Disproportionate?! I Think Not!

each_uisge

What amazes me in some of the replies on here is no one is giving any thought to the fact that this ejit was caught drink driving and therefore could have potentially killed someone?! As it was he was involved in a collision and admitted to the fact that he had been drinking previously to the accident. If he had nothing to hide, why did he go home and not wait for the Constabulary to arrive?!

Thankfully he didn't kill anyone. But now he has to face up to the fact that not only will he loose his licence, face a fine of up to £5000m, have a criminal conviction, face increased insurance premiums when he can drive again and potentially loose his car. Good - I for one am glad, I have no sympathy for anyone caught drink driving whatever the circumstances. Such a pity he stands to loose a pretty damm good car - as another poster has said - crush it in front of him, perhaps then he'll be less likely to break the law again. I sincerely hope that the Scottish courts system make an example of this man. More fool him - he knew the consequences of his actions as they have been widely advertised on the media hereabouts and chose to act in the way he did.

It doesn't matter if it's an old banger worth less than scrap value or a top of the range model, the law is the law (here in Scotland anyway).

And to quote from the Don't Risk It website (http://www.dontriskit.info/drink-driving/andthelaw.html)

"The vehicle forfeiture scheme initially targeted repeat drink drivers and was extended in the summer of 2010 to include individuals caught driving under the influence of drugs. From December 2011, the scheme is being further extended to include first time offenders found to be 3 times the drink drive limit or more and those who refuse to provide a sample for analysis without a reasonable excuse."

scheming_gypsy

each_uisge wrote: »

What amazes me in some of the replies on here is no one is giving any thought to the fact that this ejit was caught drink driving and therefore could have potentially killed someone?! "

because it was irrelevant. How about we crush your car because when you drive it sober, you could potentially kill someone.

pendulum

Take his license away, but it is disproportionate to take the car.
Not to underplay drink driving, but it makes me sick to see career criminals arrested and released with a slap on the wrist time and time again to victimise others, then to hear of a motorist being given this massive punishment. He did drink and drive and cause an accident, he deserves to be punished, but I bet he also works, pays tax and hasn't made a living from crime like a lot of burglars and robbers and nobody seems to care about stepping up the punishment for them.

Anti-motorist sentiment from the police, all the time.

fivetide

mikey72 wrote: »

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

Sorry you embarassed yourself.

idiophreak - I'm not sure you can be convicted of driving at x times the limit (happy to be shown otherwise). The actual offence he'll get on his license will still be driving under the influence surely?

The 3x level is purely reserved for the punishment metered out. It's like having a different level of punishment written down for murder with a knife v murder with a gun. at the end of the day, they are still guilty of murder.

I think we can agree that since he's guilty of the offence in the first place the punishment is not disproportionate which was the question asked in the first place. Man's a numpty.

5t.

each_uisge

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

because it was irrelevant. How about we crush your car because when you drive it sober, you could potentially kill someone.

The fact still stands that he broke the law by drink driving and under the law he could loose his car. It is not irrelevant its the law - which he was obviously prepared to break.

There's an old saying - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

scheming_gypsy

and that has what to do with what i said was irrelevant?

Trebor16

mcfisco wrote: »

Here's a link that looks to confirm it

http://www.acpos.police.uk/News%20items/News_0501_2010.html

No mention in the link of the legislation they are using to be able to force a person to forfeit their car.

scheming_gypsy

I like this quote.

The Lord Advocate, the Right Honourable Elish Angiolini QC said: “The reduction in the numbers caught drink driving throughout the festive period is excellent news.

doesn't actually say that less people were drink driving, just that they only caught less. Maybe if all the police stayed at the station poker throughout the 2012 festive season, there won't be any caught; even better figures for them!

mcfisco

No mention in the link of the legislation they are using to be able to force a person to forfeit their car

yeah it does, you just need to click through to the refs


Authorities have the power to seize and enforce forfeiture of the driver’s vehicle under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
Section 33A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, allows the courts to forfeit vehicles of drivers convicted of certain offences, including drink-driving (an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is punishable with imprisonment). The legislation allows the Crown to apply for forfeiture at the sentencing stage of drink-driving proceedings.]

Trebor16

mcfisco wrote: »

yeah it does, you just need to click through to the refs


Authorities have the power to seize and enforce forfeiture of the driver’s vehicle under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
Section 33A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, allows the courts to forfeit vehicles of drivers convicted of certain offences, including drink-driving (an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is punishable with imprisonment). The legislation allows the Crown to apply for forfeiture at the sentencing stage of drink-driving proceedings.]

Thanks, it seems this only applies to Scotland.