Caught after mental breakdown

Convicted Driver Insurance
I find it incredible in our current world that the only offence "mental health" is not considered in mitigation is, drink driving. The huge majority of the time, alcohol abuse or dependency is a symptom of the bigger picture, not the cause of the mental health issue. A psychosis of some kind will often be offered up as a mitigating factor of assault or murder. Our world has moved on to the point of, I can identify as a TREE, and if anyone says otherwise they are discriminatory. And yet our archaic judiciary are bound at the wrist by metre and rhyme. Listen I understand completely, the can of worms it would open if mental illness could get you "off" a disqualification. There would be a mental health epidemic I'm sure. However, could we not actually confirm a defendant as clinically diagnosed with mental health issues? I'm sure that would be easy enough. Look at it this way. Here we have a man/woman before us. Circumstances, caught drink driving. We look at their social, professional lives, medical history etc. We find that they are indeed mentally ill, their medical records 100 percent back this up. They are at the very bottom of a dark hole. Nothing left. And yet our answer is, I'm taking your licence from you, I'm taking your livelihood, your going to lose your house, and socially you will be ostracised. You may even lose your kids, and we are going to make sure everyone knows, because the press will make sure of it?
We are as good as putting a rope around your neck.
Why don't we, as humans, have some empathy. Why don't we take another course. Clarify their illness, what can we do about it. Remove driving entitlement for say 3 months. Every day or week they are breath tested for alcohol, or randomly. You get one chance and one chance only. We live in a snowflake world where almost anything can be supported or understood. Blanket bans for drink driving is archaic. I get it. Some really do deserve it. And if someone is guilty of repeat offending or causing death or injury from dangerous driving, or does not fit the criteria for preemptive action ie mental health, then by all means apply the letter of the law. Every case on its merits, like most other crimes. Not a broad brush stroke blanket mentality.
Just my two penneth.

Because drink driving is a strict liability offence. So mental health isn't mitigation for such an offence.

"Usually, prosecutors must show that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly. But, with strict liability crimes, the prosecution doesn't need to prove that a defendant intended to do something that's illegal. The prosecution doesn't even need to establish that the defendant was reckless or negligent. It's enough for a conviction to prove that the act was committed and the defendant committed it."

Another example of a strict liability offence is statuatory rape, try mitigating mental health for that one. If your mental health is bad enough that you would risk your life and other's lives by getting into a car drunk you shouldn't have access to a licence after that. It'sthe point of the law, the law doesn't show empathy it's not human. I suffered from psychosis, I spent time in a psychiatric hospital just before I lost my licence. If my consultant had have reported me on to the DVLA like he was supposed to I wouldn't be posting on this forum right now. Losing my licence was my push to get better.
 
Well folks, I was going to post my thoughts on the impracticalities of allowing just monitoring for alcohol for 3 months for drunk drivers with a mental health problem, but you guys have given very personal reasons why it should remain as it is. They say it all really!
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top