Disproportionate?! I Think Not!

michaelvintner

Hintza wrote: »

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

Did you not realise that some people on this forum are indeed perfect and have never done anything wrong in their entire lives. They are indeed perfect beings.

In answer to the people who keep saying "He could have killed someone", yes he could but he did not. I could go and stab someone now but I am not going to. Could and did are totally different.

I am not defending the man he committed a crime and should be dealt with as a criminal. However the punishment needs to make sense and be fair.

mikey72

Trebor16 wrote: »

Thanks, it seems this only applies to Scotland.

And specifically it would apply to those caught three times over the limit, refusing to be tested, or repeat offenders.
Assuming he's not a repeat offender, he wasn't caught three times over the limit, so even though it may be disproportiate, he shouldn't even be at that stage.

"DRIVERS caught three times the limit, or who refuse a breathalyser test, will face losing their car as part of a new crackdown this Christmas.

Police are determined to put more pressure on the “staggering” numbers who continue to put lives at risk by driving under the influence of drink or drugs.
Last year, 7,563 people were caught in Scotland – the equivalent of more than 20 a day.
Police, prosecutors and the Scottish Government have now extended the Vehicle Forfeiture Scheme to include first-time offenders.
Previously, only repeat offenders and drug-drivers could see their cars seized and either sold or destroyed."

mark5

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

who pays the outstanding finance then if they seize his car?
who then doesn't have a car to show for the money?
who then can't sell that car because he can't drive it?

he does
he does
he does

Its still only cost him 23K though, where do you get 45k from?

Idiophreak

michaelvintner wrote: »

Did you not realise that some people on this forum are indeed perfect and have never done anything wrong in their entire lives. They are indeed perfect beings.

In answer to the people who keep saying "He could have killed someone", yes he could but he did not. I could go and stab someone now but I am not going to. Could and did are totally different.

I am not defending the man he committed a crime and should be dealt with as a criminal. However the punishment needs to make sense and be fair.

There's a difference between being a "perfect being" and just respecting your fellow man enough not to be a moron and drive drunk. In the respect of my drink driving record, yes...I am a perfect being. Do I get a star?

So, if I took a gun into the street and fired 12 rounds at random, but through some miracle, I managed to miss everyone...That's not really that big a deal, right? I mean...I could have killed someone, but I didn't, so a slap on the wrist will do, right?

scheming_gypsy

mark5 wrote: »

he does - correct. He does have to pay the outstanding finance
he does - he does doesn't have a car to show for it?
he does - he does then can't sell a car?

Its still only cost him 23K though, where do you get 45k from?

I'm sure it shouldn't be this hard.

It won't cost 23k if it's on finance. It'll be 23k + interest at the APR, so lets just say 30k for the sake of figures.
When you buy something you have the item, an asset, to show for the money. In this case it's a 23k Audi. So if the courts seize his car he'll still have to pay the finance which leaves him 30k out of pocket with no asset to show for it.

If he'd just lost his license and got a ban, he'd still have the finance to pay but would still have the car. As he can't drive the car he can sell it, lets say for £17,500.

So, he has to pay £30k finance for the car and then doesn't have the car to sell for £17,500 which leaves him £47,500 out of pocket overall. If he wasn't stupid enough to drink drive then he'd have his 23k Audi and be paying finance on it till it's paid off and still have the asset.

mikey72

Idiophreak wrote: »

There's a difference between being a "perfect being" and just respecting your fellow man enough not to be a moron and drive drunk. In the respect of my drink driving record, yes...I am a perfect being. Do I get a star?

So, if I took a gun into the street and fired 12 rounds at random, but through some miracle, I managed to miss everyone...That's not really that big a deal, right? I mean...I could have killed someone, but I didn't, so a slap on the wrist will do, right?

Seems fairly simple.
If you hit and killed someone, it would be murder, if you missed with all twelve, it wouldn't be.
If you put the gun down, the armed police (probably) wouldn't shoot you.
If you don't, they would.

mcfisco

So, he has to pay £30k finance for the car and then doesn't have the car to sell for £17,500 which leaves him £47,500 out of pocket overall.

But he wouldn't be £47.5K out of pocket solely for losing his car to the court
Using your numbers - if he doesn't lose it - it'll have cost him £12.5K at the end of the finance deal [what it's worth minus what he's paid out]

If he does lose it, you'd need to deduct the already lost £12.5K off the £47.5K figure to make any sense

The £12.5K is gone whether or not he loses his car so you can't really count it as part of what he'd lose as a result of losing the car to the court

scheming_gypsy

mcfisco wrote: »

But he wouldn't be £47.5K out of pocket solely for losing his car to the court
Using your numbers - if he doesn't lose it - it'll have cost him £12.5K at the end of the finance deal [what it's worth minus what he's paid out]

If he does lose it, you'd need to deduct the already lost £12.5K off the £47.5K figure to make any sense

The £12.5K is gone whether or not he loses his car so you can't really count it as part of what he'd lose as a result of losing the car to the court

ok... it will 'cost him'.
He'd lose the depreciation value but he'd still have the car. The point was that he doesn't just lose the cost of the car, it would 'cost him' the resale value that he won't be able to recoup as he doesn't have the car.

The figures are just rough but it was that it's costing more than a 23k car.

Strider590

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ex6dHzcgOE.


IIRC, she only got a £200 fine. Selective justice is wrong, a rule for one, should be a rule for all.

mcfisco

IIRC, she only got a £200 fine. Selective justice is wrong, a rule for one, should be a rule for all.

Given that's in a different country with different laws, I'm not sure of the relevance here