Phobia lets death driver avoid jail

[Swoop]

Honestly. What the fuck is happening with the judicial system in this country!
Someone fucks up, breaks the law, gets convicted and can now have a cry and "get out of jail free"?

This bitch drank and drove, ending up with a death on her hands. Simple.
Do the crime, do the time... except in NZ.
[/rant]


A drunk driver who killed a woman (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10524684)has been spared prison after a judge said her agoraphobia would cause her "difficulties" if she was locked up.

Unemployed Papakura resident Lesley Caudwell told police she had been "trolleying it today" and drinking "lots of wine" after the November 16 crash that killed 36-year-old Tara Groenestein.

But at her sentencing yesterday, Judge Andree Wiltens said the 42-year-old's condition - which included frequent panic attacks and bipolar disorder - would place her in "difficulty" if she were confined to a cell.

Caudwell had earlier pleaded guilty to driving while incapable and causing death, and dangerous driving causing death.

Judge Wiltens also took into account her early guilty plea and the fact she was caring for her cancer-stricken mother.

Once all factors were considered, home detention was the "only option".

He sentenced her to 12 months of home detention and disqualified her from driving for four years.

Crown prosecutors had sought a four-year jail term.

Caudwell was almost three times over the legal breath-alcohol limit and travelling at 100km/h when she ploughed into Ms Groenestein's car at the Patumahoe Rd/Waiuku Rd intersection near Pukekohe.

Ms Groenestein died at the scene.

Police found an empty wine bottle in the front passenger footwell of Caudwell's car. She told officers she was the driver but didn't know where she was going.

Police said other motorists had raised the alarm about Caudwell's driving minutes before the crash, after she was seen crossing the centre line.

The sentence left many of Ms Groenestein's family in tears, and cries of "murderer" and "where's the justice" rang out at the sentencing.

"I'm absolutely disgusted ... How can you take a life and get just 12 months' home detention," father Felix Groenestein said.

Tara's mother, Jill Groenestein, told the Herald she wanted every parent in New Zealand to know how the family were feeling.

"I'd put every parent on notice - I never thought this could ever happen to us. How do we get these people off the roads and show zero tolerance when this happens?"

Judge Wiltens said the victim impact statements made harrowing reading and left him in tears.

But this was no comfort to the family, who say they feel cheated by New Zealand's justice system.

"If we were in Australia or America she would have got five years or 20 years," said sister Rachel Groenestein. "Sometimes I think these judges need to feel pain. It's a joke, some of these laws."

* Agoraphobia

A fear of open spaces, going outside or being away from a place of safety. Also an abnormal fear of being helpless in an embarrassing or inescapable situation.

[Trudes]

Good god, what next? "I have a phobia to being someone's bitch and being arse fucked with a hairbrush, so I can't go to jail". Bloody hell. Yeah, and what the fuck does being agoraphobic have to do with being in a jail cell? Annoys me when people use mental illness that they probably don't have as an excuse, stuffs things bad for those who legitamitely have something wrong in the head being able to recieve a little understanding. And if she was agoraphobic, why the hell was she driving around pissed anyway?Wouldn't she have trouble leaving the house? Holy shit.

[James Deuce]

Settle. Killing someone on the road in NZ isn't a criminal offence.

[Rollestonchick]

My heart really goes out to Groenestein family. The Groenestein family have lost their girl for a life sentence.
As for the drunk murderer:whocares: about her problerms

Jail is the only place for Lesley Caudwell.

* Agoraphobia

A fear of open spaces, going outside or being away from a place of safety. Also an abnormal fear of being helpless in an embarrassing or inescapable situation.
Home detention is too cosy

[imdying]

Jail is the only place for Lesley CaudwellEither that or 1km out to shore with concrete boots.

[Forest]

This situation strikes me as being unbelievably unjust.

12 months of home detention? What a bloody joke.

What's next? A defendant with a phobia against being jailed?

--------------------------

Did anybody else think that agoraphobia wouldn't be a major problem for a prisoner? There's not exactly a lot of open spaces in a jail. :oi-grr:

[Boob Johnson]

29 people were hung in Iran last week, murderer's, rapists & the like.

How many people would think twice about stepping behind the wheel after a few too many then aye?

Life for a life! At least that way the recidivist offenders will eventually be caught & washed out of the gene pool doing mankind a favour!

[Deano]

Settle. Killing someone on the road in NZ isn't a criminal offence.

Isn't any offence that can lead to imprisonment a criminal offence ?

I'm not commenting on the outcome - mental health issues are too touchy feely in here for my liking.

[Patch]

If you can't handle the little box for a few months, introduce the old bitch to the needle in the back room.

No worse than what the SPCA does with its unwanted/un-well victims.

[scumdog]

Usual NZ justice.

Some poor cop spends hours on the case, gets all the paperwork sorted, does his best to present the case.

And the judge lets the whole team down by dropping the ball big-time.

Judges are ex-lawyers, what d'you expect???:crazy:

[jrandom]

And the judge lets the whole team down by dropping the ball big-time.

I don't suppose it's possible for the prosecution to appeal a sentence on the grounds that it's obviously bollocks?

