John Key's right, I think!

[Genestho]

OR man up and introduce some really harsh options?

Well it's taken nearly three years to lobby for what's about to come through, as it is. And these are evidence based solutions and first significant changes in ten years.

There are a whole lot of holes with the recidivist and disqualification process in many ways, - that I hope have been highlighted through the Land Transport Bill last month, I hope these are reviewed and strengthened. (as long as real efforts wern't too dulled down by hundreds of submissions on lowering limits )

[Edbear]

Well it's taken nearly three years to lobby for what's about to come through, as it is. And these are evidence based solutions.

There are a whole lot of holes with the recidivist and disqualification process in many ways, - that I hope have been highlighted through the Land Transport Bill last month, I hope these are reviewed and strengthened. (as long as real efforts wern't too dulled down by hundreds of submissions on lowering limits )

If the judges are not handing down what they have already available, what confidence do we have that new powers will be used effectively?

[Genestho]

If the judges are not handing down what they have already available, what confidence do we have that new powers will be used effectively?

Agreed. We don't - except in the last year there has been some movement, and the only thing that has moved this is public opinion. Public opinion is created by raising awareness.

But you can't do much about legal terms such as diminished responsibility, technicalities, hardship, mitigating circumstances EDIT: and precedents currently set.

[Edbear]

Agreed. We don't - except in the last year there has been some movement, and the only thing that has moved this is public opinion. Public opinion is created by raising awareness.

But you can't do much about legal terms such as diminished responsibility, techinicalities, hardship and mitigating circumstances.

Hmmmm.... Sounds a lot like me...

[Genestho]

Hmmmm.... Sounds a lot like me...

LOL! ya nut, I forgot early pleading of guilt and restorative justice - a victims right - but, all of these terms impact on penalties and sentencing.

[candor]

yep but anti booze orgs keep thinking by lowering it they'll somehow stop the people already 3-4x the current limit

I'd not give them so much credit - after long wrangling and misguided attempts tro reason with the neo-prohibitionists I'm fairly certain they have no interest in crash reduction whatsoever.
They're blind moral crusaders intent on stopping others from doing what they consider to be "binge drinking". Binge drinking is an old temperance league term that's been a main prong for 100 years of their campaign. Scientific road safety implications of certain BAC's are beyond their ken, drink is just the demon to them.
Unfortunately some endorsing "experts" have swallowed their twaddle without cross checking facts (somer great whoppers put out by the wowsers re road safety).

As TGW said lets hope their mass (photostat idiotic) submissions haven't resulted in worthy ones receiving less analysis or worse going unread. The 3000 wowsers of NZ rallied to make clone submissions base on Dr Sellmans 5 point plan. There's a risk policy analysts are just copying them all to enter on the website, then shredding, as read one and you've read all.

The Temperance lot supported by Baptists and Presbys have aannounced intent to help Darren Hughes plan (well really Trevor Mallards as tactician) to derail the current alcohol bill - with mass 0.05 subs. Not only is this grossly distracting, but it prevents the other content of that important bill from getting refined well at committee stage.
So sabo'ed the roadsafety bill & now lining up the alcohol one! And for all their screeching about evil liquor barons - it's the barons funding them in their diversionary crusade for 2 drinks (ALAC full of temperance folk and liquor funded) as limit drops don't reduce consumption - surprise surprise. So these temperance leaguers have no moral high ground. It's just about the worried underdogs perceiving themselves as achieving something, anything.

The Herald has treated "victims" very disgustingly through this - I too was approached in a way atypical of most media and gave a similar view to Jos saying idea nice but message not thought through, but what came of that's another story. Newspapers should report, not be acting like Goebbels understudies or best pupils even to the point of culling real victims voices out imo.

It's funny how the Heralds website has 60,000 followers but only 2,600 who've signed on. I'm absolutely convinced following much research 0.05 will increase the drunk toll as occurred in Victoria, NT, Denmark & others. It's not therefore neutral in my book but and :and crybaby:.
Personal interest (road safety not drinking), as a relative killed by repeat drink and drug driver. Which the vast majority of the residules now left at it are; caught or not. Have met with the key pollies and lines are drawn, it is about vote wars not us

Lab is seeing this as a key election platform shown by it only putting 1 private members bill in the ballot to up that bills chance of being drawn to 4%. Some in the party are not happy about this as it also means by not putting your other bills in that the Nats have a better chance one of their bills (likely hostile to Labour ideals) gets pulled up too.
Trying to get elected in on a con job - fake 0.05 gold. It's a circus. Luckily there's time to parry.

[slowpoke]

BIG difference. You could be comfortably sitting at 100mph on a lot of the roads, without a single vehicle in sight, perfectly safely. Without your judgement impared, you're able to slow down to a suitable speed for corners and hazards.

You can't switch your impared judgement on and off, like you can adjust your speed.

The speed example I used was just that, an example, I could have easily used mobile phone use, or falling asleep at the wheel or a hundred other "for instances" to highlight the inconsistency of various peoples' approach.

For what it's worth you've just highlighted that inconsistency, publically justifying "licence in the shredder" speeds where others are advocating medieval sentencing on another issue. If you'd publically justified drivng at well over the blood alcohol limit the outcry would deafening. How is that consistent and resonable?

