Virtually impossible to stop repeat offenders

Sorry mate, going to need a bit more to find the relevant article. Cheers.

Kapelmuur wrote:

Today's Observer has a good article on the subject.

Pity the poor, oppressed driver forced to share their roads with the rest of us - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/19/what-price-the-liv...

Many thanks.

The article does link to a mirror piece with an eighty year ban!

In the coverage of this story, I can't get past the bit where she openly admitted to the attending officers that she shouldn't have been driving and that she had been drinking and had taken drugs.

I mean - WTAF???  Surely that should be go to jail, go directly to jail.

Six or more driving offences, rehab on numerous occasions, bankruptcy... 

Part of me wants to feel sorry for the woman; part of me wants to scream at her to "sort her f-ing life out!" (c) Shaun of the Dead.

I regularly appeared in a number London Magistrates' Court prosecuting the most drug addled in town including, on a regular basis, a certain member of the Libertines. The press used to howl derision at the non-custodial/rehablitative sentences he received. I remember discussing these views with the District Judge late one winter's afternoon and she made it plain that if we couldn't demonstrate that we could rehabilitate those in the public eye we couldn't rehabilitate anyone. An ex-offender is better than a reoffender but you have to rehabilate one to have the other.  What would you do?

A non-offender is better than an ex-offender. Is there no deterence in making the punishment fit the crime?

Not much, no - particularly with addiction-related offences. By the time someone's in the situation where they're about to commit the offence, 'what will happen if I'm caught?' isn't generally top of their mind.

Sriracha wrote:

A non-offender is better than an ex-offender. Is there no deterence in making the punishment fit the crime?

Once someone is an offender they don't have that option open to them. It's either ex-offender or repeat-offender. My money would go on enabling and supporting them that they choose the former.

Sriracha wrote:

A non-offender is better than an ex-offender. Is there no deterence in making the punishment fit the crime?

Hasn't worked in America, where the death penalty is still used widely.

As mdavidford has said, those committing crimes are invariably not expecting to be caught or the fallout after a conviction.

Driving bans should be rigidly enforced and vehicles confiscated. It won't prevent people driving like dicks but it will ensure some of the worst ones stay off the road once convicted.

Dangerous repeat offenders like Price and the ones cynically bleating "but I need it for my job" once in court should be shown that they can't screw the system over and over again.

Then I would direct her to look closely at Lady Justice, the statue on top of the Old Bailey (often used as a library photo by road.cc for court cases), she is blindfolded because it represents the ideal justice is applied without regard to wealth, power or other status.

Those in the public eye should not be treated differently by the courts than those that are not.

I read that as meaning that they shouldn't bend to media demands to 'make an example' out of someone just because they happen to be a celebrity - that if we deny someone access to a rehabilitative route because they're in the public eye, then we undermine our use of it for the ordinary Joe.

as long as everyone is treated the same, then theres no problem is there, and the media interest is irrelevant, because it has no impact on what the courts & judges should be deciding.

but this guy was jailed for drink driving after "only" his 3rd strike. "The court was left with no option but to send him to prison." said the judge

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/crime/haverhill-man-jailed-for-drink-driving...

Awavey wrote:

Then I would direct her to look closely at Lady Justice, the statue on top of the Old Bailey (often used as a library photo by road.cc for court cases), she is blindfolded .....

She most certainly is not....

And neither should she be.

I think Pan Farrago has been at your image - if we're talking motoring offenses she's missing an important attribute:

chrisonatrike wrote:

I think Pan Farrago has been at your image - if we're talking motoring offenses she's missing an important attribute:

 

now now

Seems most of us think she is (I thought so) but no she isn't.

https://symbolsandsecrets.london/2017/08/10/justice/

There are a few blindfolded ones in London shown in the link, so perhaps that's where the mistake arises.

I did not know that. Must've been too much Metallica when I was a yoof.

hirsute wrote:

Seems most of us think she is (I thought so) but no she isn't.

https://symbolsandsecrets.london/2017/08/10/justice/

There are a few blindfolded ones in London shown in the link, so perhaps that's where the mistake arises.

Often across the world in fact she's depicted so. The thought of someone dispensing justice without looking is horrifying to me.

Yes, I know it's merely a symbol

Well I'd argue it's not a mistake because the concept is still the same whether shes blind folded, has her eyes shut, or uses her womanly attributes as apparently the case with the Old Bailey interpretation, the idyll is the same, justice is blind.

that means it shouldnt favour friends over strangers or the rich over the poor. It's supposed to represent the very essence of impartiality in law that we are all treated equally, that weve used for centuries going back to Ancient Greece & Roman mythologies.

When I was looking up other suspended sentences in similar charges, one case cropped up where the (female) Judge stated "if the defendent was a man, they would have been shipped straight off to jail" when offering a suspended sentence to a woman. Yes, very very fair.

I agree with this sentiment.  We should try not to incarcerate everyone who misbehaves, it does not prevent reoffending and it costs the tax payer a fortune. However, I still think the offender in question should face serious restrictions on their freedom and not be allowed to do whatever they like during the suspended sentence. They should face strict house arrest at the very minimum. And meet daily online with a rehabilitation officer (I would do this job, I like shouting at people what utter cretins they have been).

hirsute wrote:

She has previously been caught whilst driving while banned (and got a longer ban)

She should be in jail and banned for life.

Maybe it was argued that prison wouldn't help with the drugs? Also she'd be out soon enough. There must be some kind of intervention (tagging? Court-mandated rehab - assuming available...) that would keep her out of cars and away from dealers.

Transportation's starting to seem an idea here. Celebrity "lag island" where there are no vehicles and drugs? Rum?

Although it wouldn't be kind to the locals.

It would keep a serial offender with complete disregard for other people off the roads.
Or do we wait until she kills someone ?

I've no problem with her going to jail. I just doubt she'd be less of a nightmare "complicated lady" when she got out. Which wouldn't be long. Then we're back where we started.

So not really disagreeing. If she was imprisoned (wouldn't be inside for too long) maybe that would make a difference. If she's nicked driving presumably that's a breach of conditions and she's off to jail. If someone isn't convinced that it's hardship in some way, again.

If...