Should A Jail Sentence Be Imposed On Someone For Speeding?

Saab Ed

Following on from another Thread here Im asking the question " Do people think a prison sentence should be imposed on someone for speeding ? " The offence here is someone doing 200kmh in a 120kmh zone and they've just been landed with a 3 months prison sentence. My own opinion for what its worth is that 200 kmh is 80kmh above the limit and by our laws that is far in excess of what should be tolerated. IMO a very very large fine should be imposed. BUT it still has to be said that nobody was hurt, nobody was killed, no accident happened and it all ended on the side of the road in a hail of blue flashing lights. Yes of course it could have went very wrong but it didnt. You dont get 3 months in prison for leaving a bottle of petrol on the path but you probably would if some child drank it and died.

trad

No.

There has to be a deterrant. If there was only a monetary fine some people would take their chances or just write a cheque. So yes, if the speed is high enough you should go to prison.

Tipsy Mac

No.

I think we should follow the Finish system of issuing a fine based on your income which is normally a fine of 2 weeks wages, this I would support if we were going down the non sentencing route otherwise I think a jail sentance has to be there as an option. A fine of €100 fine means very different things to someone who is on €100k a year as oppose to someone who is on the dole.

SoupyNorman

If the speed has caused an accident then it's too late, fine/custodial sentence wont make a dot bit of difference to the lost and ruined lives.

A custodial sentence (notwithstanding the overcrowding argument) for a speeder would IMO be very effective in pouring a bucket of sense over the individual the next time they do get behind the wheel.

200kph makes a mockery of the law and the safety of the other road users, fair play to the judge.

Saab Ed

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

I think we should follow the Finish system of issuing a fine based on your income which is normally a fine of 2 weeks wages, this I would support if we were going down the non sentencing route otherwise I think a jail sentance has to be there as an option. A fine of €100 fine means very different things to someone who is on €100k a year as oppose to someone who is on the dole.

Problem is a jail sentence is a criminal record were as a fine no matter how large is not. 3 months in prison or a 10 grand fine givin the serious excess of speed here IMO would be a better real world punishment.

Saab Ed

SoupyNorman wrote: »

If the speed has caused an accident then it's too late, fine/custodial sentence wont make a dot bit of difference to the lost and ruined lives.

True but you cant throw everybody in prison for doing something stupid!!! A law was broken and in this case it was speeding not man slaughter. Parking illegal outside a school gate could nab you a month in prison so. Its nothing but parking but if a child runs out and gets killed...well! By your logic we'll need to make sure nobody parks in a dodgy place...just incase. Yup Prison should educate those crazy bad parkers

CrowdedHouse

No.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

200kph makes a mockery of the law and the safety of the other road users, fair play to the judge.

I agree

Did those convicted think the law doesn't apply to them or something.Very arrogant and ultimately costly to them.

But shur they'll probably get off on appeal

Saab Ed

Im just watching how the Poll is going here and Im shocked at how quickly people are to surrender their freedom. Should people do time for 100 kmh in a 50 zone, remember thats double the limit. I think people are just getting carried away with a big number here.

SoupyNorman

Saab Ed wrote: »

Im just watching how the Poll is going here and Im shocked at how quickly people are to surrender their freedom. Should people do time for 100 kmh in a 50 zone, remember thats double the limit. I think people are just getting carried away with a big number here.

100kph in a 50kph zone is worse then 200kph in a 120kph zone, built up area, schools etc. :eek:

Saab Ed

SoupyNorman wrote: »

100kph in a 50kph zone is worse then 200kph in a 120kph zone, built up area, schools etc. :eek:

Excatly my point. Now did you ever hear of anybody going to prison for that? I dont think so. Its the BIG 200KMH that everybody is getting carried away with here and they are not seeing what the actual crime was.

MagicMarker

In the case mentioned, I think a short jail sentence is perfectly fine. Someone has to be made an example of, and I doubt these drivers will be so quick to put the foot down in the future.

mikemac

No.

Saab Ed wrote: »

Problem is a jail sentence is a criminal record were as a fine no matter how large is not. 3 months in prison or a 10 grand fine givin the serious excess of speed here IMO would be a better real world punishment.

But for some people in Ireland 10,000 isn't much at all and they can just write a cheque.
And for others it's a fine they could never hope to pay so they'll have to take the prison sentence instead.

