comment by U1878 SILKY BLUE (U1878)
posted 28 minutes ago
Stop repeating what has been said spoken or written countless times.
If you are really serious about the courts having the power to dish out appropriate sentences, then petition The Lord Chancellor,The Police, your Local M.P. and any other Bodies who yuou consider have the strength and the power to bring about change. There is no need to go on any more about it on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually rang my MPs office about this when I saw the news. I was that disgusted. Can't believe how many people think it's just fine that he's got away with it AGAIN!
In fairness, I think public figures like Rooney could do a lot more good to society with community service than being locked up in prison.
I'd like to see an emphasis on that where possible, particularly as our prisons are so badly run and self-defeating.
"Why on earth do you think the ridiculously high numbers would stay as high if everyone doing it knew getting caught would utterly ruin them? The number is only so high because the severity of the punishment is so low."
I don't think so, I think the number is high because people assume they won't get caught at all. A two year ban is devastatiing for most working people.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Thousands? Maybe. There are millions of drivers, though.
And your simplistic view on life is flawed, because the minute there is a zero tolerance approach, other people stop offending generally.
'their liberty taken away'
Are you trolling?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really need to read all the words in posts before you start taking the p-ss so much.
The whole point of my original comment was to point out that if everyone who COULD get done was done, and was treated in the way people seem to want Mr Rooney treated we'd be in trouble.
The fact is, most drink drivers are persistent offenders who rely on just never getting caught.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm fully aware we can't lock up every drunk driver on our roads together at the same time. That's kinda obvious. I'm not suggesting that.
I think you're severely under estimating the threat of prison. There is a large number of persistent drink drivers who would stop doing it. It's easy to bet so flippantly on not getting caught when the penalty if you do is feck all anyway.
Easy for me to bet on Arsenal week in week out if my bet only costs me a fiver to lose. If the cost of betting on Arsenal was losing my house. I'd never bet on them at all. Of course there will be a hard-core element who still won't care but I think they are a minority of the total drink drivers on our roads.
I still think the fact that most never even face the chance of any punishment is the problem, not the severity of the punishment.
Stopping/catching more people is far more of a deterrent than locking up the few you do catch. Drink driving, like most crime, is committed by those who believe they can get away with it, not those that don't fear the punishment. imo.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when determining guilt a person’s financial status therefore becomes a factor.
Whether Rooney has or hasn’t money (in this instance to pay for a taxi) is a complete irrelevance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO in the crime itself no. But in the degree of his guilt for said crime, yes.
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the old "COULD have killed someone but didn't so it's ok cos no-one died this time"
Creed of the plssed up driver!
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 21 minutes ago
"Why on earth do you think the ridiculously high numbers would stay as high if everyone doing it knew getting caught would utterly ruin them? The number is only so high because the severity of the punishment is so low."
I don't think so, I think the number is high because people assume they won't get caught at all. A two year ban is devastatiing for most working people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if they live somewhere with no public transport or drive for a living. Even then, more hugely inconvenient than devastating.
6 months in jail and a crushed car is devastation.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 7 minutes ago
I still think the fact that most never even face the chance of any punishment is the problem, not the severity of the punishment.
Stopping/catching more people is far more of a deterrent than locking up the few you do catch. Drink driving, like most crime, is committed by those who believe they can get away with it, not those that don't fear the punishment. imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd do both. Only way to change the public perception that "I won't get caught" That's where the highly publicised bit comes in. Half the country is currently living in fear of being bombed. Due to media coverage about terror. You could just as easily get drunk drivers plssing their pants they'll be caught with constant coverage of caught ones getting hefty sentences and police stopping people, catching them.
If the media can convince half the country that a terrorist is around every corner. Then I'm pretty sure it can convince a stack of drunk drivers theres a copper with a breath/sobriety test around every corner. After all there probably max only a few hundred terrorists here. Whereas we have thousands of coppers.
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when determining guilt a person’s financial status therefore becomes a factor.
Whether Rooney has or hasn’t money (in this instance to pay for a taxi) is a complete irrelevance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO in the crime itself no. But in the degree of his guilt for said crime, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point remains if a millionaire is treated differently to me or you, the decision to convict or not, unduly influenced.
