The drink-drive war is won!

**Genestho** · 14th September 2010, 14:47

Just to clarify - Pdath - you may have seen the case two weeks ago where a Judge wanted to give 7 years for drink driving causing death on the 18th drink-drive conviction, but the penalty was unavailable, the wheels are slow to turn but the max penalty is about to double from 5 to 10 years, then we need a Judge with balls to set precedent.

Phil-K to clarify - court ordered car confiscation is available - apparently the offender recoups costs.
http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/filea...g_Brochure.doc

In OIA stats - in 07, 08 and 09 this penalty was not handed down, but then there is a disclaimer of an error band attached to the stats....

I have seen a confiscation order reversed http://www.nzherald.co.nz/social-iss...ectid=10523479

Prove hardship - job done

I have also seen car confiscation orders a couple of times this year, but 2010 stats won't be available till next year.

**phill-k** · 14th September 2010, 15:06

In reply, I have always felt that our issues on the road - drink driving, boy racers, and dangerous speed (note the word dangerous) are well handled by the police by in large but the reasons we continue to see these offences regardless of the enforcement, tv campaigns ect is our court penalty system.
The police are continually let down by the judiciary - and I guess the law under which they act to an extent.
What is the point in lumping more and more fines on someone who does not have the ability to pay, we don't want to incarcerate people because that is a cost to society but what is wrong with confiscation, make sure the public are aware that if they commit a certain offence or amass a certain level of unpaid fine that they will lose the privilege to drive on our roads, their license will be removed and if caught in a vehicle that vehicle will be confiscated regardless of circumstances or ownership, until the penalties served up by the judiciary have the effect of altering behaviour amongst those that continue to abuse or ignore the law we will be stuck with what we have.

Just read the drink drive pamphlet - this is exactly why I feel the law lets society down, the rules of confiscation are that the offender must have an interest in the car, and if its going to put the offender or anyone out or make life a little difficult then they have grounds for appeal, in effect that law is an ass, again if the punishment is not sufficient to deter then the behaviour continues, this applies to both the animal and human kingdom

**glegge** · 14th September 2010, 15:46

I like and i think understand your post.
the reason for the law being implemented in the first place has gone.
the figures prove this.
i think your asking that now the problem (at least on papers - numbers wise) has been delt to, it's time the government takes the laws away (the laws that say the police can stop us to check for over the limit - without any reason, ie not showing signs of drink driving).
I agree. look back in legal history - there are lots of examples of out-dated laws still in effect.
ideally the less laws the better, but that will be when we have a society filled with 'mostly decient people'

Originally Posted by AD345

Outstandiing news today from from the front lines of the war against drink-drivers. In a massive 2 days blitz where over 31,000 (31,777 to be exact) citizens were detained and searched by officers of the state, over 99% of them (99.4% to be exact) were found to be in full compliance with the nations drink-drive laws.

This heralds a new age of responsible behaviour by the ciitizenry of New Zealand and must, at long last, force official acknowledgement that the current, if onerous, laws and policing methods have finally achieved all that they were enacted to do. Hopefully this will see a marked easing in state surveillance of law-abiding citizens and a reduction in impediments to going about their lawful business.

What a great day

**avgas** · 14th September 2010, 16:29

An interesting fact (one I gained recently).
How you act on the road, is actually of higher consequence (in legal eyes), than what section of the road code you broke.

I had always thought it was the other way.
So it seems (according to the legal types anyway), not being courteous is actually more dangerous than say "speeding".
Food for thought. Why don't we have people checking on other people driving behavior on the road?
A cop watching traffic, leaving the speed camera to do its own thing?

**scumdog** · 14th September 2010, 16:49

Originally Posted by phill-k

The police are continually let down by the judiciary - and I guess the law under which they act to an extent.

I'm not allowed to comment on or criticise the justice sytem (apparently..)

So I won't.

But guess what I'm thinking??

**red mermaid** · 14th September 2010, 17:28

Same as I'm thinking?

**AD345** · 14th September 2010, 18:37

Some great posts here and a really good discussion. Too many indvidual posts for me to reply to each of them but it has sparked a few more thoughts of my own.

I agree that the rigour of enforcement is diluted by the (seemingly) milder actual consequences of non-compliance.