That's why I have a problem with large fines. Two people get the same punishment but it means vastly different things for their life.
A short jail sentance will treat everyone the same. But it's only for extreme examples of speeding or dangerous behaviour on the road

brandon_flowers

I think every case should be treated different. 200kmh in an astra as per the cases referenced above is lunacy. However 200kmh in a 911 or on a GSX-R 1000 is only about 66% of the vehicles capability. Yes I'm saying oe law for one and one law for another, if you dont like it, tough.

If there is an accident it should be the same punishment regardless of the make of car or bike (probably dead anyway)

Shield

Saab Ed wrote: »

Excatly my point. Now did you ever hear of anybody going to prison for that? I dont think so. Its the BIG 200KMH that everybody is getting carried away with here and they are not seeing what the actual crime was.

Your question is incomplete. It's like saying should someone go to Prison for Theft.

Theft of a loaf of bread? No.
The Northern Bank Heist? Yes, of course.

Speeding at 200kmph on a 120kmph road? Yes.
Speeding at 60kmph on a 50kmph road? No, of course not.

It's all relative.

Saab Ed

psni wrote: »

.

It's all relative.

Which again is exactly the point. 200 in an 120 zone is 40% over the limit. 100 in a 50 zone is 100% over the limit. The likely hood of an accident happening increases doing 200kmh thats for sure but the point is no accident happened. On the other hand 2 cars hitting each other a 120kmh is going to end in pain anyway. If I park outside said bank with a perfectly legal shotgun in the boot of my car should I go to prison because I might have robbed the bank? The answer is no. This guy broke the speed limit by 40% and you want to send him to prison...forget about 200kmh and look at the offence.

wax

I use my car alot, probably about 500 miles a week and I'm starting to hate it. I love driving but I feel like its becoming too easy for road users to become "criminals". I got 2 points on my licence a while ago and was really upset because I'm a very careful driver and don't speed. I got caught as I was still slowing as I passed a 50km sign entering a village (was below 60 when I passed it) and since then I've become even more careful. I just felt I was being made an example of because the guards were sitting right at the sign. I know, I know, the sign was there for a reason but I never drive above the speed limit in towns (or on the main road).
I was out last night and had a few pints and now this morning I'm scared to drive because I'm afraid I may be above the limit still. I feel 100% but I just don't know what the breathaliser would say. Again, if I was caught I'b be considered a dangerous driver.
I just feel like Its becoming too easy to target road users and brand them criminals, sometimes in the same way as someone who has robbed or was voilent.
(200kmph is definately taking the piss though and that kind of driving needs to be stopped)

copacetic

No.

Saab Ed wrote: »

Which again is exactly the point. 200 in an 120 zone is 40% over the limit. 100 in a 50 zone is 100% over the limit. The likely hood of an accident happening increases doing 200kmh thats for sure but the point is no accident happened. On the other hand 2 cars hitting each other a 120kmh is going to end in pain anyway. If I park outside said bank with a perfectly legal shotgun in the boot of my car should I go to prison because I might have robbed the bank? The answer is no. This guy broke the speed limit by 40% and you want to send him to prison...forget about 200kmh and look at the offence.

Are you nuts? You keep on coming up with these totally random comparisons that are nothing like the actual offence here. The point isn't that no accident happened, the fact that he was stopped before he could actually cause one doesn't get him let off.

Take your latest crazy one above, the actual equivalent to speeding at over 200kmh would be to take the shotgun into the back and start pointing it at people, but not actually shoot anyone. Then afterward you would apparently claim that you did nothing wrong as no-one got hurt.

Saab Ed

copacetic wrote: »

Take your latest crazy one above, the actual equivalent to speeding at over 200kmh would be to take the shotgun into the back and start pointing it at people, but not actually shoot anyone. Then afterward you would apparently claim that you did nothing wrong as no-one got hurt.

What about my earlier example about bad parking then. Surely parking a car in a place where its illegal and some child could run out from behind it and get killed deserves atleast a month behind bars. You're just hooked on the sensaitionalist view that the number 200 is huge. Its 120 MPH in old money. Yes its fast but its not 3 months in prison. Just get out of the Joe Duffy tunnel there.

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

There needs to be a somewhat rational approach to this and it would have to include the dangerous driving element.

Just going by mere figures or percentages alone makes no sense.