Say Rooneys defence contend mitigating circumstances (drink spiked or other) yet Court required to consider financial situation (he made choice not to use taxi) would bias judgement against him.
How you got drunk is actually irrelevant to your choice to get in the car drunk.
Punishing someone who could take a taxi to avoid committing the crime is not bias. What you're saying us all people should get the same sentence regardless of having another choice. You wouldn't say someone who killed somebody when they had a choice not to deserved the same level of punishment as someone who killed someone when there was other choice. The law doesn't say that. The law says one is guilty of one degree of murder one a less severe degree, manslaughter or even possibly no crime at all due to self defence.
All those have different charges and sentences, the severity of which is based partially on the choices the accused had at the time they committed the crime. The more choices not to kill/enter violence they had, is the more severe a charge they will be slapped with. If you don't think that is biased then there's no reason to think applying the exact same logic to drink driving would be.
Pep
How could a judge or jury even begin to make a non-prejudiced decision using two sets of laws? And as I mentioned previously where (total net worth) do you draw the line?
What metrics would the judiciary use, cash wealth, assets, liabilities etc etc. Tax avoidance is bad enough in the UK. Do you have any idea of the strains this would also put on the entire UK justice system. In that before trial the Court has to establish an individual's personal wealth.
It's a complete impossibility. For countless reasons.
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the old "COULD have killed someone but didn't so it's ok cos no-one died this time"
Creed of the plssed up driver!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At what point did i say it was "ok" you numpty?
Let's not mess about. He should have been sacked.
Make an example of him.
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 14 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the old "COULD have killed someone but didn't so it's ok cos no-one died this time"
Creed of the plssed up driver!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At what point did i say it was "ok" you numpty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the point at which you emphasised the IF and followed it with "The fact is he didn't"
This is the problem with this crime. Too many people are ready to give an idiot a pass on risking other people's lives, just because they don't kill someone.
As though THEY are somehow to get credit for the DUMB LUCK that meant nobody died. The crime that needs to be punished is the utter disregard for the lives and safety of others. The wanton wreckless endangerment of other human lives. Whether someone gets hurt or not! As opposed to punishment depending on whether someone died/got hurt or not.
See the point you're overlooking is the most important element of the crime...
Without dumb luck on their side. Someone dies. Why? Because at they were in control. When it was THEIR decision whether they killed/crippled someone or not. They chose to say "Feck it, I'll drive." THAT'S THE BIG CRIME HERE.
Punish making that decision harshly regardless of outcome. And you'll drastically reduce drink driving life devastation. Continue down the "Soft punishment when dumb luck saves the innocent" road nd people will continue to drink and drive in droves.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 hours, 19 minutes ago
Pep
How could a judge or jury even begin to make a non-prejudiced decision using two sets of laws? And as I mentioned previously where (total net worth) do you draw the line?
What metrics would the judiciary use, cash wealth, assets, liabilities etc etc. Tax avoidance is bad enough in the UK. Do you have any idea of the strains this would also put on the entire UK justice system. In that before trial the Court has to establish an individual's personal wealth.
It's a complete impossibility. For countless reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying his wealth should be considered as trial element, influencing whether he is found guilty or not. That WOULD be unfair since as you said, his wealth has nothing to do with the actual charge of drink driving.
I am saying it's a sentencing consideration. Ie AFTER he's found/pleads guilty. At that point his guilt for the offense has been established. It is in no way unfair to say to him "You've been found guilty of driving under the influence. The fact that you have an abundance of financial resources at your disposal to fund a safe return home, makes this offence all the more heinous in your case Mr Rooney. I therefore sentence you to..."
That's not being bias at all. It's considering ALL factors when deciding his punishment for the crime he is guilty off. His money afforded him a dominion of control regarding his life that simply is not available to the little man. It follows that he should be punished more severely for the decision to risk other people's.
It is completely unfeasible/impracticable (and would constitute a HR’s breach) for the judiciary to have various sets of sentencing guidelines based on wealth.
Regardless of how contemptable drink driving is.
Pep The Final Straw
At the point at which you emphasised the IF and followed it with "The fact is he didn't"
---------
How on earth is that saying its ok to drink and drive?
