Thread: What message do you get from this?

What a crock of ****. Drugs are drugs, there's a reason we're not allowed to drive whilst under the influence of ANY drug. Bet it would be a different scenario if it was his boy who was hit

Yep - the only message that this sends me is to confirm my long held belief that many members of the judiciary in this country are completely out of touch with reality, and should be sacked.

Some of these worthless arseholes who worm their way into positions of authority in our courts should be held accountable for their pathetic decisions - such as being charged as accessory to crimes when those that they let off the hook re-offend.

It might be true that low levels of ice could have a beneficial effect on driving, but has there been actual driving studies with participants on different doses of ice?
If not then the so called experts in the case have made so big leaps of faith and there should be a retrial.
Was the driver tested to determine the actual level of ice, is finding out the amount in the blood even possible? Or is it a positive and negative test (I think so)..
I dont doubt some drugs can actually improve concentration, we all drink coffee, I do to give me a kick start in the morning, but many many tests have been done with caffeine. I dont believe tests have been done to test users of ice ability to drive.
Chris

Originally Posted by BMKal

Yep - the only message that this sends me is to confirm my long held belief that many members of the judiciary in this country are completely out of touch with reality, and should be sacked.

Some of these worthless arseholes who worm their way into positions of authority in our courts should be held accountable for their pathetic decisions - such as being charged as accessory to crimes when those that they let off the hook re-offend.

Same... Pathetic isn't it...

So, is that judge also medically qualified????????? Yep, the judiciary should be held accountable for some of their failures to protect society............won't happen though!!!

She was convicted of diving without due care. The penalties for that can be fairly severe. The following is from the SA traffic act.

Careless driving
(1) A person must not drive a vehicle without due care or attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
(2) If a court convicts a person of an offence against this section that is an aggravated offence, the following provisions apply:
(a) the maximum penalty for the offence is 12 months imprisonment; and
(b) the court must order that the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for such period, being not less than 6 months, as the court thinks fit; and
(c) the disqualification prescribed by paragraph (b) cannot be reduced or
mitigated in any way or be substituted by any other penalty or sentence.

Why are people blaming the judge? The judge surely has to make his/her decision based on the law as it is written and on the evidence presented. It isn't his/her fault if the laws have not been kept up to date or the prosecution doesn't present a strong enough case.

Originally Posted by BMKal

Yep - the only message that this sends me is to confirm my long held belief that many members of the judiciary in this country are completely out of touch with reality, and should be sacked.

Some of these worthless arseholes who worm their way into positions of authority in our courts should be held accountable for their pathetic decisions - such as being charged as accessory to crimes when those that they let off the hook re-offend.

Yep I'm with you.....too many do gooders in this country who have slowly eliminated consequences for actions. As far as trying to justify a small amount of anything , it just doesn't work....for example if my brother who doesn't drink any alcohol at all had 1 beer he would be legal to drive but would kill someone as he wouldn't be able to stand. So at the end of the day there has to be a cut off...NO drugs......easy!

Originally Posted by vnx205

She was convicted of diving without due care. The penalties for that can be fairly severe. The following is from the SA traffic act.

Careless driving
(1) A person must not drive a vehicle without due care or attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
(2) If a court convicts a person of an offence against this section that is an aggravated offence, the following provisions apply:
(a) the maximum penalty for the offence is 12 months imprisonment; and
(b) the court must order that the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for such period, being not less than 6 months, as the court thinks fit; and
(c) the disqualification prescribed by paragraph (b) cannot be reduced or
mitigated in any way or be substituted by any other penalty or sentence.

Why are people blaming the judge? The judge surely has to make his/her decision based on the law as it is written and on the evidence presented. It isn't his/her fault if the laws have not been kept up to date or the prosecution doesn't present a strong enough case.

I guess the law is open to interpretation, so judges can deviate one way or the other, depending on their understanding of the law.