At an offender rate of around 0.6% it is my opionion that you are getting down to the irreducible nub. As T.G.W stated at this level you are mainly talking about recidivists and first time offenders (youf).

There seems to be common agreement that the penalties for recidivism are much too lenient, especially compared to the likely consequences on innocent people posed by this continued law-breaking. I too am sick to death of hearing about spectacular, often fatal and always tragic outcomes caused by people who have multiple drink-drive convictions.

Tightening of enforcement or lowering of breath alcohol levels or increasing powers of surveillance is not going to affect these people. Their behaviour has already been proven resistant to change and if we cant affect their level of compliance then we must reduce their opportunity to break the law and risk lives. Incarceration or removal of access to vehicles (taking away their licences seems to also be ineffectual as they ofetn hae multiple breaches for that as well as drink-drive offences) would seem to be the best and only options left.

My original point remains and is, indeed, strenghtend by this. Check points and random stoppages are not going to reduce the level of offending much, if any, further. We have started to reach the point of diminshing returns for enforcement and now need to concentrate our efforts on imposing meaningful consequences for non-compliance.

The party/person that halves the number of checkpoints and random stops but doubles (and makes that doubling a minimum) the jailtime for repeat offences gets my vote.

The 0.6% is not going to go away unless we put them away.

**phill-k** · 14th September 2010, 20:17

Originally Posted by AD345

Some great posts here and a really good discussion. Too many individual posts for me to reply to each of them but it has sparked a few more thoughts of my own.

I agree that the rigour of enforcement is diluted by the (seemingly) milder actual consequences of non-compliance.

At an offender rate of around 0.6% it is my opionion that you are getting down to the irreducible nub. As T.G.W stated at this level you are mainly talking about recidivists and first time offenders (youf).

There seems to be common agreement that the penalties for recidivism are much too lenient, especially compared to the likely consequences on innocent people posed by this continued law-breaking. I too am sick to death of hearing about spectacular, often fatal and always tragic outcomes caused by people who have multiple drink-drive convictions.

Tightening of enforcement or lowering of breath alcohol levels or increasing powers of surveillance is not going to affect these people. Their behaviour has already been proven resistant to change and if we cant affect their level of compliance then we must reduce their opportunity to break the law and risk lives. Incarceration or removal of access to vehicles (taking away their licences seems to also be ineffectual as they ofetn hae multiple breaches for that as well as drink-drive offences) would seem to be the best and only options left.

My original point remains and is, indeed, strenghtend by this. Check points and random stoppages are not going to reduce the level of offending much, if any, further. We have started to reach the point of diminshing returns for enforcement and now need to concentrate our efforts on imposing meaningful consequences for non-compliance.

The party/person that halves the number of checkpoints and random stops but doubles (and makes that doubling a minimum) the jailtime for repeat offences gets my vote.

The 0.6% is not going to go away unless we put them away.

I would very much like to agree with you, however the reasons behind the checkpoint operations is not education it is merely a deterrent to the activity targeted, should the numbers of checkpoints decrease you can be assured there will be an increase in both the numbers driving whilst intoxicated and deaths as a result.
The likelihood of coming across a checkpoint is obviously sufficient to modify the behaviour of the majority, remove it and you can be assured people will begin to offend in the belief that they alone are ok driving whilst drunk. Its like smoking we all know the potential outcomes yet many still indulge obviously with the belief that the big "C" won't get them, I mean why else would they continue knowing the facts.

**AD345** · 14th September 2010, 20:47

Originally Posted by phill-k

I would very much like to agree with you, however the reasons behind the checkpoint operations is not education it is merely a deterrent to the activity targeted, should the numbers of checkpoints decrease you can be assured there will be an increase in both the numbers driving whilst intoxicated and deaths as a result.
The likelihood of coming across a checkpoint is obviously sufficient to modify the behaviour of the majority, remove it and you can be assured people will begin to offend in the belief that they along are ok driving whilst drunk. Its like smoking we all know the potential outcomes yet many still indulge obviously with the belief that the big "C" won't get them, I mean why else would they continue knowing the facts.

I agree that the purpose of checkpoints is not education. I don't agree that the only reason people do not drink and drive is because of them. I can't think of a way to prove that so can only draw upon personal experience where myself and my friends do not drink and drive because it is a bad thing to do.