Example: Two different men in different cases, charged with and found guilty of manslaughter after their respective bar altercations got physical and unintentionally someone was killed. Only significant difference between the men, one is a martial arts expert and the other is a 7 stone weakling who got a lucky break in the fight. Both were not to blame for the fight and simply defending themselves. I shlt you not when I guarantee you that the martial arts expert is getting a stiffer sentence than the dude who don't know how to fight.
The justification the court uses to do this is the fact that his in depth knowledge of martial arts afforded him the physical resource that is his ability to have contained his opponent without killing him. Because he had that choice/opportunity yet chose not to use it. His degree of guilt for the exact same offence, is considered higher than than that of the man who didn't have that option because he doesn't know martial arts.
That happens in various forms for various crimes and circumstances every day. So if taking into account the additional abilities afforded by financial resource is a HR violation, then people's HR are being violated left right and centre everyday at various sentencing up and down the country, using different abilities as the justification for a stiffer sentence.
I've just thought. Courts DO already recognise financial resource as a factor in criminal proceedings with no cries of HR when it's done. It is not considered a HR violation of somebody wealthy is denied ball and remanded because his financial resources afford him the ability to pay for a private jet/yacht and flee the law's jurisdiction is it? No. Therefore it's not a violation to take into account Rooney's finances and the the ability and reason they gave him not to get in that car.
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 37 minutes ago
Pep The Final Straw
At the point at which you emphasised the IF and followed it with "The fact is he didn't"
---------
How on earth is that saying its ok to drink and drive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said it was. My jibe was direct at how your emphasis on the LUCKILY positive outcome is a mentality that plays down the severity of the offence. It is an offence which should be punished severely with the emphasis being placed on getting in the car drunk. Rather than punished with the emphasis on the outcome.
A drunk driver doesn't know what the outcome will be as a result of his/her selfishness, until their journey ends. They just know their increasing probability of death or injury to an innocent party because they are driving plssed.
One who hasn't killed someone is just as guilty as the one who has AT THE TIME OF GETTING IN THE CAR. The difference between their penalties for the offence of drunk driving, should not be based upon the dumb luck they had absolutely no control over. The offence was well before that at the moment they got in their car. Until people see the "getting in the car" as a severely punished offence regardless of journey outcome, they'll continue to risk it. With the mindset...
"Hiccup...Iii ain't gonna kill none, I'm a great driver...hiccup...and if I get caught don't really matter, cos I'll only get a slap on the wrist...hiccup...cos I won't have a acshiddent..hiccup"
<Drunk starts car and proceeds to play russian roulette with theirs and every other innocent feckas lives>
When did all that happen? Or are you just coming out with an hypothetical situation based on your opinion?
Question: so if these guys were both jailed forever how long, would it put off people fighting?
Because you seemed to think if Rooney had been locked up it would put others off.
You've still to show me where i said it was ok to drink and drive!
With respect your idea is utter fantasy, and would never be legislated in the UK, in any reality. Ever.
Picture the scenario. Person is convicted, and is handed out a prison sentence. Say for the sake of argument one year.
Defence immediately appeal the length of sentence (not guilt) citing an incorrect evaluation of defendants wealth. The case therefore continues for months contending both the defendants net worth and methodology used to calculate.
Over the months that follow various summons are made (bank accounts, public and private records, property portfolios, insurance, hedge funds etc etc – basically full financial disclosure) to establish the defendants true net worth. Which after all is one of the main metrics being used to determine sentencing.
Defendants solicitor also petitions the court citing universal declaration of human rights. Defendant unfairly sentenced in light of incorrect wealth assessment.
With potential appeals to the High court, then Supreme Court and (at present) ECJ costing tens of thousands of tax payer’s money.
This sort of procedure would clog up an already over stretched judiciary, (at considerable expense to the UK tax payer).
It would also encourage everyone (especially the wealthy) to go to even greater lengths to conceal wealth. The exploitation of tax avoidance schemes would go through the roof!!