[James Deuce]

Isn't any offence that can lead to imprisonment a criminal offence ?

I'm not commenting on the outcome - mental health issues are too touchy feely in here for my liking.
Nope. Covered by different acts. The "reasoning" is that it is too difficult to prove intent, hence dangerous driving charges with "causing death" or "causing injury" appended to them and much lesser sentences attached than taking an ice axe to someone's head.

DIC & causing death is a different story to being stupid and causing death, even if the outcome is the same, in my book at least. Mistakes do happen. If you are DIC you clearly have no regard for your fellow road users and you should be tried under the provisions of the Crimes Act. Being DIC should "prove" intent.

[scumdog]

. Being DIC should "prove" intent.

Ah, but lawyers will say their loser client was too drunk to have 'intent'.:rolleyes:

[James Deuce]

I know what you are saying. My idea removes that as a valid defense, but then I am, probably, a bastard.

[Sanx]

OK ... let's stop the calls for capital punishment. If the legal system in NZ was the same as the one in Iran, I'm sure you lot would be complaining just as hard. Actually, you wouldn't be complaining as you'd be too scared to say anything in case the Police turned up to take you to Aden prison - a place one generally leaves in a bodybag - for daring to criticise the regime.

Capital punishment is wrong, whatever the crime, and certainly wrong for drink driving causing death.

But this doesn't excuse the laughable joke that is the sentence given to this woman. What I'm trying to understand though, is how agoraphobia - a fear of open spaces - is a valid excuse for not going to jail. Claustrophobia I could understand (almost), but if I was an agoraphobic, the knowledge that I was not going to have to go outside and see a horizon or an open sky for the next 5 years would be a great relief, not a punishment.

Sounds like another judge with his head far too far up the (well-perfumed and polished) arse of the PC brigade.

[James Deuce]

OK ... let's stop the calls for capital punishment. If the legal system in NZ was the same as the one in Iran, I'm sure you lot would be complaining just as hard. Actually, you wouldn't be complaining as you'd be too scared to say anything in case the Police turned up to take you to Aden prison - a place one generally leaves in a bodybag - for daring to criticise the regime.

Capital punishment is wrong, whatever the crime, and certainly wrong for drink driving causing death.

But this doesn't excuse the laughable joke that is the sentence given to this woman. What I'm trying to understand though, is how agoraphobia - a fear of open spaces - is a valid excuse for not going to jail. Claustrophobia I could understand (almost), but if I was an agoraphobic, the knowledge that I was not going to have to go outside and see a horizon or an open sky for the next 5 years would be a great relief, not a punishment.

Sounds like another judge with his head far too far up the (well-perfumed and polished) arse of the PC brigade.

Agoraphobia isn't the opposite of claustrophobia.

From Psych Central

"The essential feature of Agoraphobia is anxiety about being in places or situations from which escape might be difficult (or embarrassing) or in which help may not be available in the event of having a Panic Attack (http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx27.htm) or panic-like symptoms. "

[Forest]

Agoraphobia isn't the opposite of claustrophobia.

From Psych Central

"The essential feature of Agoraphobia is anxiety about being in places or situations from which escape might be difficult (or embarrassing) or in which help may not be available in the event of having a Panic Attack (http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx27.htm) or panic-like symptoms. "

Sounds like she would be an ideal prisoner.

Once accommodated she won't be capable of carrying out an escape attempt.

[EJK]

The victim's family would've been abit unhappy when they read this....

[scumdog]

The victim's family would've been abit unhappy when they read this....

How?? Why?

[sunhuntin]

Capital punishment is wrong, whatever the crime.

sorry, but i disagree fully! i fail to see how capital punishment isnt a valid result of taking a life?
maybe not in this case, but actual murder cases, where the crim set out to murder. whether its a domestic, child abuse or anything. why should the families and friends of the victim, who has been taken away from them forever, have to pay to keep their killer happy and well fed in prison?
there is a guy in prison right now who murdered one of my best friends. she was the light in her families lives, and they struggle daily without her smile.
i would love nothing more than to spend 5 mins with him and a baseball bat, and make him feel the same agony that tania did. tania was so badly destroyed by the monster that her tattoos were the only way her father could identify her.

[Deano]

Nope. Covered by different acts. The "reasoning" is that it is too difficult to prove intent, hence dangerous driving charges with "causing death" or "causing injury" appended to them and much lesser sentences attached than taking an ice axe to someone's head.

DIC & causing death is a different story to being stupid and causing death, even if the outcome is the same, in my book at least. Mistakes do happen. If you are DIC you clearly have no regard for your fellow road users and you should be tried under the provisions of the Crimes Act. Being DIC should "prove" intent.

I was under the impression (from past teachings) that there are two types of proceeding.

Criminal and civil.

It's clearly not a civil case.

???

[Dakara]

Nothing wrong with capital punishment... Sure some countries perhaps take it too far (although fear is a great detirrent) but it takes a lot less tax payer dollars to simply turn the swtich off... there's no redemption for the crimes some people commit.

Back on topic, this outcome honestly makes me laugh... not because it's a laughing matter, far from it, but sometimes, when your lost for words/emotion laughter is all that can come out. All I can say is "What next NZ?"

