Phobia lets death driver avoid jail

[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.

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.

[_Shrek_]

it must be intent 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

[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 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

[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?

If Mrs O/rider dies before me I think I will just knock off 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.

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

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. 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. 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;

[I]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.