Disproportionate?! I Think Not!

mikey72

I don't think that even the parts that do make sense are worth a response.

Mark_Hewitt

So they have the right to take a £23,000 car off you. What's next, for some crime they can take your house worth £250,000? It's only 'fair' after all.

The crime is the same if he was driving a Audi or driving a Vauxhall Corsa, so should the punishment.

sarahg1969

If the car does still belong to a finance company, then it can't be kept, presumably?

Idiophreak

fivetide wrote: »

not if he's admitted it he isn't. The charge is driving under the influence. He's guilty but hey, thanks for playing.

I suspect you're the one playing dumb now.

There are two things here:
1) Drink driving
2) Drink driving 3x the limit

He's admitted 1, he's denying 2. We must treat him as innocent of 2 unless proved otherwise.

Anyway, that aside, I don't feel there's any such thing as "disproportionate" punishment for something as stupid and dangerous as drink driving - I'd be inclined to crush his car and throw him in for good measure. (yes, and I'd be happy with this as the punishment for a Corsa driver, too...)

Mark_Hewitt

Idiophreak wrote: »

Anyway, that aside, I don't feel there's any such thing as "disproportionate" punishment for something as stupid and dangerous as drink driving -

So he should be executed and all his assets seized?

Idiophreak

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

So he should be executed and all his assets seized?

Suits me.

He's obviously got no regard for anyone else's lives or possessions, so I don't see why he'd have a problem with that...

colino

He broke the law and it is meant to be applied even handedly. Some of the comments above would seem to suggest that the poor should be more penalised as their cheap cars are OK to be forfeited, or perhaps drink drivers (this time he was caught, they never do it only once) should keep a spare "drinking car" that they are happy to be crushed they next time they go, literally, steaming down the road. There is no monetary value applied in the legislation, forfeiture is in addition to ban/fine/re-test and the !!!!!!-head deserves to waste more money (on his publicity hungry lawyer) who knows the costs, even if he is eventually acquitted in Scotland, will not be reclaimable!

Hintza

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

What's next, for some crime they can take your house....

Well that was the way it used to be.

Robert the Bruce lost is estate in Tottenham. His crime, to become the King of Scotland.

Hintza

Idiophreak wrote: »

Suits me.

He's obviously got no regard for anyone else's lives or possessions, so I don't see why he'd have a problem with that...

Hmm .....hope you are whiter than white!

giraffe69

what if he'd killed the 81 year old chap he hit? would it be fair or ridiculous then?

He would have been looking at a custodial sentence. The point is that forfeiture of the car is a disproportionate act. That doesn't mean that those who say that actually approve of his actions or don't think he should be punished
I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should not have been punished by a. disqualification and b. fine. The length and size of these might be altered by the severity of the offence.
No doubt he could also be made to take his test again when he renews and although not part of the punishment his insurance premium will be pretty high.

Whilst you can cut his leg off, bankrupt him, crush his car etc none of these will persuade most people that the courts are doing a sensible job and in the end confidence in the proportionality of sentencing is more important than this man's car.