[Sanx]

sorry, but i disagree fully! i fail to see how capital punishment isnt a valid result of taking a life?
maybe not in this case, but actual murder cases, where the crim set out to murder. whether its a domestic, child abuse or anything. why should the families and friends of the victim, who has been taken away from them forever, have to pay to keep their killer happy and well fed in prison?
there is a guy in prison right now who murdered one of my best friends. she was the light in her families lives, and they struggle daily without her smile.
i would love nothing more than to spend 5 mins with him and a baseball bat, and make him feel the same agony that tania did. tania was so badly destroyed by the monster that her tattoos were the only way her father could identify her.

The problem with capital punishment is that it is the ultimate final sentence. Should evidence come to light later that throws doubt on the conviction (as has happened many many times) you can let someone out of prison. You can't let someone out of a grave.

But what about the criminals who are absolutely positively guilty? The criminals that have confessed? Etc. Etc.

There is always some level of doubt in a conviction or a plausible cause of the actions that does not involve the criminal nature of the person themselves. In the UK over the last twenty years, I can think of people convicted of murder and subsequently released as a result of:


Police fabricating evidence (Birmingham Six and Guildford Four)
Forensic techniques later proven to be unreliable
Brain tumour, which caused random acts of extreme violence and hallucinations
Eye-witnesses later proven to have ulterior motives and shown to have lied under oath

I don't think that any criminal conviction can be 100% beyond doubt in perpetuity. And therefore it isn't just to have a punishment that puts the person 100% beyond release in perpetuity.

In the past 35 years, 129 people were sentenced to death and subsequently released from death row in the USA. Between 1973 and 1995, 5% of all capital convictions ended in the person subsequently having their conviction quashed. Others whose sentence was overturned were retried and found guilt of 'lesser' offences. The Innocence Project has proved, using post-conviction DNA-testing, that 218 death row prisoners (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/) were innocent and secured their release. They've secured pardons or retrials (ending in acquittal) in other cases where the sentence was something other than death.

Take this bloke's case (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/576.php) as an example. Curtis McCarty was sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of 18 year-old Pamela Willis. During his first trial, a government forensics expert said that hairs found at the scene matched those of McCarty and that semen collected from the victim matched McCarty's blood type. The forensics expert changed her notes during the case; something only discovered 18 years later when said forensics expert was arrested for fraud. The District Attorney also withheld evidence from the defence and jury. The conviction was overturned two years later and a retrial ordered. During the second trial, the judge misdirected the jury and a re-trial was once again ordered. The third and final trial confirmed the death sentence.

In 2000, with the forensics expert, Joyce Gilchrist, under investigation for fraud relating to fabrication of results, the defence asked her to produce the hair samples which she had testified matched McCarty's. The evidence had conveniently been lost. In 2002, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure DNA testing on the sperm sample found on the victim's body. In 2005, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure a new trial based upon Gilchrist's proven unreliability and bad-faith destruction of evidence. Further forensic evidence showed that skin scrapings taken from under the victim's fingernails did not match McCarty's and a bloody footprint left at the scene could not have been made by him either. Before the third trial started, the judge dismissed the charges and released McCarty. He'd spent 22 years in jail and 18 years on death row. And he was innocent.

There's also arguments about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Or more to the point, it's complete lack of effectiveness. The ACLU have quite a detailed section on it (http://www.aclu.org/capital/general/10441pub19971231.html#deterrent), but of course it should be read in the context that the ACLU is against the death penalty and will only publish evidence that supports their stance.

[scumdog]

The problem with capital punishment is that it is the ultimate final sentence. But what about the criminals who are absolutely positively guilty? The criminals that have confessed? Etc. Etc.

There is always some level of doubt in a conviction or a plausible cause of the actions that does not involve the criminal nature of the person themselves. In the UK over the last twenty years, I can think of people convicted of murder and subsequently released as a result of:


Police fabricating evidence (Birmingham Six and Guildford Four)
Forensic techniques later proven to be unreliable
Brain tumour, which caused random acts of extreme violence and hallucinations
Eye-witnesses later proven to have ulterior motives and shown to have lied under oath

I don't think that any criminal conviction can be 100% beyond doubt in perpetuity. And therefore it isn't just to have a punishment that puts the person 100% beyond release in perpetuity.

Ah, that's crap in a fair number of cases (Bell in the RSA, Antonie "I'm insane" and a few others,) - never going to be any use to society and only a leech on the tax-payer.

Best positon for them? - in an offal pit.

[jrandom]

sorry, but i disagree fully! i fail to see how capital punishment isnt a valid result of taking a life?

Of course it is. Theoretically.

But, just in case you found Sanx's excellent post too long and involved to follow, I'll boil it down for you:

The justice system isn't infallible, which means that capital punishment inevitably results in innocent people being executed.

[James Deuce]

I was under the impression (from past teachings) that there are two types of proceeding.

Criminal and civil.

It's clearly not a civil case.

???
You are completely correct, but the sentence relates to the act under which the "criminal" is tried. Last election the Gubbmint effectively moved the perpetrators of deaths on NZ roads beyond the scope of the Crimes Act and made it legal for people who drive the wrong way up Nauranga Gorge to retain their license despite suffering from all the effects of extreme age.

