egafd.com

Good point, Diplodocus. Didn't we abolish the death penalty because we hung an innocent man? And as I think I've said before, with so many cases being given high media profiles these days, I dread to think how the more reactionary end of the press would respond to its reintroduction.

I'm not asking a question as such. More sort of looking for opinions.

Most of the reactions here are the same as we got in our local pub. Most thinking that she was scum of the earth and all that.

I just sat there listening to all there opinions and then I asked them all the same question at the end of it.

Have you ever driven drunk?

In a group of 10 of them only 1 said that they hadn't done so which made the other 9 hypocrites in my book. "But we never killed anybody" they said.

"That was more luck than judgement" was my reply.

Now I do feel a little sympathy to this woman. She has lived a law abiding life, paid her taxes etc but now for 5 minutes of madness she has lost everything and is staring down maybe a 5 year stretch.

That said though what she did was wrong and she deserves to pay a high price for her actions as her irresponsibilty took somebody elses life, left 2 children without a mother and deprived a husband of his wife and my main sympathy in it all is with them.

My point is this we could all live a pure life and then 5 minutes of madness can change everything that we have lived and stood for.

my way would be charge anybody who gets caught over the limit with atempted murder NO exeptions get caught get done. lets see how long it takes to get it though peoples heads this is not big and its not smart

from what I remember it was the Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis cases that were the end or the death penalty. It would be interesting to see how many innocent people would now be dead if we still had it, but I think i'm going off on a tangent now

another point would be how many people have driven next day after a few beers? someone who drink ten pints on a night out would still be over the limit sometime the next evening

Another point, Eduardo, is how many of those who had driven while drunk said they would face the consequences of their actions. I stupidly did it a couple of times when younger, usually in the wee small hours, and was lucky not to get caught. If I'd killed someone as a result, then no punishment would have been too much.

Being given a driving licence carries with it certain responsibilities, though you wouldn't think so to see some drivers. The car is a lethal weapon, and mucking about with it while under the influence is like playing with a loaded gun while drunk; you might get away with it a few times, but in the end someone is going to get hurt.

And if the woman had been playing with a gun while drunk and accidentally shot someone, how much sympathy would there be?

Try checking this one out:



Okay, stolen car, eckyed to the max etc, but an example of what can happen.

If you want to take it to the Nth degree

Consider all those driving around after having inadequate or interrupted sleep ie babies,work stress

Its been well documented that this group have the same reflexes as those that are drunk when driving

There is no perfect system

Robot drivers or automated cars would seem to be the answer but that would put the crash repair business out of business

In the year 3659AD

cheers
B....OZ

One of the reasons Caractus that I am not as quick to condemn this woman is I like yourself made the stupid mistake of driving under the influence. I have only ever done it once and that was 20 years ago now but I was very lucky not to have seriously injured or even killed someone.

If people who criticise drunk drivers have never committied the same offence themselves then they are in a position to do so. Those that criticise and have driven drunk themselves should not throw stones in glass houses.

This woman has done a very bad thing and through her irresponsibilty another woman who was a mother, a wife, someones daughter, someones sister has been killed as a result. She should pay for this and should pay a high price but consistency in the law is shite.

For example we have a woman who lives near us who is a drug addict and a drug dealer. She ran around our estate threatening the other residents who for the most part were duly frightened of her.

In one of "the junkies"many heroin induced evenings she forced her way into and attacked a 21 y.o. girl at the girls home where she stabbed her in the shoulder with a kitchen knife. This severed the girls main artery. She left the girl for dead which is what would have happened if her neighbour hadn't found her.

She spent 48 hours on the critical list and whereas she has now recovered during the stabbing she had the main nerve in the shoulder completely severed and now has no use of her arm whatsoever and never will again.

The junkie got 15 months in prison for this.

Now who do you think is worse. The drug dealing knife wielding junkie who had an entire estate rightly living in fear of her and who stabbed somebody in a premeditated manner and gets 15 months.

Or the law abiding woman who in 5 mins of madness killed someone through her sheer irresponsibilty and stupidity and who will get 4-6 years for her crime.

They have both done bad things and should pay but who is worse.

I know which I think is worse and it aint the drunk driver. Others may disagree but we all have the right to our opinions.

It's because I did it once, and know how stupid it was to do so, that means I am in a position to condemn. As for the knife-wielding junkie . . . .

It's a curious thing on this island that armed robbery carries a hefty sentence, yet an assault on a person which could scar them for life merits months of jail time. A blatant disrespect for the lives of others surely deserves to be treated more seriously---whether it be GBH, causing death through dangerous driving or whatever.

But then I'm probably just an old reactionary.