It's not fear of punishment that prevents me from murdering people - it is the sense that to do so would be a great wrong

I also think that the barrier to intrusion in our lives from organs of the state should be very very high. My forefathers fought for the ideals of individual freedoms and minimal state oversight and I think its an ideal to work very very hard for - not simply something to give lip service to and then discard in the name of "safety".

Again - that is not a dig at anyone, its just a personal belief. I really do believe that these ideas and ieals are more than just abstract matters for academic discussion. I believe that they are real and impactful every day of our life in a myriad of ways big and small where importance is not defined by the size of the intrusion but the fact of it.

**Banditbandit** · 15th September 2010, 09:52

Originally Posted by phill-k

The police are continually let down by the judiciary - and I guess the law under which they act to an extent.

Originally Posted by scumdog

I'm not allowed to comment on or criticise the justice sytem (apparently..)

So I won't.

But guess what I'm thinking??

I'm sorry but the police are NOT the arbiters of social behaviours ... nor should they be allowed to make the laws ... Scumdog has just demonstrated why ...

The police are OUR enforcement arm .. and they enforce the laws that we, as a society, decide. The judiciary preside over trials to make sure they are fair ... in our adversarial system that's very needed ... the jury (12 honest citizens) decide the verdict .. then the judge decides the consequences ... within the framework that a democratic system decides .... And yes - that's the theory ... works in practice too ... tho' sometimes it stuff up - like Scott Watson, David Bain ...

And before you scream that the politicians don't set the laws you want - maybe you're in a minority ... ever thought about that? The right is minority in Aotearoa and has been for many many years ... a vocal one ... but a minority none the less ...

Sorry to scare you all over your morning coffee .. the truth is often scarey ...

**phill-k** · 15th September 2010, 11:19

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

I'm sorry but the police are NOT the arbiters of social behaviours ... nor should they be allowed to make the laws ... Scumdog has just demonstrated why ...

Not sure why my post led into this statement - Our police force are charged as you say with enforcing the laws as implemented by Government on behalf of the people. The people have decided that Drunk Driving (the consequences of) is no longer acceptable, and thus the campaign to reduce drink driving and in the Government's eyes ultimately the road toll by whichpolice action and enforcement is judged. However this is flawed and what I was implying is that the Police in their roll of enforcer of the law are let down by the judiciary in the sentences they deem fit for the crimes bought before them. By this I mean that the punishments, whatever they are, whilst perhaps having an effect on the majority along with such things as checkpoints deter, these punishments are not sufficient to curb the behaviour of the recidivist drink driver and until the judiciary deal out sufficient punishment to deter these people the police actions will be largely ineffective from the point their enforcement has now bought us too.
Obviously if the judiciary are unable under law to increase the penalties then the law itself lets both the judiciary and the police down.

The police are OUR enforcement arm .. and they enforce the laws that we, as a society, decide. The judiciary preside over trials to make sure they are fair ... in our adversarial system that's very needed ... the jury (12 honest citizens) decide the verdict .. then the judge decides the consequences ... within the framework that a democratic system decides .... And yes - that's the theory ... works in practice too ... tho' sometimes it stuff up - like Scott Watson, David Bain ...

And before you scream that the politicians don't set the laws you want - maybe you're in a minority ... ever thought about that? The right is minority in Aotearoa and has been for many many years ... a vocal one ... but a minority none the less ...

Sorry to scare you all over your morning coffee .. the truth is often scarey ...

I'm not scared by your comments, however you say it is not the police responsibility to judge, rather just to provide the evidence, the police are at the coalface, they see the results of offending in all it glory but we leave the actual judgement up to a small elitist group of elderly (by in large) judges who are well removed because of their status and income from society. At this very moment we have a senior member of the judiciary before his peers for conducting a trial whilst having a conflict of interest, he owed a substantial sum of money and was in a business arrangement with one of the council appearing before him but didn't see fit to declare a possible conflict of interest to the parties. I'm afraid if I was to be scared by anything it is the fact that this small group of elitist people who we all no almost nothing about, who if you are to complain about are then judged by their peers who the almost certainly socialise with as well. The police are exposed to the realities of life seeing both good and bad on a continual basis, this is why I have faith in them as a whole.