To get a murder conviction to stick you have to prove that the other driver intended to kill that other particular driver. With manslaughter you have to prove that the other person was capable of understanding that their actions could result in death. hose charges are only used when someone drives into a crowd of pedestrians and a large number of witnesses can positively ID the perp.

Road accidents are not regarded as violent crimes and that is the official word. That is why the sentences are so light.

[jrandom]

Road accidents are not regarded as violent crimes and that is the official word. That is why the sentences are so light.

Makes it pretty straightforward to choose a method of bloody vengeance against those who have wronged you, eh?

Just gotta be a bit smarter about it than that dumbfuck coconut who drove into the crowd.

:niceone:

[sunhuntin]

Of course it is. Theoretically.

But, just in case you found Sanx's excellent post too long and involved to follow, I'll boil it down for you:

The justice system isn't infallible, which means that capital punishment inevitably results in innocent people being executed.

so therefore, its ok to let 100% guilty murderers live [like the examples scummy gave, and ill include the dick in the wheelchair for good measure] IN CASE someone gets it wrong, even when its 200% obvious that that person did murder that person for no good reason? i can understand that mistakes have been made in the past, but with the advances in forensics and dna and the like, those mistakes are less and less. eventually, mistakes wont happen at all. then what?

[Dakara]

The problem with capital punishment is that it is the ultimate final sentence. Should evidence come to light later that throws doubt on the conviction (as has happened many many times) you can let someone out of prison. You can't let someone out of a grave.

But what about the criminals who are absolutely positively guilty? The criminals that have confessed? Etc. Etc.

There is always some level of doubt in a conviction or a plausible cause of the actions that does not involve the criminal nature of the person themselves. In the UK over the last twenty years, I can think of people convicted of murder and subsequently released as a result of:


Police fabricating evidence (Birmingham Six and Guildford Four)
Forensic techniques later proven to be unreliable
Brain tumour, which caused random acts of extreme violence and hallucinations
Eye-witnesses later proven to have ulterior motives and shown to have lied under oath

I don't think that any criminal conviction can be 100% beyond doubt in perpetuity. And therefore it isn't just to have a punishment that puts the person 100% beyond release in perpetuity.

In the past 35 years, 129 people were sentenced to death and subsequently released from death row in the USA. Between 1973 and 1995, 5% of all capital convictions ended in the person subsequently having their conviction quashed. Others whose sentence was overturned were retried and found guilt of 'lesser' offences. The Innocence Project has proved, using post-conviction DNA-testing, that 218 death row prisoners (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/) were innocent and secured their release. They've secured pardons or retrials (ending in acquittal) in other cases where the sentence was something other than death.

Take this bloke's case (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/576.php) as an example. Curtis McCarty was sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of 18 year-old Pamela Willis. During his first trial, a government forensics expert said that hairs found at the scene matched those of McCarty and that semen collected from the victim matched McCarty's blood type. The forensics expert changed her notes during the case; something only discovered 18 years later when said forensics expert was arrested for fraud. The District Attorney also withheld evidence from the defence and jury. The conviction was overturned two years later and a retrial ordered. During the second trial, the judge misdirected the jury and a re-trial was once again ordered. The third and final trial confirmed the death sentence.

In 2000, with the forensics expert, Joyce Gilchrist, under investigation for fraud relating to fabrication of results, the defence asked her to produce the hair samples which she had testified matched McCarty's. The evidence had conveniently been lost. In 2002, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure DNA testing on the sperm sample found on the victim's body. In 2005, McCarty's lawyers were able to secure a new trial based upon Gilchrist's proven unreliability and bad-faith destruction of evidence. Further forensic evidence showed that skin scrapings taken from under the victim's fingernails did not match McCarty's and a bloody footprint left at the scene could not have been made by him either. Before the third trial started, the judge dismissed the charges and released McCarty. He'd spent 22 years in jail and 18 years on death row. And he was innocent.

There's also arguments about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Or more to the point, it's complete lack of effectiveness. The ACLU have quite a detailed section on it (http://www.aclu.org/capital/general/10441pub19971231.html#deterrent), but of course it should be read in the context that the ACLU is against the death penalty and will only publish evidence that supports their stance.

Yea, that's a scary thought indeed. However, my support of capital punishment is more for the mass murderer's, rapists... those repeat offernder's who are obviously guilty and don't deserve to breathe our planets air.

[jrandom]

eventually, mistakes wont happen at all.


<img src="http://sf.startupweekend.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/o_rly.jpg"/>

[Sanx]

so therefore, its ok to let 100% guilty murderers live [like the examples scummy gave, and ill include the dick in the wheelchair for good measure] IN CASE someone gets it wrong, even when its 200% obvious that that person did murder that person for no good reason? i can understand that mistakes have been made in the past, but with the advances in forensics and dna and the like, those mistakes are less and less. eventually, mistakes wont happen at all. then what?

Who defines 100% guilty? And what happens when someone has been tried, convicted and much later evidence comes out proving their innocence or giving an explanation for their behaviour. At what point do you decide that this isn't going to happen?

[Genestho]

This particular case being so close to my heart, I feel sick for Tara's family.