Depending on the prevailing conditions and the nominal speed limit, you could be driving dangerously well below the limit or pose no great danger while exceeding the limit by quite a bit.

Extreme examples:

scenario one ...a country boreen with a nominal limit of 80 km/h and a gaggle of children walking along on a field day. If you fail to stop and just overtake them doing only half the limit (40) you're driving very dangerously indeed.

scenario two...a 100 km/h N road with a sign left behind from the surface dressing three months ago imposing a limit of 15 km/h (not a rarety in this country) ...if you drive along the by now perfectly dressed and painted road at 90 km/h ...should you be going to jail?

To answer the question: a jail sentence for mere speeding (i.e simply exceeding the stated limit without driving dangerously) is excessive and illogical. It certainly isn't just.

There needs to be however an increasing scale of punishment for speeding ...from fine to points, fine&points up to a ban.
Somebody doing 200 in a 120 zone should receive a hefty fine and lengthy ban ...but a jail sentence is excessive.

Shield

peasant wrote: »

Somebody doing 200 in a 120 zone should receive a hefty fine and lengthy ban ...but a jail sentence is excessive.

...and what should penalty be if he simply lost control of the car, killing his passenger?

Saab Ed

psni wrote: »

...and what should penalty be if he simply lost control of the car, killing his passenger?

Lost control when? At 30kmh on Ice or 80 in a 100 zone but burried up the back side of someone else or smoking a dube........and so on and so on. The original question refers to the case of someone doing 200 in a 120 zone. No accident, no death , nothing. Stop thinking what might have happened. Its what did happen that counts.

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

psni wrote: »

...and what should penalty be if he simply lost control of the car, killing his passenger?

a careless driver can lose control of their car and kill others at almost any speed

ninty9er

Only if the speed causes an accident.

psni wrote: »

...and what should penalty be if he simply lost control of the car, killing his passenger?

The same as it would be if it happened at the speed limit and dangerous driving was proven.

Shield

Saab Ed wrote: »

Stop thinking what might have happened. Its what did happen that counts.

Fair enough.

What happened:

He drove at 200kmph in a 120kmph zone and was prosecuted for dangerous driving. There exists a provision in the RTA for a Judge to impose a custodial sentence for this dangerours driving, which he did.

Result.

Delighted.

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

psni wrote: »

Fair enough.

What happened:

He drove at 200kmph in a 120kmph zone and was prosecuted for dangerous driving. There exists a provision in the RTA for a Judge to impose a custodial sentence for this dangerours driving, which he did.

Result.

Delighted.

yet this fella http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055013016&highlight=porsche did the same speed on a single carriageway with bends and bumps and got away with it.

Something stinks here.

Shield

peasant wrote: »

yet this fella http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055013016&highlight=porsche did the same speed on a single carriageway with bends and bumps and got away with it.

Something stinks here.

...erm... 3 years ago?

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

psni wrote: »

...erm... 3 years ago?

So?

One judge (for the imminently more dangerous offence) lets you walk out of court unscatherd because "you need your car for work" while judge Dredd here gives someone a criminal record for doing the same speed on a much safer road.

I'm not defending your man doing 200 on the motorway, don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly happy for him to be banned from driving for a considerable time.
But imposing a jail sentence on him says more about the ego of the judge than the justness of the law IMO

Saab Ed

psni wrote: »

Fair enough.

What happened:

He drove at 200kmph in a 120kmph zone and was prosecuted for dangerous driving. There exists a provision in the RTA for a Judge to impose a custodial sentence for this dangerours driving, which he did.

Result.

Delighted.

All I can say is thank God you're not running the show because half of this country would be in prison for various different things. He broke the speed limit and he's going to prison and you think its a good thing. < scratches head > Just the cost of putting the person in prison alone dose not justify the punnishment here.

Shield

Either that, or you've got it the wrong way around. The Judge in the 3 year old case was unduly lenient, and the Judge in this case got it right.

Hopefully the guy will have learned his lesson.

I'll leave the floor open to others to air their views on the matter. I'm done. Thanks for the discussion.

MagicMarker

I don't know why people are comparing this to other similar cases where a jail sentenced wasn't imposed. That means nothing other than we have a problem with consistency.

The decision here is still correct.

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

psni wrote: »

Either that, or you've got it the wrong way around. The Judge in the 3 year old case was unduly lenient, and the Judge in this case got it right.

