DPP's had enough of soft drink driving sentences

Too soft. That driver is threatening to kill me.

No-one is ignorant anymore, they know what they’re doing, and still they continue. I came here from NZ, and was shocked by how cavalier people are about drunk driving here. I can only assume it is because people think that they won’t get caught, and if they do get caught the sentence will be light.

If you’ve drunk alcohol (more than one beer/wine), you shouldn’t be driving. You’re not a consistent judge of your own sobriety.

That said, with the huge distances in Canberra and terrible public transport, it’s not surprising that some people do. The thought of a $40 taxi fare is pretty daunting.

Also, “good driving record”, “upstanding member of the community” etc is bullshit. It basically means if you’re a 17 year old Somali boy you get a longer sentence for the same crime. If anything, being an “upstanding member of the community” should mean a longer sentence. You know better.

“Qbn Gal said :

I believe a strong penalty (financial would have the greatest impact, such as $3,000 rather than the pathetic $300) is warranted as we want this to be the ONE AND ONLY time an intoxicated driver commits a DUI offence. A soft sentence is no deterrent to future offences in many cases.

To you $300 may be pathetic, to others a budget breaker and to some $3000 is a pittance. Fine them to meet costs of court and policing and then make them (on promise of prison) carry out community service over 2 to 3 months to give them time think about it for longer than it takes to Bill Pay. It would also be equitable. About 75% of first time caught drink drivers are not caught again. Massive fines would create more bad will than any tiny reduction in re-offense would warrant. Constant offenders (3rd and out) should be removed from our roads.”

No, Monomania, $300 is not pathetic to me. My point is that we need a very strong deterrent and very often the hip pocket is where it hurts people the most. As for community service, I agree that would be a good thing too, but only if they turn up.

Bollocks. You’ll know you actions could harm or kill somebody something happens or before?

DJ, we’re talking .05 here. Not roll me over fall down dead drunk. Two wines at dinner is enough in some cases to put a person over the limit. In fact some people could be over after one wine. They are not drunk, they are still completely capable of logical thoughts and actions.

This is the point I was trying to make.

But I still stick to what I said previously in that anyone who is plastered or a repeat offender should be punished severely.

While I see your point I disagree. Just don’t drink alcohol at all if there is a chance you might be behind the wheel. That way there is no chance of any miscalculation or mistake.

+1 for your thoughts regarding repeat offenders.

I keep reading this as “soft drink” driving sentences, which reinforces my prejudices aginst those fizzy drinks and their evil effects on the screaming-levels of small children.

sunshine said :

DJ said :

Anyone can make a mistake, once. No need to destroy someone’s life simply because they had one wine to mnay at dinner.

Second time it’s not a mistake. Throw the book at them.

As for multiple repeat offenders? long gaol terms, it’s obvious that there is no hope of rehabilitation or even acknowledgement of their deeds.

One too many or… it’s not that far home, I’ll risk it.

It isn’t destroying a life, it may be saving one. Too bad for those that suffer the consequences of their own actions. Nobody is making them drink.

couldn’t agree with you more DJ

+1 from me. Can’t get fairer than that.

Add burnout/street racig legislation to drink driving as well. !st offence car is impounded for 3 months. 2nd offence car is forfeit to the territory. Would make repeat offenders think twice. Then again would probably cause more pursuits as people try to run knowing if they get caught their car is gone.

Repeat offenders must have a breath screening device installed in their car in order to start it.

Name and shame in the media. Riot could start this by accessing the Court drink driving lists and publishing the results. It’s a public record.

Public floggings in Garema Place.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

DJ said :

Anyone can make a mistake, once. No need to destroy someone’s life simply because they had one wine to mnay at dinner.

Second time it’s not a mistake. Throw the book at them.

As for multiple repeat offenders? long gaol terms, it’s obvious that there is no hope of rehabilitation or even acknowledgement of their deeds.

One too many or… it’s not that far home, I’ll risk it.

It isn’t destroying a life, it may be saving one. Too bad for those that suffer the consequences of their own actions. Nobody is making them drink.

couldn’t agree with you more DJ

Inappropriate said :

Anyone can make a mistake, once. No need to destroy someone’s life simply because they had one wine to mnay at dinner.

Exactly. No need to ruin someone’s life (and their dependents) for one stupid mistake. Different story though if actual harm came about from their inebriation.

Bollocks. You’ll know you actions could harm or kill somebody something happens or before?

Anyone can make a mistake, once. No need to destroy someone’s life simply because they had one wine to mnay at dinner.

Second time it’s not a mistake. Throw the book at them.

As for multiple repeat offenders? long gaol terms, it’s obvious that there is no hope of rehabilitation or even acknowledgement of their deeds.

One too many or… it’s not that far home, I’ll risk it.

It isn’t destroying a life, it may be saving one. Too bad for those that suffer the consequences of their own actions. Nobody is making them drink.

monomania said :

Qbn Gal said :

I believe a strong penalty (financial would have the greatest impact, such as $3,000 rather than the pathetic $300) is warranted as we want this to be the ONE AND ONLY time an intoxicated driver commits a DUI offence. A soft sentence is no deterrent to future offences in many cases.

To you $300 may be pathetic, to others a budget breaker and to some $3000 is a pittance. Fine them to meet costs of court and policing and then make them (on promise of prison) carry out community service over 2 to 3 months to give them time think about it for longer than it takes to Bill Pay. It would also be equitable. About 75% of first time caught drink drivers are not caught again. Massive fines would create more bad will than any tiny reduction in re-offense would warrant. Constant offenders (3rd and out) should be removed from our roads.

in reality fines don’t seem to make much difference to people and they continue to offend. if they don’t pay off the fine – what happens..nothing

the more i read about repeat offenders the more i think there needs to be a uniform penalty for them. for example:
first offence – fine and loss of license
second – weekend detention
third – prison no ifs but or anything
may sound harsh but when will these people get it??? don’t drink and drive!