While the law says there is no proof of intent to kill, I feel the only difference between murder by gun and murder by car with a drunk behind the wheel is that cars, and booze are accessible to all.

There will be no followup to see this woman is following her home d sentence or her four years loss of license.
I know this, because the man who killed my man and his friends, was not monitored.

I have had the only real and fair outcome.
The man who killed three people and himself and put three little children through hell that day, and left 5 children without parents, had his judgement passed in "Guzzi" Court.

The only winners in this case.. are the lawyer and this woman with agrophobia.

While these people killed by drunk drivers might not be classed as murdered as we know it, my humble opinion is that these people have all been murdered, its only the law that says theres no proof of intent to kill.

What an absolute preventable waste of lives.

[James Deuce]

so therefore, its ok to let 100% guilty murderers live [like the examples scummy gave, and ill include the dick in the wheelchair for good measure] IN CASE someone gets it wrong, even when its 200% obvious that that person did murder that person for no good reason? i can understand that mistakes have been made in the past, but with the advances in forensics and dna and the like, those mistakes are less and less. eventually, mistakes wont happen at all. then what?
People put far too much faith in "forensics" and "dna" because it all works nicely on CSI and you can zoom in on a digital image and instead of pixels you see a sharper version of the original image.

We all share bits of identical DNA. It is REALLY easy to get it wrong and it is repeatedly wrong. The more convinced we are that technology will fix things, the less likely that will prove to be true.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/839087/dna_profiling_a_critical_look.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/839087/dna_profiling_a_critical_look.html

[Flatcap]

Nothing wrong with capital punishment, as long as it is applied in a just manner to everyone apart from myself and people I care about

[scumdog]

Makes it pretty straightforward to choose a method of bloody vengeance against those who have wronged you, eh?

Just gotta be a bit smarter about it than that dumbfuck coconut who drove into the crowd.

:niceone:

Lately know of two cases involving three deaths and total punishment (barring the disqualy bit) was two years home d.

Really sends a massage eh???

[Bikernereid]

In the UK a bloke and his wife who just defrauded an insurance company of £250,00 have just got 6 years each!!

I would rather have a drunk driver who kills get 6 years and the fraudsters home detention. The whole world is going mad and I as someone who wants to work in the prison service is astounded at the bullshit decision of the judge in the drink driver case.

If she is that ill why not place her in a psychiatric unit to get the help she 'supposedly' deserves. I have to ask the question 'who was the psychiatrist that diagnosed her with these mental health issues?'

[mstriumph]

...............* Agoraphobia

A fear of open spaces, going outside or being away from a place of safety. Also an abnormal fear of being helpless in an embarrassing or inescapable situation.

i thought that we jailed people as punishment specifically to MAKE them helpless in an embarrassing /inescapable situation?

obviously not :confused:

leniency like this is counterproductive though ----- if victims families feel they are not getting justice through the courts who could blame them from seeking it personally, by other means?

[mstriumph]

..........We all share bits of identical DNA................ nooooooooooooooo :weep: i don't SHARE any common old DNA .............. i'm a PRINCESS i tell you!! :crybaby:

[Her_C4]

i thought that we jailed people as punishment specifically to MAKE them helpless in an embarrassing /inescapable situation?

obviously not :confused:


We do not put them in jail to punish them further. It is the policy of the gubbmit to ensure that offenders are removed from society with a view to habilitating (note I did NOT use the word REhabilitation) not to inflict further punishment (that is the removal from society is deemed to be punishment enough).

If people have issues with this approach then I strongly suggest lobbying for legislative change and empowering Corrections to manage offenders in a more 'appropriate' manner.

[riffer]

I don't get it.

Why exactly is it that the Police can't go for manslaughter?

[James Deuce]

I don't get it.

Why exactly is it that the Police can't go for manslaughter?

Because they'll never in a million years be able to prove that the person behind the wheel intended to perform a violent crime. Road Traffic Offenses that include death and injury have been deemed "non-violent" traffic accidents and cannot be tried under the auspices of the Crimes Act without specific proof that inflicting violence was at the core of driver's intent.

The legal definition of Manslaughter in NZ does not include road deaths, unlike many other countries where manslaughter charges are common and sentences are in the 5-20 year band in length and if those people ever get to drive again, their vehicle often bears identifying marks like a different colour license plate.

At present if the Police bring a manslaughter charge instead of an excess breath alcohol charge, the person in the hot seat is likely to get off altogether. Until the definition of manslaughter is broadened to include road deaths this will always be the case.

In the meantime ACC continue to point out that they cover everyone in the event of an accident, the ACC minister is herself a convicted drunk driver, and people with 20 or more convictions for driving under the influence keep getting their bloody license back, irrespective of how many people they injured maimed or killed.

[riffer]

Because they'll never in a million years be able to prove that the person behind the wheel intended to perform a violent crime...


Good point. But a quick search reveals the following (emphasis is mine):

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.

The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.


EDIT: Further searches reveal that this definition is not strictly followed in NZ. Sensible Sentencing Trust have an interesting article (http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Articles/licensed.htm)on the subject.

I wasn't aware our definition was so shameful in this respect.