I’ll repost the sentencing guidelines as it appears you are unclear:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/excess-alcohol-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
Why should money be spent on them? Community service is much more useful for everyone than him going to prison and a ban from driving stops them
WWSPD
If we were talking about a far greater sums than the one his taxi fare would have come to maybe. But an appeal suggesting a currently active PL footballer had his wealth incorrectly assessed when it was adjudged that he could have afforded a taxi fair of £100 after a night out. Is one I would expect a court here to not even allow to be lodged due to having no merit. He's not filing for bankruptcy, if he was then that appeal might hold water.
You keep talking about Human Rights as though money has no effect on situations in people's lives. If his money and profile couldn't have helped him out of his situation and then he was locked up stating he could have used it. THEN you'd be infringing on his human rights. Because then you would be locking him up purely for being rich and famous.
I'm not suggesting a rewriting of guidelines to state "Lock a rich man up for longer" because again that would be a sweeping generalisation on statute which would see loads of people getting bigger sentences for crimes, where their money had no direct baring on the event or events leading up to it. Again that would be hr infringement.
I'm simply saying that in this particular case there his money and stardom did have a direct baring on his circumstance and situation. He CHOSE not to take advantage of that to avoid risking people's lives. It is not violating his rights at all to punish him for that choice.
I think we just disagree on the point where rights are infringed. Because you're talking about his money and fame as though they couldn't have helped him and didn't give him additional cause not to been the law. Let's agree to disagree mate. I'm sure we could argue this one for months
Pep
What you have said is that Rooney should of been sent down and that because he hasn't it sends the wrong message out.
Do you actually believe that it would stop others from drink driving if he had been sent down?
Sign in if you want to comment
100 Hours Community Service...
Page 4 of 5
posted on 18/9/17
comment by U1878 SILKY BLUE (U1878)
posted 28 minutes ago
Stop repeating what has been said spoken or written countless times.
If you are really serious about the courts having the power to dish out appropriate sentences, then petition The Lord Chancellor,The Police, your Local M.P. and any other Bodies who yuou consider have the strength and the power to bring about change. There is no need to go on any more about it on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually rang my MPs office about this when I saw the news. I was that disgusted. Can't believe how many people think it's just fine that he's got away with it AGAIN!
posted on 18/9/17
In fairness, I think public figures like Rooney could do a lot more good to society with community service than being locked up in prison.
I'd like to see an emphasis on that where possible, particularly as our prisons are so badly run and self-defeating.
posted on 18/9/17
"Why on earth do you think the ridiculously high numbers would stay as high if everyone doing it knew getting caught would utterly ruin them? The number is only so high because the severity of the punishment is so low."
I don't think so, I think the number is high because people assume they won't get caught at all. A two year ban is devastatiing for most working people.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
HenrysCat (U3608)
Thousands? Maybe. There are millions of drivers, though.
And your simplistic view on life is flawed, because the minute there is a zero tolerance approach, other people stop offending generally.
'their liberty taken away'
Are you trolling?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really need to read all the words in posts before you start taking the p-ss so much.
The whole point of my original comment was to point out that if everyone who COULD get done was done, and was treated in the way people seem to want Mr Rooney treated we'd be in trouble.
The fact is, most drink drivers are persistent offenders who rely on just never getting caught.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm fully aware we can't lock up every drunk driver on our roads together at the same time. That's kinda obvious. I'm not suggesting that.
I think you're severely under estimating the threat of prison. There is a large number of persistent drink drivers who would stop doing it. It's easy to bet so flippantly on not getting caught when the penalty if you do is feck all anyway.
Easy for me to bet on Arsenal week in week out if my bet only costs me a fiver to lose. If the cost of betting on Arsenal was losing my house. I'd never bet on them at all. Of course there will be a hard-core element who still won't care but I think they are a minority of the total drink drivers on our roads.
posted on 18/9/17
I still think the fact that most never even face the chance of any punishment is the problem, not the severity of the punishment.
Stopping/catching more people is far more of a deterrent than locking up the few you do catch. Drink driving, like most crime, is committed by those who believe they can get away with it, not those that don't fear the punishment. imo.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when determining guilt a person’s financial status therefore becomes a factor.
Whether Rooney has or hasn’t money (in this instance to pay for a taxi) is a complete irrelevance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO in the crime itself no. But in the degree of his guilt for said crime, yes.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the old "COULD have killed someone but didn't so it's ok cos no-one died this time"
Creed of the plssed up driver!
posted on 18/9/17
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 21 minutes ago
"Why on earth do you think the ridiculously high numbers would stay as high if everyone doing it knew getting caught would utterly ruin them? The number is only so high because the severity of the punishment is so low."
