but there is an intention to drive dangerously. Exactly. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It roughly means that 2 people can do the same thing seperately at different times and locations . One person may suffer consequences of what they did but the other doesn't whereas at a different time and place the result could be different. Similar to the phrase They had luck on their side. Not necessarily linked to crime but can relate to any every day occurance. i see. good phrase. like this kid could have done the same thing and no one caught him on camera. he'd forgotten he even threw the thing off the roof by the time they got to the pub. something like that? learned something new on the forum today. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I know legally its a defence but I feel it should be a mitigating circumstance. They have got behind the wheel knowing themselves to be drunk. There isn't an intention to kill but there is an intention to drive dangerously. I agree that intoxication shouldn't necessarily be a defence and in crimes of basic intent it is in fact a mitigating circumstance rather than a defence, it only applies as a defence to crimes of specific intent. A drink driver may not intend to drive dangerously and it is difficult to prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noob Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Silly lad, should never have admitted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 I agree that intoxication shouldn't necessarily be a defence and in crimes of basic intent it is in fact a mitigating circumstance rather than a defence, it only applies as a defence to crimes of specific intent. A drink driver may not intend to drive dangerously and it is difficult to prove otherwise. Am I right in saying you find the sentence proportionate to his actions, and also think that the killer driver examples I quoted should get longer prison sentences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 you'd be surprised by what juries believe, or at least doubt. besides, the CPS worked out what to charge him with and the judge had to hand down the sentence, which the jury had nothing to do with. the judge shouldn't have been so ruthless. I was really speaking generally with reference to juries/judges as you'd made a general point about other cases. I dont believe the judge was particularly ruthless although he might not have given full credit for an early guilty plea, but no doubt it will be subject to appeal anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Silly lad, should never have admitted it. ..and his sentence would have been even higher on conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Am I right in saying you find the sentence proportionate to his actions, and also think that the killer driver examples I quoted should get longer prison sentences? It matters not what i think. I don't have access to all the facts the judge and jury had access to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 It matters not what i think. I don't have access to all the facts the judge and jury had access to Oh. I thought that's what forums are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.