[BIHB@0610]

And then, get a load of this tragedy of creation masquerading as a human being:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaynews/4632481a15620.html

A recidivist drunk driving psychologist, working under contract to ACC around the North Island, was allowed to keep his car after his THIRD conviction, because taking his Audi off him would cause undue hardship to his family and staff. FFS!!! How is 12 months' loss of licence and 250 hours community service going to deter him from getting behind the wheel again, after drinking? Does 'the system' want him to run more people off the road and be dependent on ACC for years? Is ACC on some "client creation" scheme?? Physician, heal thyself!!

[Scorpygirl]

If this lady had "agrophobia" in the true sense of the word she would have been too scared to go out of her house let alone drive her car for any length of time. I am sick and tired of people claiming "mental illness" to get away with crime. :angry2:

[Bikernereid]

+1 on the agrophobia. As for the "mental illness" they can be tested by psychologists and psychiatrists and if found to be mentall ill they should be referred to a psych unit!! If she was that ill why did the judge not try to provide her with the help she supposedly needs whilst also keeping her off the roads!!


If this lady had "agrophobia" in the true sense of the word she would have been too scared to go out of her house let alone drive her car for any length of time. I am sick and tired of people claiming "mental illness" to get away with crime. :angry2:

[scumdog]

If this lady had "agrophobia" in the true sense of the word she would have been too scared to go out of her house let alone drive her car for any length of time. I am sick and tired of people claiming "mental illness" to get away with crime. :angry2:

Quite right - if the stupid cow really suffers from agrophobia she should have thought about the likrlihood of what jail was going to be like well before this crash.

[FJRider]

Three times over the limit...thinking didn't come into it....

[scumdog]

Three times over the limit...thinking didn't come into it....

Good - get her pissed again before putting her in jail, that way she won't be thinking of her agrophobia either.:mad:

[_Shrek_]

it must be intent :mad: if you know you're going to drive after you've had a bottle or two be it beer, wine, spirits or what ever your poison it absolute BS that she gets home D :argh:

[Bikernereid]

For it to be murder there must be intent otherwise here it is death by or manslaughter.

What is interesting is that most 'sane' people realise the potential damage to property and humans that can be caused if hit by a car. So the issue is why not bump up the sentencing for those who get in a car knowing what harm/damage they can do whether intentional or not.


it must be intent :mad: if you know you're going to drive after you've had a bottle or two be it beer, wine, spirits or what ever your poison it absolute BS that she gets home D :argh:

[FJRider]

After her first cask on home D... she'll forget ALL about everything...

[oldrider]

My grandkids keep asking grandma, who will look after grandad if she dies? :doctor:

If Mrs O/rider dies before me I think I will just knock off :ar15: one or two of these bad cases of justice and make amends to society!

Then I can book into the luxurious Milton Hilton for the rest of my latter years. :shifty:

Sure would be cheaper and more comfy than an old folks home. :rolleyes:

Can't imagine Bubba will be looking for his jollies with a wizened up old biker, so it should be safe enough haven for me. :niceone: John.

[candor]

Deano its as James Duece says. It is not under "crime" legislation but rather under the Land transport Act slyly making it a non serious traffic offence. On a par with parking infringements... almost.:crazy: Petty thieves are more likely to be punished than the biggest crop of killers in NZ. I know which I'd rather see restrained by the bars taxes pay for.

There is a strange unique "Kiwi experience" situation where victims are able to go through the motions of giving victim impact statements but sentencing guidelines say as it is a traffic crime (a crime of bad driving) little weighting is allowed to be given to any victimisation aspect. This was made explicit in the trial of Georgia ?(sp)Tawera's killer. The little girl killed by a foreigner wqho drove at speed onto a servo forecourt. He got off scot free and that was the explanation the family got.

The NZ govt sees reduction of culpability of driving offenders as a key part of its long term strategy to empty prisons out. They have in the past made up a large proportion of the prison muster but this Govt has seen to it that changes. I heard MPs in Parliament last week saying jail is no place for impaired drivers. MP's who also be lawyers in their spare time.

Contrast this to some US States where recidivists who kill are considered premeditators (as they should have known better) and dealt with accordingly - they can face murder ?2nd or third degree I believe. Here is what is happening elsewhere while we slide off into the Bermuda triangle of road safety - land of no accountability where life is cheap and road killing is the smartest way to murder if that is your bent. Govt engineers consent to the status quo by having media highlight forgiveful victims as being moral exemplars (linking this to no jailtime required) and portray the angry as merely bitter twistys.

Drunk drivers to face harsher penalties under Bill C-2
Danielle Wong, The Windsor Star CANADA Published: Monday, July 07, 2008

Under the recently enforced Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, drivers in Canada caught drinking under the influence of alcohol or drugs can face harsher fines and increased jail time. The act got its start with proposals to crack down on violent crimes in 2006. The bill was passed in February and implemented July 2.

It increases the sentence for a second impaired driving offence to 30 days in jail from the current 14 days. The penalty for a third offence goes from 90 to 120 days in jail. The fine for a first offence is raised to $1,000 from $600.
More significantly, drivers who kill someone while they have a blood alcohol level over the legal limit now face a maximum life sentence. For causing bodily harm, they can get up to 10 years in prison.