I don't think so, I think the number is high because people assume they won't get caught at all. A two year ban is devastatiing for most working people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if they live somewhere with no public transport or drive for a living. Even then, more hugely inconvenient than devastating.
6 months in jail and a crushed car is devastation.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 7 minutes ago
I still think the fact that most never even face the chance of any punishment is the problem, not the severity of the punishment.
Stopping/catching more people is far more of a deterrent than locking up the few you do catch. Drink driving, like most crime, is committed by those who believe they can get away with it, not those that don't fear the punishment. imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd do both. Only way to change the public perception that "I won't get caught" That's where the highly publicised bit comes in. Half the country is currently living in fear of being bombed. Due to media coverage about terror. You could just as easily get drunk drivers plssing their pants they'll be caught with constant coverage of caught ones getting hefty sentences and police stopping people, catching them.
If the media can convince half the country that a terrorist is around every corner. Then I'm pretty sure it can convince a stack of drunk drivers theres a copper with a breath/sobriety test around every corner. After all there probably max only a few hundred terrorists here. Whereas we have thousands of coppers.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 minutes ago
Pep
I think you are missing the point here.
A person’s financial wealth cannot influence their right to fair and lawful trial. Which is recognised internationally as a fundamental human right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what I'm suggesting doesn't stop that. How is taking into account the fact that he could easily pay his way out of the situation he was in. Not giving him a fair trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because when determining guilt a person’s financial status therefore becomes a factor.
Whether Rooney has or hasn’t money (in this instance to pay for a taxi) is a complete irrelevance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO in the crime itself no. But in the degree of his guilt for said crime, yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point remains if a millionaire is treated differently to me or you, the decision to convict or not, unduly influenced.
Say Rooneys defence contend mitigating circumstances (drink spiked or other) yet Court required to consider financial situation (he made choice not to use taxi) would bias judgement against him.
posted on 18/9/17
How you got drunk is actually irrelevant to your choice to get in the car drunk.
Punishing someone who could take a taxi to avoid committing the crime is not bias. What you're saying us all people should get the same sentence regardless of having another choice. You wouldn't say someone who killed somebody when they had a choice not to deserved the same level of punishment as someone who killed someone when there was other choice. The law doesn't say that. The law says one is guilty of one degree of murder one a less severe degree, manslaughter or even possibly no crime at all due to self defence.
All those have different charges and sentences, the severity of which is based partially on the choices the accused had at the time they committed the crime. The more choices not to kill/enter violence they had, is the more severe a charge they will be slapped with. If you don't think that is biased then there's no reason to think applying the exact same logic to drink driving would be.
posted on 18/9/17
Pep
How could a judge or jury even begin to make a non-prejudiced decision using two sets of laws? And as I mentioned previously where (total net worth) do you draw the line?
What metrics would the judiciary use, cash wealth, assets, liabilities etc etc. Tax avoidance is bad enough in the UK. Do you have any idea of the strains this would also put on the entire UK justice system. In that before trial the Court has to establish an individual's personal wealth.
It's a complete impossibility. For countless reasons.
posted on 18/9/17
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the old "COULD have killed someone but didn't so it's ok cos no-one died this time"
Creed of the plssed up driver!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At what point did i say it was "ok" you numpty?
posted on 18/9/17
Let's not mess about. He should have been sacked.
Make an example of him.
posted on 19/9/17
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 14 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Pep The Final Straw!! (Formerly WB2) (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Feyenoord Champions (U1250)
posted 5 minutes ago
Prison is way over the top imo for this. 2 year ban and 100 ours is a good punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you be happy with this had he hit someone you know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If" ? The fact is he didn't.... he's still a complete moron for drink driving.
Stick to facts not ifs or buts!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the old "COULD have killed someone but didn't so it's ok cos no-one died this time"
Creed of the plssed up driver!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At what point did i say it was "ok" you numpty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the point at which you emphasised the IF and followed it with "The fact is he didn't"
This is the problem with this crime. Too many people are ready to give an idiot a pass on risking other people's lives, just because they don't kill someone.