Qbn Gal said :

I believe a strong penalty (financial would have the greatest impact, such as $3,000 rather than the pathetic $300) is warranted as we want this to be the ONE AND ONLY time an intoxicated driver commits a DUI offence. A soft sentence is no deterrent to future offences in many cases.

To you $300 may be pathetic, to others a budget breaker and to some $3000 is a pittance. Fine them to meet costs of court and policing and then make them (on promise of prison) carry out community service over 2 to 3 months to give them time think about it for longer than it takes to Bill Pay. It would also be equitable. About 75% of first time caught drink drivers are not caught again. Massive fines would create more bad will than any tiny reduction in re-offense would warrant. Constant offenders (3rd and out) should be removed from our roads.

Geez people – it’s not a mistake. Drink driving is never a mistake. No one “accidently” drinks and drives. It is a deliberate act to get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol. If you have a drink – you must not drive. If you are planning to have a drink – plan to get home without getting behind the wheel.

Anyone can make a mistake, once. No need to destroy someone’s life simply because they had one wine to mnay at dinner.

Exactly. No need to ruin someone’s life (and their dependents) for one stupid mistake. Different story though if actual harm came about from their inebriation.

The key point bhere is the reading – 0.185. This is well over three times the limit.

If this was a first offence, and the reading was low-range, then some leniency and education would be fine.

However, this reading puts this character way outside those considerations. For the record, I have no DUI convictions, and also beleive that the old .08 was a better limit, and when that is exceeded, then harsh penalties should apply across the board.

I believe a strong penalty (financial would have the greatest impact, such as $3,000 rather than the pathetic $300) is warranted as we want this to be the ONE AND ONLY time an intoxicated driver commits a DUI offence. A soft sentence is no deterrent to future offences in many cases.

Hard to say without the full facts.

Keep in mind too that a blood alcohol content – even a high range one – is the actual offence. Whilst it’s very disturbing to know that such folk are out and about on our roads, the courts have to deal with facts rather than probabilities or possibilities – as grim as they may be.

I’m wondering if anything like “good driving record”, “upstanding member of the community” and suchlike would mean that much should someone get drunk, drive and kill someone due to “poor judgement”?

I tend to view drunk drivers in the same way I’d view someone wandering around with a loaded weapon with the safety off: they may not mean to be, but they are a danger to other people and sentences should reflect this.

“soft drink driving”
Why on earth are people getting in trouble for driving whilst under the influence of Sprite and Fanta?!

Mandatory sentencing should apply for offences such as drink driving. People drink and drive becuase they aren’t scared of getting caught and suffering the consequences. If we continue to go soft on offenders what is the deterrant?

Take away his licence and make him use public transport for 6 months.

(or is ACTION banned under the Geneva Convention?)

MuddlingStick said :

Soft hands first offence, give people enough rope to hang themselves, repeat offenders throw away the key.

I agree that any repeat drink-driving offense should be very harsh.

I resent the thought that I’m sharing the road with people having impaired judgement, because maybe they’re not scared enough of what will happen if they get caught.

A spotless record makes no difference if you wipe out somebody else’s family because of a ‘poor choice’. (emphasis being on choice)

i saw the title of the thread and wondered how many soft drinks put you over the limit – honestly oshifer, i obly had three soda lime and bittarz…

this is very soft! as the new stick notes, alcohol, as a drug, impairs judgement and makes a driver of a tonne or more of metal a dangerous thing. i don’t even know about soft hands for first offences, especially more than three time (not ‘just over’) the limit – i think every driver knows the law, and if there are some who somehow don’t, bad luck… off to porridge with you.

Far too soft (without knowing the full story) – there are very few circumstances where this could be considered appropriate.

Alcohol inhibits judgement – really?

I am guessing he was sober at some point in time before the incident occured and he should have made better arrangements to not drive after drinking.

I disagree Muddling stick. A poor decision would be to select the right lane of a three lane road when you need to exit to the left within 50 metres. A choice to drive a motor vehicle when you have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.185 is way more than a simple mistake. There is no doubt this man would have known he was affected by alcohol when he chose to drive a car and he should expect to face appropriate consequences now he has been convicted. I support any move to deter people from making such choices on our roads.

JB, I vote too soft, and good luck to the DPP with their appeal.

I think you will find that this may be a “throw away the key” type affair… That said, maybe there were extenuating circumstances which came out in court.

Not knowing enough about the case, I can imagine circumstances where this sentence was appropriate.

Mr Waugh, 38 years old, did he have any prior traffic or road offences? Otherwise he could well have 20 years of spotless driving record, a family, job, contribute to the community and otherwise be an upstanding member of society.

People make poor decisions and learn from them. I think soft hands for first offences can be appropriate. I don’t think Mr Waugh will be looking at this as ‘getting off easy’, nor would I (as somebody with a DUI conviction), because he will know as a repeat offender all those qualities will go out the window and he will face harsh, severe punishments.

Poor decisions are made by all of us, some make poor lifestyle choices, poor work choices, poor family choices, some people make potentially life-threatening poor choices such as drinking and being in the position of being able to drive a car.

Alcohol inhibits judgement.

Soft hands first offence, give people enough rope to hang themselves, repeat offenders throw away the key.