Should the length of a ban vary?

[miss marple]

Just interested to know what other people feel about this.

Two drivers with the same breath reading receive identical sentences and length of ban - which seems fair enough. But say Driver A lives in a town; he lives on a bus route with a frequent service and the nearest bus stop is a few yards from his house. There is also a railway station within a short distance. Driver B, on the other hand, lives in a rural area where public transport is non existent.

Obviously a driving ban will hit Driver B far, far harder than it will hit Driver A - and that doesn't seem fair. So should the magistrates take this into account when sentencing, and adjust the length of a ban accordingly?

(I know people will say that if driving is essential to your way of life then it is up to you to be even more careful not to put yourself in this position, but everybody makes mistakes!)

 

[new_pedestrian]

I don't think that the criminal justice system does or should give two hoots about where we live.

A silly analogy: Two men are convicted of murders in identical circumstances. One is a big hefty tough guy and the other one is a small weedy bloke. Should the second guy be given a shorter prison sentence because he might not cut it as well in prison?

 

[gutted]

I don't think that the criminal justice system does or should give two hoots about where we live.

A silly analogy: Two men are convicted of murders in identical circumstances. One is a big hefty tough guy and the other one is a small weedy bloke. Should the second guy be given a shorter prison sentence because he might not cut it as well in prison?

I kind of agree with this, and I also think that the answer should be 'no'.

However, with this in mind should the fine be fixed as well? If there was a fixed fine of, say £500, that is going to hit a low earner much harder than a high earner. To overcome that the fine is based on income (i.e. to make the inconvenience relatively the same to all offenders).

Why is the 'length of ban' not determined in the same way? It seems a bit of a contradiction to me.

 

[new_pedestrian]

I see the point about the fine being related to income. I think the difference is that everyone can be banned from driving, whereas not everyone could pay a higher fixed fine and it would end up costing money to chase people over fines they didn't have the means to pay.

It is a valid point though, if the fine is different based on your earnings, maybe the ban should also take into account how much it's going to cost you to get to and from work. However, it's not the court's problem if you can't get to work whereas it is their problem if you can't pay a fine.

 

[Trigger3]

The system is unfair, I think a 3 or 6 months ban for those with readings between 40-50mg would be sufficient to teach them a lesson.

 

[new_pedestrian]

A bloke I work with was caught drink driving quite some years ago and he got a six-month ban. Since then there's been a lot of public, media and political pressure to crack down on drink drivers, and the minimum statutory sentences have risen as a result.

Personally I feel that I would have learned my lesson perfectly well from a one week ban, but in the end it was us who decided to get behind the wheel after drinking and we all knew that if you get caught drink driving then you get banned.

IMHO it's not that the system isn't fair; there's a set limit and they even allow leeway before prosecuting, which they only do at 40mg/100ml despite the limit being 35mg. All of us who were convicted were caught bang to rights for being over the limit and they have breathalisers to easily demonstrate that.

I believe that better education about how much (or how little) drink puts a person over the limit would certainly help more than TV ads showing horrific accidents.

The horror ads are so extreme that most of us don't connect it with something that could possibly happen to us, because we're all brilliant drivers who know our own limits and not like those idiots who get caught for drink dr... oh hang on.

 

[quartz]

Going back to the OP:

Two drivers with the same breath reading receive identical sentences and length of ban - which seems fair enough.

From what I've read on here this doesn't seem to be the case. My reading of 63 got me an 18 month ban, but I've seen people with much higher readings get either the same or even a 17 month ban!

 

[Anothersillyfool]

I think the variety of responses to your question is an answer in itself.

As soon as dispensations are made for 'special circumstances' the whole thing becomes impossible.

I can quote myself as an example. I still hate the conviction I was given, (y'all KNOW how angry about it I am) but fundamentally I was guilty of it, despite it not being intentional. I was however, given a very lenient ban. (I still had to undergo a medical, which was one yet further humiliation... but moving on) I put it down to to my partial readings, my lack of previous etc etc, rather than the fact that I live in a remote area.
My friend suggested to me that I should tell the solicitor that I had a decrepit dog that goes everywhere with me (which he does). I merely stared at her in an incredulous fashion.

Courts will take lots of things into consideration, not least what impact a ban will have on your employment. But it should be left to their discretion, any ban length 'ruling' will have plotters and moneymakers rubbing their hands with glee.

Obviously, in the ideal world, of course everything should be taken into account. But sadly there are too many people that persistantly take advantage of any slight loophole.

 

[Anothersillyfool]

The horror ads are so extreme that most of us don't connect it with something that could possibly happen to us, because we're all brilliant drivers who know our own limits and not like those idiots who get caught for drink dr... oh hang on.

(This bit did make me chuckle, NP)

(It was an Ironic chuckle, might I add.)

 

[Routemaster]

Just interested to know what other people feel about this.

Two drivers with the same breath reading receive identical sentences and length of ban - which seems fair enough. But say Driver A lives in a town; he lives on a bus route with a frequent service and the nearest bus stop is a few yards from his house. There is also a railway station within a short distance. Driver B, on the other hand, lives in a rural area where public transport is non existent.

Obviously a driving ban will hit Driver B far, far harder than it will hit Driver A - and that doesn't seem fair. So should the magistrates take this into account when sentencing, and adjust the length of a ban accordingly?

(I know people will say that if driving is essential to your way of life then it is up to you to be even more careful not to put yourself in this position, but everybody makes mistakes!)

A very good point but where do you draw the line? Do you allow people who are banned for medical reasons like seizures or other disabilities to drive because they live in a very rural zone?

or what about people taking their driving test, should examiners be more lenient if the test candidate lives in a rural zone because they need to pass their test and drive?

However I do agree that drink drivers could get a shorter ban, but that they be restricted to a certain radius of where they live such as to the nearest town , work or college, with perhaps a 'black box' like what car insurers use to ensure they don't violate their restriction by travelling further than allowed.

I mean other offenders for other crimes don't always get the maxiumum penalty. Jail is a penalty for street robbery but not all offenders go to jail, many get off despite their guilt. But with driving the min penalty is 12 months ban there's no mitigating circumstances such as a clean record and good references that get that ban reduced.

 

[Jetsetter]

As a charged drink driver, gone through the experience. No argument, just don't do it. I did it once, but never again and next time you could kill someone which carries a 14 year prison sentence. Think about it.