I can understand it, I've done the same speeds, but you're kidding yourself that you can adjust your speed to suit the hazard. Your argument is fatally flawed in that you can only adjust your speed to things you can see and your speed adjustment is a judgement call. If you don't see something, or make a bad judgement call the effects are obviously worse from higher speeds. No-one is perfect, we all make mistakes sooner or later, and you're a new species of human if you don't. Yup, I speed as much as any motorcyclist, but I'm not falsely assuming it's as safe as being conservative Johnny Citizen.

Again, my argument was not about speed per se, it was about the inconsistency prevalent within' the previous arguments for solutions ranging from capital punishment to a zero alcohol limit. Why is it a case of "Bugger, sorry to hear that" if someone falls asleep at the wheel and crashes yet a public ostracising if they drive at 0.01mg/l over the limit and cause no damage? There needs to be some perspective and sanity applied to the debate, not a lynching mentality............but then this is KB afterall.

[candor]

Solutions must start with looking at whats not working. This thread hasn't really got it about how bad courts are. Met with a defense lawyer and drunk driver the other day and I was blown away to hear the going rates - which can't be gleaned just from odd media reports. He was telling ?8 x drunk driver not to worry as it goes as so
EBA 1 fine, 2 bigger fine, 3 community service, 4 comm service, 5 comm detention (PD), 6 home detention, 7 maybe jail but prolly home detention, more... short lag maybe. The offender told me it wa obvious to her its not a serious offence. She volunteered to help us toughen up, I said lets sort it, the lawyer said no you'll destroy my business (only half joking). There's no evidence base for our regime.

[Banditbandit]

Therefore repeat offenders already know what is coming and have already evaluated int their minds it is worth it.
The game has to be changed, just like when you were a kid. First offense ya mum would growl ya, second was time out, 3rd you got your arse kicked.
As the risks get higher - most people evaluate that its not worth it.
As it currently stands the law can not cope with this - and the judge can only act on what the law allows.
The game needs to change. The perspective needs to shift.

Most repeat offenders and serious criminals do not, in fact, consider the consequences. Yes, most people evaluate that it's not worth it - as you say - but repeat offenders and serious crims are not most people ... and do not evaluate the risks ...

[Banditbandit]

Even though when it happens to a family member it really does feel like murder, gaining a murder conviction is only possible if the driver actually has intent - I know a particular case where it was heard - the driver wanted to kill himself - got drunk, drove and killed and injured another.

Legally - Impaired driving is a 'diminished responsibility' therefor there is no intent (which is needed to prove beyond a doubt - murder - see above)

However for repeats - I do not see why manslaughter shouldn't be a given. I know 'why' within the system, and it's not good enough.

You can't argue - when some one has repeat convictions for the same offence that they didn't know the consequences 'this time'.

I am not against Manslaughter as a charge for killing someone while driving drunk ... I think it should be used more often ... it's someone dying as a result of an illegal act - clearly manslaughter ... and the penalty can be up to life ....


Murder is a whole different ballgame ... it has to be proven that they intended to kill the person they killed - a difficult thng to do in the cases of drunk driving causing death ...

[Edbear]

I am not against Manslaughter as a charge for killing someone while driving drunk ... I think it should be used more often ... it's someone dying as a result of an illegal act - clearly manslaughter ... and the penalty can be up to life ....


Murder is a whole different ballgame ... it has to be proven that they intended to kill the person they killed - a difficult thng to do in the cases of drunk driving causing death ...

Agreed. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM329311.html

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM329302.html
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM329329.html

I think that drink-driving causing death automatically comes under the definition of Culpable Homicide and Manslaughter and should be treated as such.

[Genestho]

I am not against Manslaughter as a charge for killing someone while driving drunk ... I think it should be used more often ... it's someone dying as a result of an illegal act - clearly manslaughter ... and the penalty can be up to life ....


Murder is a whole different ballgame ... it has to be proven that they intended to kill the person they killed - a difficult thng to do in the cases of drunk driving causing death ...

Yes, you are correct, that's why I have gone on record at select committee to propose Manslaughter for repeats Even some within the system can't understand why Manslaughter isn't a given.

Yes, Murder needs an undoubtable show of intent as the true example shows in the post you quoted. Only those very minimal cases that have been charged and sentenced with Murder have had actual intent proven with supportive evidence in court..

[scumdog]

all lowering the limit will do is start criminalizing otherwise innocent people.

THAT has to be the most inane statement posted on KB for quite some time - and I suspect it's not a troll

[mashman]

THAT has to be the most inane statement posted on KB for quite some time - and I suspect it's not a troll

I'll see what I can do about that .

Remove the limit entirely. Let's face it, people will drink drive irrespective of laws, fines, punishments etc...

If an incident is caused (non fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 month jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 month in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 Months, 3 - 6 months, 4 - 8 months etc...

If an incident is caused (fatal) and one/all of the drivers/riders is intoxicated, 1 year jail instantly. No fucking around, get them portacabbins up and running, 1 year in the road users prison, add the person to the register. Every subsequent intoxicated road incident will cause the previous sentence to be multiplied by 2. 2 offences 2 years, 3 - 6 years, 4 - 8 years etc...

That'd stop me drink driving , it may not stop everyone, but a fine just doesn't cut it, not even close for the recidivists...

[avgas]

Most repeat offenders and serious criminals do not, in fact, consider the consequences. Yes, most people evaluate that it's not worth it - as you say - but repeat offenders and serious crims are not most people ... and do not evaluate the risks ...

They would not have to. They would be locked up.
Think of it like this, if they don't evaluate the consequences, it does not matter - as they will be on the road less regardless.
Either by choice (if they are smart enough), or by enforcement (Jail time).

Either way public wins.