Sack the lot of ‘em
(…Judges that is)
I don’t agree that everyone who commits a crime should be sent to prison, at least not in the current format. There are, however plenty of people who deserve prison & more of it.
Luke McCormick is just one such specimen. If you’re a football fan, you’ll know who McCormick is, if you’re not a football fan, you won’t be surprised at yet another disgraceful example from a sport which has such a high amount of disgraces for such a small group of people.
McCormick spent the night quaffing wine & champagne at a wedding reception lasting some 12 hours. He went to bed at around 2am in his hotel room but got up two hours later & decided to drive home to confront his fiance over rumours she was cheating.
He was over twice the legal drink-drive limit when his car ploughed into the back of a Toyota containing the Peak family. Husband Phil has been left in a wheelchair, his two sons Arron, 10 & Ben, 8, were killed.
Evidence presented at the trial this week showed McCormick had driven at speeds in excess of 100mph narrowly avoiding leaving the road or colliding with other motorists before he hit the Peaks’ car as they travelled home from a day trip to Silverstone.
The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years. McCormick was convicted of this offence which involved killing two children. The sentence he received was just 7 years. With the usual guidelines for serving sentences he will be eligible for release in just 3 1/2 years.
If the maximum sentence is 14 years & this guy gets half of that (and will serve just a quarter) & he’s killed two children while drunk at the wheel, one has to ask what the hell do you have to do to get the maximum sentence?
It’s cases like this which make a complete & utter mockery of the sentencing system in this country. If it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable.
Mind you, the judge in the case, Paul Glenn, has ‘previous’. In 2007 he jailed trucker Robert Murray for just 4 1/2 years over a crash which killed two children when he failed to see a car whilst putting his mobile on charge. He crashed into a Renault Clio killing 13-year old Rebecca Casterton & her friend 12-year-old Lauren Brooks.
How long do we have to put up with behaviour like this from our judges, it’s a bloody disgrace. Can there be anyone in the country who really agrees with this kind of sentence?
Thedarkhorse says:
200,
It is terrible that there are innocent people being killed by drunk drivers. It is the sentences of drunk drivers who don’t kill that I think are really wrong though. If Luke McCormick had crashed off the motorway killing nobody would that have made his actions any less reckless? I don’t think so (although obviously the 2 kids surviving would have been an infinitely better outcome). What sentence would he have got if nobody was killed? Probably not a custodial one. It is my opinion that drunk drivers should get really massive fines and bans if employed, and custodial sentences if they are unemployed. I believe that these punishments would act as a deterrent and stop people drink driving and so prevent future deaths. I am not saying McCormick was harshly sentenced (how can you possibly quantify the two lives of the kids), but what does sentencing him to prison, and not other drunk drivers, achieve? I would imagine the risk of him reoffending is low. The parents are upset he didn’t get the maximum sentence, I do not know, but would an extra 3 years inside make their tragic loss any easier? Would a longer sentence act as a deterrent to anybody else – Would a drunk getting into their car, who is already willing to risk their own life, the lives of the innocent public and the lives of their passengers (if they have any), who knows if caught they would only end up banned from driving, be put off if they knew that if it all went wrong and people died they may end up in prison for 7 rather than 3 years? I doubt it.
The McCormick case is tragic, but I would rather see harsher sentences for all drunk drivers (and many, many other crimes), not the drunk drivers that kill.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Tony F says:
As he is/was a ball kicking lackwit, the best punishment would have been to force him to carry on ‘working’ but take every penny he was ever given, an give them to the family of the children his wanton stupidity killed. In fact, I would tax all ball kicking morons back to the national minimum wage, and use the resultant tax windfall to help those that need it.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Zac Smith says:
Me.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for McCormick, but the case of the lorry driver is a good demonstration of unintended consequences.
I do not know the ins and the outs, but I don’t think that there is any question that he intended to harm anyone, or that his behaviour was so out of line that a serious accident would surely have ensued (like McCormick).
This sentence (or even a death sentence)would not act as a deterrent. Who has not plugged a mobile into charge, or changed a radio staion, opened a bottle of water, lit a cigarette, focussed for too long in the rear-view mirror, looked at a billboard at the side of the road or something similar. Sentencing drivers who kill harshly cannot and will not ensure 100% focus on the road in front.
Campaigning for harsh penalties for such errors is just mob vengeance made law, which is why the new law of causing Death by careless driving was such a dreadful piece of legislation.
All sentencing a careless driver to a long gaol term does is ruin another family’s lives.
And before you ask, yes. My sister was killed by a careless/dangerous driver. The pursuit of vengeance simply leads to bitterness and more misery.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
200 says:
Zac,
so what about the sentence for McCormick, do you feel 3.5 yrs in prison is sufficient for a drunk driver who kills 2 children?
October 10th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Zac Smith says:
200,
Not really but I don’t think that it matters either way. It’s not going to bring them back is it? Would a harsher sentence make the family feel better? If so, how much harsher? It just ruins his life too.
No one worries about killing someone on the road. It simply isn’t on the list of concerns a drunk driver has. Killing yourself maybe, getting caught and banned, definitely. This is why increasing penalties for causing death has no deterrent value. If you thought there was a serious risk of killing someone (which would most likely be the driver, i.e. you), you wouldn’t be driving would you?
If you think of reasons for imprisonment:
Rehabilitation – Probably unnecessary – he’s probaly learnt his lesson.
Deterrence – Ineffective (as above)
Punishment – This is the main driver behind the desire to imprison careless/wreckless/drunk drivers. Who benefits from gaoling them? I’d settle for the old saxon blood money concept. The victim’s family gets 5 years of the perpetrator’s life – you can choose their income, gaol or community punishment.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm