| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 112354 | 2010-09-02 06:52:00 | Sometimes this country sickens me... | Metla (12) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1133905 | 2010-09-03 01:23:00 | +1 17 previous convictions IMO serious jail time should be handed down on the 3rd conviction for the same offence of drink driving, because he clearly never learned any lessons. Under the Land Transport Act as it stands, the only extra thing that can occur for a 3rd conviction for the same offence of causing injury or death whilst driving under the influence, is that the judge's discretion about the length of disqualification is limited - the judge has no choice but to disqualify for MORE THAN 1 YEAR... Seriously. That numbnuts Minister of Transport, Stephen Joyce, who got rolled over the drink driving debate by his mates in the Nat Cabinet, has just announced that there will be an increase in penalties coming soon. He is saying they will increase the maximum penalty for this offence to 10 years! Hardly a radical change - I suspect the mood of the country would be more towards changing the definition of homicide, murder, manslaughter (whatever) to include this kind of offence as unjustifiable homicide, and therefore make the max penalty life imprisonment, the same as murder/manslaughter. |
John H (8) | ||
| 1133906 | 2010-09-03 02:02:00 | Under the Land Transport Act as it stands, the only extra thing that can occur for a 3rd conviction for the same offence of causing injury or death whilst driving under the influence, is that the judge's discretion about the length of disqualification is limited - the judge has no choice but to disqualify for MORE THAN 1 YEAR... Seriously. That numbnuts Minister of Transport, Stephen Joyce, who got rolled over the drink driving debate by his mates in the Nat Cabinet, has just announced that there will be an increase in penalties coming soon. He is saying they will increase the maximum penalty for this offence to 10 years! Hardly a radical change - I suspect the mood of the country would be more towards changing the definition of homicide, murder, manslaughter (whatever) to include this kind of offence as unjustifiable homicide, and therefore make the max penalty life imprisonment, the same as murder/manslaughter. Yeppers a new crime called vehicular homicide with 2 steps manslaughter and murder. Use same punishment as if it was done with a gun. I feel for Joyce a party that cuts the drink driving piss amount will get a hiding at the elections because a lot of people like me still have a few snorters within the piss limit and drive. If National had done the dirty and lowered the level I would never vote for them again. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1133907 | 2010-09-03 02:36:00 | I feel for Joyce a party that cuts the drink driving piss amount will get a hiding at the elections because a lot of people like me still have a few snorters within the piss limit and drive. If National had done the dirty and lowered the level I would never vote for them again. Hey Prefect... That might have raised the average IQ of the rest of the National voters. Ken :D |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 1133908 | 2010-09-03 03:21:00 | 4 years still not the Maximum sentence, what does one have to do to get the maximum sentence? | Arnie (6624) | ||
| 1133909 | 2010-09-03 03:40:00 | 4 years still not the Maximum sentence, what does one have to do to get the maximum sentence? Probably by pleading not guilty and then getting convicted after forcing the Court into a trial. I am pretty sure that the report said that the Crown asked for a starting point of five years, but that the judge gave the usual discount for a guilty plea. Someone will correct me if I am wrong - I can't find the report now. PS here it is, c/o TVNZ news, which might mean it is crap: Judge Emma Aitken said he presented one of the worst driving histories she had ever seen and his actions on that day constituted "close to the worst offending of its kind". "It was an appalling, tragic and, I am bound to observe, avoidable course of conduct that led to the death of Ms Kennedy. "There can be no dispute, Mr Jenkins, that the public needs protection from you." She sentenced him to four years' imprisonment, taking into account his early guilty plea, but said she would have imposed a harsher sentence if the option had been available. |
John H (8) | ||
| 1133910 | 2010-09-03 04:18:00 | Notice that there is no distinction in the section between causing injury or death, which seems bizarre to me. I don't see the need for a distinction. If you crash into another car and you're drunk, it is only luck whether you kill them or simply injure them. |
shermo (12739) | ||
| 1133911 | 2010-09-03 05:48:00 | Probably by pleading not guilty and then getting convicted after forcing the Court into a trial. I am pretty sure that the report said that the Crown asked for a starting point of five years, but that the judge gave the usual discount for a guilty plea. Someone will correct me if I am wrong - I can't find the report now. PS here it is, c/o TVNZ news, which might mean it is crap: Judge Emma Aitken said he presented one of the worst driving histories she had ever seen and his actions on that day constituted "close to the worst offending of its kind". "It was an appalling, tragic and, I am bound to observe, avoidable course of conduct that led to the death of Ms Kennedy. "There can be no dispute, Mr Jenkins, that the public needs protection from you." She sentenced him to four years' imprisonment, taking into account his early guilty plea, but said she would have imposed a harsher sentence if the option had been available. Stupid stupid judge she should have sentenced the clown to the maximum knowing the crook would appeal it. But then the appeal court can take the heat by reducing it. Why are judges so stupid in NZ is it a requirement to being stupid to be appointed to the bench? |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1133912 | 2010-09-03 12:36:00 | Sorry Prefect judges are TIGHTLY constrained in NZ by the LAW and usually have very few options as to sentencing. They to had too many cowboys and had to be reigned in! So rail at the Law, not the judges. | PPp (9511) | ||
| 1133913 | 2010-09-03 15:07:00 | Surely a charge of manslaughter could have been laid - not entirely unknown in traffic cases. After all killing someone while driving under the influence must be culpable homicide. ( ie wilfully carrying out an unlawful act resulting in death) | KenESmith (6287) | ||
| 1133914 | 2010-09-03 21:01:00 | Must say,they don't put much value on a human life. Who is in charge here? |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||