As though THEY are somehow to get credit for the DUMB LUCK that meant nobody died. The crime that needs to be punished is the utter disregard for the lives and safety of others. The wanton wreckless endangerment of other human lives. Whether someone gets hurt or not! As opposed to punishment depending on whether someone died/got hurt or not.
See the point you're overlooking is the most important element of the crime...
Without dumb luck on their side. Someone dies. Why? Because at they were in control. When it was THEIR decision whether they killed/crippled someone or not. They chose to say "Feck it, I'll drive." THAT'S THE BIG CRIME HERE.
Punish making that decision harshly regardless of outcome. And you'll drastically reduce drink driving life devastation. Continue down the "Soft punishment when dumb luck saves the innocent" road nd people will continue to drink and drive in droves.
posted on 19/9/17
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 15 hours, 19 minutes ago
Pep
How could a judge or jury even begin to make a non-prejudiced decision using two sets of laws? And as I mentioned previously where (total net worth) do you draw the line?
What metrics would the judiciary use, cash wealth, assets, liabilities etc etc. Tax avoidance is bad enough in the UK. Do you have any idea of the strains this would also put on the entire UK justice system. In that before trial the Court has to establish an individual's personal wealth.
It's a complete impossibility. For countless reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying his wealth should be considered as trial element, influencing whether he is found guilty or not. That WOULD be unfair since as you said, his wealth has nothing to do with the actual charge of drink driving.
I am saying it's a sentencing consideration. Ie AFTER he's found/pleads guilty. At that point his guilt for the offense has been established. It is in no way unfair to say to him "You've been found guilty of driving under the influence. The fact that you have an abundance of financial resources at your disposal to fund a safe return home, makes this offence all the more heinous in your case Mr Rooney. I therefore sentence you to..."
That's not being bias at all. It's considering ALL factors when deciding his punishment for the crime he is guilty off. His money afforded him a dominion of control regarding his life that simply is not available to the little man. It follows that he should be punished more severely for the decision to risk other people's.
posted on 19/9/17
It is completely unfeasible/impracticable (and would constitute a HR’s breach) for the judiciary to have various sets of sentencing guidelines based on wealth.
Regardless of how contemptable drink driving is.
posted on 19/9/17
Pep The Final Straw
At the point at which you emphasised the IF and followed it with "The fact is he didn't"
---------
How on earth is that saying its ok to drink and drive?
posted on 19/9/17
Example: Two different men in different cases, charged with and found guilty of manslaughter after their respective bar altercations got physical and unintentionally someone was killed. Only significant difference between the men, one is a martial arts expert and the other is a 7 stone weakling who got a lucky break in the fight. Both were not to blame for the fight and simply defending themselves. I shlt you not when I guarantee you that the martial arts expert is getting a stiffer sentence than the dude who don't know how to fight.
The justification the court uses to do this is the fact that his in depth knowledge of martial arts afforded him the physical resource that is his ability to have contained his opponent without killing him. Because he had that choice/opportunity yet chose not to use it. His degree of guilt for the exact same offence, is considered higher than than that of the man who didn't have that option because he doesn't know martial arts.
That happens in various forms for various crimes and circumstances every day. So if taking into account the additional abilities afforded by financial resource is a HR violation, then people's HR are being violated left right and centre everyday at various sentencing up and down the country, using different abilities as the justification for a stiffer sentence.
I've just thought. Courts DO already recognise financial resource as a factor in criminal proceedings with no cries of HR when it's done. It is not considered a HR violation of somebody wealthy is denied ball and remanded because his financial resources afford him the ability to pay for a private jet/yacht and flee the law's jurisdiction is it? No. Therefore it's not a violation to take into account Rooney's finances and the the ability and reason they gave him not to get in that car.
posted on 19/9/17
comment by RED666👺. #Imgreatattakingthepissoutofchaz... yes I am. #Ialsownthepensionerknownaschaz...yes I do. (U6562)
posted 37 minutes ago
Pep The Final Straw
At the point at which you emphasised the IF and followed it with "The fact is he didn't"
---------
How on earth is that saying its ok to drink and drive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never said it was. My jibe was direct at how your emphasis on the LUCKILY positive outcome is a mentality that plays down the severity of the offence. It is an offence which should be punished severely with the emphasis being placed on getting in the car drunk. Rather than punished with the emphasis on the outcome.