The Crown's case against drunk drivers who are hurt in accidents is usually weaker because proof of impairment is difficult to obtain through physical tests, but Bill C-2 eliminates the need to prove impairment -- a blood result overthe legal limit wiull be all that is required.

"Now we're going to have people holding serious crimes with no proof of being impaired," Munroe (defense lawyer) said, adding that some people can handle higher levels of alcohol without being impaired.

But Windsor police Staff Sgt. Steve Bodri said he thinks Bill C-2 is a good tool to help keep drunks off the road. "Drinking and driving is still a pervasive problem," he said. "It's been a problem for a long time ... so maybe tougher penalties may help."

Andrew Murie, the chief executive officer of MADD Canada said the emphasis needs to be on prevention, citing the need for effective treatment programs for addicts and alcohol interlocks in vehicles -- a breathalyzer-like device that prevents a car from being started if the driver blows over the limit.

"We've got to look further upstream to solve the problem," said Murie.

Munroe said that instead of solving the problem, Bill C-2 will end up backing up the court system. They add one (bill) and act like they're tough, but they don't want to pay for the resources."

This lunacy we suffer down under reminds me of something I read lately on another site;

]Here’s a story about the modern Good Samaritan. A person was mugged on the road to Jericho, he lay bleeding in the gutter, an eye hanging out, guts ripped open, arms, and legs broken. A priest walked by, gave a prayer, excused himself and rushed off to a church service. A policeman saw the victim but had to go to a family violence seminar. A politician saw the person, noticed there was no TV present and rushed off to do a talkback show. Finally, a social worker saw the bleeding man, grasped his hand and sympathetically said, “Good God, whoever did this to you needs help!” [/I]

[Genestho]

+1 on the agrophobia. As for the "mental illness" they can be tested by psychologists and psychiatrists and if found to be mentall ill they should be referred to a psych unit!! If she was that ill why did the judge not try to provide her with the help she supposedly needs whilst also keeping her off the roads!!


Good question...and on the subject of "help", heres something via Roger Brooking - one of NZ's leading A and D experts on the subject...


Statistics from Land Transport:

Ø In 2006 there were just over 3 million licensed drivers in NZ.

Ø In anonymous surveys which have been conducted over the last few years, up to 30% of drivers in any one year self-report that they sometimes drive under the influence of alcohol. (That’s approximately 900,000 people drinking and driving.)

Statistics from the Justice Dept for 2005:

Chart showing the number of drink driving convictions (EBA) in 2005 where an alcohol and drug assessment was called for by the Judge prior to sentencing:

The incidence of EBA convictions Convictions without A&D Assessment Convictions with A&D Assessment Total number of people convicted Percentage of convictions with an A&D Assessment
1 15145 433 15578 3%
2 3959 173 4132 4%
3 1319 203 1522 13%
4 518 155 673 23%
5 + 410 165 575 29%
All 21351 1129 22480 5%

Analysis:

Ø 31% of drink drivers (6,902) have offended more than once
Ø 52% (23 + 29) of drink drivers are on their 4th or 5th offence before the judge gets around to ordering an A&D assessment.

Ø Only 1,129 out of 22,480 drink drivers were required to attend A&D counselling
= 5% of total

Comments:

1) Since 31% of drink drivers are already on their 2nd (or more) offence, it makes sense that 31% (approx 1/3rd) of the first time offenders will also eventually re-offend.

One third of 1st time offenders (15,578) = 5192 (which is 23% of all offenders in 2005)

2) Since a 2nd drink driving offence is a good indication of a potential alcohol problem, this suggests that 54% of all drink drivers (in 2005) appear to have an alcohol problem which is likely to lead to further drink driving convictions.

31% (already on 2nd or greater offence
+ 23% (1st time offenders likely to re-offend)
= 54%

3) If 54% of drink drivers had been sent for an A&D assessment that would be over 12,000 assessments that should have been ordered rather than 1,129 assessments.


Conclusion:

The Courts are currently failing to screen and assess drink driving offenders adequately. Of the various options available to judges (fines, disqualification, community service or imprisonment) judges seem to prefer the punitive options. They order A&D assessments on only 5% of all drink drivers who appear before the Court.

In other words, for every one drink driver the Justice system currently tries to get into counselling or treatment, it fails to even assess 10 others who appear to need it.

[James Deuce]

Ø Only 1,129 out of 22,480 drink drivers were required to attend A&D counselling
= 5% of total



Counseling? Screw that. 22,480 drunk drivers convicted in a year?

New Zealand, you suck. All of you. Sort your act out.

Next time you see someone get in a car and drive after a "couple" of beers don't just take his/her keys, stab the bastard (or bitch) with them.

Come on, seriously. Stop pissing about.

[McJim]

I have pisseddriveraphobia - an irrational fear of being hit by a half cut half wit in a car.

What I want to know now is what is the gubbermint gonna do about it?

[rwh]

Next time you see someone get in a car and drive after a "couple" of beers don't just take his/her keys, stab the bastard (or bitch) with them.

Assuming we treat riding bikes similarly - what would that do to the mortality rates of KB rides?

