G'day all,

How should some one be punished for violating common road law?
Obviously every situation has different mitigating circumstances but how far should it go?

Voting is multiple choice and anonymous.

Easo

__________________
Day is done

Well if you are drunk/druged and kill someone then should be murder charges.

Dont care if they are priscription drugs or not.

Speeding not to sure on that one.

before i vote..... if you want to punish people for speeding, whats the fine for travelling well under the posted speed limit without a valid reason?

pet hate of mine as well

doing 60K's in a 80K zone

__________________
130's rule

Easy to say "hang 'em high" until you find yourself in that position.

I reckon, unless the conviction is dire, as the number of convictions rise so should the imposition of severe penalties. I am sick of hearing of turds who have amassed so many fines that they have no ability to pay them off and so the court just wipes them. The turd has not changed their behaviour and in fact they have learned that they can continue to do the same thing and given enough time, the courts will give them a free pass.

The law needs to impose an increasing scale of penalties based on severity of the breach, number of convictions over a period time and whether or not the person has made attempts to modify their behaviour. Other factors, like whether they have dependents, should not be factors.

Statutes normally prescribe stiff penalties but it is the judge who then determines what will be imposed. The maximum almost never gets imposed because it is that, a maximum not a normal penalty.

Judges tend to follow other judges rulings so you then get a trend developing. Sometimes the trend is upwards and other times it is downwards, but you almost never get a judge who will impose severe penalties when others don't.

Oh, added: Would have been better if I could vote for more than one option.

And: Often the victims are forgotten in all this when the focus is on the offender. This leads to squawks about offender rights, blah blah blah, but it is the victims of crime ('accidents', etc.) who need to be awarded damages.

Alan

It can be difficult to have one rule for all offences. For instance you may say - 40kms over the limit is a serious offence and I agree for most instances.


However, up the road from our place is a school zone which has a speed limit of 80kms per hour and 40kms during school times - 8am-9.30am amd 2.30-4.00pm, on school days. There have been times when the day just disappears and you don't reailise it is 2.30 already and you can get booked for doing 40kms over the limit, by not realising the time by 5 minutes. There are no flashing signs etc - a 6 lane divided road signs buried amongst trees on the footpath ... and the police are there regularly with their camera cars. Just a good revenue raiser.

Erich

No option for leaving things alone and focussing on enforcing current laws which would have greater benefit......
Death by hanging for 3KM/H over the speed limit would have little effect if it was not enforced.

Regards,
Tote

Which comes back to the judges who administer the laws.

i ticked them all they should do all of them..

they have these ankle braclets for habitual drunks and people on home detention. why not make these for people that lose there licence etc ?
someone loses there licence they will still drive in a lot of instances.
well if they can track your whereabouts with an ankle tap.....?