A drunk driver doesn't know what the outcome will be as a result of his/her selfishness, until their journey ends. They just know their increasing probability of death or injury to an innocent party because they are driving plssed.
One who hasn't killed someone is just as guilty as the one who has AT THE TIME OF GETTING IN THE CAR. The difference between their penalties for the offence of drunk driving, should not be based upon the dumb luck they had absolutely no control over. The offence was well before that at the moment they got in their car. Until people see the "getting in the car" as a severely punished offence regardless of journey outcome, they'll continue to risk it. With the mindset...
"Hiccup...Iii ain't gonna kill none, I'm a great driver...hiccup...and if I get caught don't really matter, cos I'll only get a slap on the wrist...hiccup...cos I won't have a acshiddent..hiccup"
<Drunk starts car and proceeds to play russian roulette with theirs and every other innocent feckas lives>
posted on 19/9/17
When did all that happen? Or are you just coming out with an hypothetical situation based on your opinion?
Question: so if these guys were both jailed forever how long, would it put off people fighting?
Because you seemed to think if Rooney had been locked up it would put others off.
You've still to show me where i said it was ok to drink and drive!
posted on 19/9/17
With respect your idea is utter fantasy, and would never be legislated in the UK, in any reality. Ever.
Picture the scenario. Person is convicted, and is handed out a prison sentence. Say for the sake of argument one year.
Defence immediately appeal the length of sentence (not guilt) citing an incorrect evaluation of defendants wealth. The case therefore continues for months contending both the defendants net worth and methodology used to calculate.
Over the months that follow various summons are made (bank accounts, public and private records, property portfolios, insurance, hedge funds etc etc – basically full financial disclosure) to establish the defendants true net worth. Which after all is one of the main metrics being used to determine sentencing.
Defendants solicitor also petitions the court citing universal declaration of human rights. Defendant unfairly sentenced in light of incorrect wealth assessment.
With potential appeals to the High court, then Supreme Court and (at present) ECJ costing tens of thousands of tax payer’s money.
This sort of procedure would clog up an already over stretched judiciary, (at considerable expense to the UK tax payer).
It would also encourage everyone (especially the wealthy) to go to even greater lengths to conceal wealth. The exploitation of tax avoidance schemes would go through the roof!!
I’ll repost the sentencing guidelines as it appears you are unclear:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/excess-alcohol-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/
posted on 19/9/17
Why should money be spent on them? Community service is much more useful for everyone than him going to prison and a ban from driving stops them
posted on 20/9/17
WWSPD
If we were talking about a far greater sums than the one his taxi fare would have come to maybe. But an appeal suggesting a currently active PL footballer had his wealth incorrectly assessed when it was adjudged that he could have afforded a taxi fair of £100 after a night out. Is one I would expect a court here to not even allow to be lodged due to having no merit. He's not filing for bankruptcy, if he was then that appeal might hold water.
You keep talking about Human Rights as though money has no effect on situations in people's lives. If his money and profile couldn't have helped him out of his situation and then he was locked up stating he could have used it. THEN you'd be infringing on his human rights. Because then you would be locking him up purely for being rich and famous.
I'm not suggesting a rewriting of guidelines to state "Lock a rich man up for longer" because again that would be a sweeping generalisation on statute which would see loads of people getting bigger sentences for crimes, where their money had no direct baring on the event or events leading up to it. Again that would be hr infringement.
I'm simply saying that in this particular case there his money and stardom did have a direct baring on his circumstance and situation. He CHOSE not to take advantage of that to avoid risking people's lives. It is not violating his rights at all to punish him for that choice.
I think we just disagree on the point where rights are infringed. Because you're talking about his money and fame as though they couldn't have helped him and didn't give him additional cause not to been the law. Let's agree to disagree mate. I'm sure we could argue this one for months
posted on 21/9/17
Pep
What you have said is that Rooney should of been sent down and that because he hasn't it sends the wrong message out.
Do you actually believe that it would stop others from drink driving if he had been sent down?
Page 4 of 5