Richard

[James Deuce]

Who said it had to be fatal? Best if it isn't in fact, then you can say it was an accident and ACC can sort it.

I don't drink on KB rides. I drink Coke with sugar in instead, as a treat. Just because you stop at a pub, doesn't mean you have to drink alcohol.

[candor]

Those A&D assesment stats beg the question of what the hell you must do to be privileged enough to get one
Perhaps it requires
A) kill someone first or
B) turn up to court rolling drunk??? or
c) most likely request one
Why even have the provision if it's not used?

This would be changed if we got a specific drug or traffic court WITH staff like Judges takinbg enough interest to get the required expertise and skill level. It shouldn't only take turning up with a wiggy covering the empty vessel to get payed - what about some performance indicators.

[Genestho]

Counseling? Screw that. 22,480 drunk drivers convicted in a year?

New Zealand, you suck. All of you. Sort your act out.

Next time you see someone get in a car and drive after a "couple" of beers don't just take his/her keys, stab the bastard (or bitch) with them.

Come on, seriously. Stop pissing about.

Dude thats nothing, in 2006 there were 29,000 drink drivers prosecuted, with over a third being repeats.

Points raised here are very important its upto us to take responsibility in very simple ways..

Our three families were let down in two ways, "someone" lent this guy the car, "some people" let him drive after being on the piss with kids in the car, some parents let their kids go with this guy. There is an event that should have been witnessed, (which I cant say its not public knowledge and I will be in contempt of court at this point - pre inquest) as well as this guy weaving across the road on the way to smashing three people up.

I believe in 2001 it was said there would be a national database for repeats, to be monitored, I believe in 2001 Land Transport stated publically they would back IId's and I believe that Dept of Corrections were called upon to monitor these types, as far as I know, none of this has been done.
sorry to hijack original thread..

Anyway, I hope to hear from this family, they need to stand up and be counted.

[Her_C4]

Dude thats nothing, in 2006 there were 29,000 drink drivers prosecuted, with over a third being repeats.

...................

and god only knows how many others that were not caught. I suspect that the real figures would be in the region of over 100,000 a year and most of them repeat offenders.

[ynot slow]

Feel sorry for the cops and families concerned here.We have a driver who was reported to the cops and could have been stopped maybe if manpower was available,thus preventing a tragedy.As this was not able to be prevented by the police,they then present the evidence by the book so as her lawyers couldn't get her off on a techno point,they get a conviction and a pissy sentance which doesn't reflect the crime.Police must be wondering wtf?

We had similar event in Hawera a couple of years ago,a drunk guy drove from Eltham to Hawera crossing lines,was reported to police,they saw his car outside a bar,but by the time they turned up he had gone.Next thing he smashed into a van killing 3 kids,guy gets 7 yrs or so,where's the justice at times,comparing both cases.

[scumdog]

Feel sorry for the cops and families concerned here.We have a driver who was reported to the cops and could have been stopped maybe if manpower was available,thus preventing a tragedy.As this was not able to be prevented by the police,they then present the evidence by the book so as her lawyers couldn't get her off on a techno point,they get a conviction and a pissy sentance which doesn't reflect the crime.Police must be wondering wtf?

We had similar event in Hawera a couple of years ago,a drunk guy drove from Eltham to Hawera crossing lines,was reported to police,they saw his car outside a bar,but by the time they turned up he had gone.Next thing he smashed into a van killing 3 kids,guy gets 7 yrs or so,where's the justice at times,comparing both cases.

I hear you man, I work so hard to catch the drink-drivers (especialy repeat ones) yet at Court they get fuckall.

A FIRST or SECOND offender is liable to a fine of up to $4,500 - when was the last time you saw one get a fine much above their 'blow'?
i.e. eba level of 664mcgm and they get $650 fine.

If it wasn't mandatory to be disqualifiy drink drivers for MINIMUM of six months the limp-wristed soft-cock judges would not even disqualify them that much.

At times I feel "It's not worth the bother"

Rant NOT over.

[Swoop]

If it wasn't mandatory to be disqualifiy drink drivers for MINIMUM of six months the limp-wristed soft-cock judges would not even disqualify them that much.
I wonder what percentage then go and bleat to [another] judge that they have been hard done by and need a work licence?
Back on the road again...

[Daffyd]

OK ... let's stop the calls for capital punishment. If the legal system in NZ was the same as the one in Iran, I'm sure you lot would be complaining just as hard. Actually, you wouldn't be complaining as you'd be too scared to say anything in case the Police turned up to take you to Aden prison - a place one generally leaves in a bodybag - for daring to criticise the regime.

Capital punishment is wrong, whatever the crime, and certainly wrong for drink driving causing death.

But this doesn't excuse the laughable joke that is the sentence given to this woman. What I'm trying to understand though, is how agoraphobia - a fear of open spaces - is a valid excuse for not going to jail. Claustrophobia I could understand (almost), but if I was an agoraphobic, the knowledge that I was not going to have to go outside and see a horizon or an open sky for the next 5 years would be a great relief, not a punishment.

Sounds like another judge with his head far too far up the (well-perfumed and polished) arse of the PC brigade.

Wot he said...in a nutshell. BURN HER!