Wrong again ...both judges were miles off reality in their judgements and both of them dispensed their own personal, warped "opinion" instead of justice

LookBehindYou

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Am i right in thinking that all the people who agree with prison for anyone speeding,, drive within the posted speed limits on all roads ???


I DOUBT IT.

Prison places should be kept for criminals.

MagicMarker

LookBehindYou wrote: »

Am i right in thinking that all the people who agree with prison for anyone speeding,, drive within the posted speed limits on all roads ???

I DOUBT IT.

Did you read the original post?

I DOUBT IT.

copacetic

No.

Saab Ed wrote: »

All I can say is thank God you're not running the show because half of this country would be in prison for various different things. He broke the speed limit and he's going to prison and you think its a good thing. < scratches head > Just the cost of putting the person in prison alone dose not justify the punnishment here.

Apparently people should only get into serious trouble if they cause accidents? Is that your thinking? So no matter what speed you are going, how drunk you are, how close you came to killing someone, unless you actually cause an accident, you get a slap on the wrist and a chance to cause an accident next time?

I'm out too, why start a poll/discussion if all your planning on doing is jumping up and down telling everyone what you think is right?

ogre357

Wouldn't the country be better off if the guards targeted real criminals rather than clogging up the court and prison system with soft targets? Speed traps should only be outside schools etc not on motorways which are statistically safer

jhegarty

SoupyNorman wrote: »

If the speed has caused an accident then it's too late, fine/custodial sentence wont make a dot bit of difference to the lost and ruined lives.

A custodial sentence (notwithstanding the overcrowding argument) for a speeder would IMO be very effective in pouring a bucket of sense over the individual the next time they do get behind the wheel.

200kph makes a mockery of the law and the safety of the other road users, fair play to the judge.

Just jail everyone , then there will be no car accidents.

Anyone who puts a key in a ignition has a risk of killing someone.

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

copacetic wrote: »

serious trouble

Just for the record ...a two or three year driving ban is damned inconvenient and I would term it "serious trouble".

Far more appropriate to a serious speeding offence than a custodial sentence and a criminal record.


Also ..what would your suggestions be if someone actually does get hurt or killed?
The death penalty?

copacetic

No.

peasant wrote: »

Just for the record ...a two or three year driving ban is damned inconvenient and I would term it "serious trouble".

Far more appropriate to a serious speeding offence than a custodial sentence and a criminal record.

Well certainly thats a matter of opinion. What I take issue with is this attitude that somehow actually causing the accident is the key.

Also are you under the impression that if you don't get a custodial sentence that means you don't have a criminal record?

peasant wrote: »

Also ..what would your suggestions be if someone actually does get hurt or killed?
The death penalty?

This bit was added late, I assume it's supposed to be some kind of debating technique? Actually if you killed someone while drunk or 80kmh over the speed limit I'd say manslaughter charges should be brought at least.

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

copacetic wrote: »

What I take issue with is this attitude that somehow actually causing the accident is the key.

But it is ...especially when driving is concerned.

Every single driver out on the road this very moment could potentially kill someone in the next second ...do you want to jail them all as a preventative measure?

Jeanious

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Eh, could we not start by banging up the murderers/rapists and paedophiles before we start jailin traffic violators?

copacetic

No.

peasant wrote: »

But it is ...especially when driving is concerned.

Every single driver out on the road this very moment could potentially kill someone in the next second ...do you want to jail them all as a preventative measure?

Do you think this random hyperbolic rubbish about the death penalty and jailing people for doing absolutely nothing wrong strengthens your argument somehow?

LookBehindYou

Only if the speed causes an accident.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Did you read the original post?

I DOUBT IT.

Magicmarker, am i missing something ?
I did read all, and i am pissed off with all the tut tut brigade, saints who regard speeding as a mortaller.
I am saying that prison should be for criminals only. Not for a person who goes a bit fast on a MOTORWAY.

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

copacetic wrote: »

Do you think this random hyperbolic rubbish about the death penalty and jailing people for doing absolutely nothing wrong strengthens your argument somehow?

Indeed it it does.
By the same logic that sends someone to jail for going 200 on a motorway you should also jail these people:
the driver who is on the phone while driving
the schoolrun driver with unbelted children in the back
the driver who fiddles with their radio
the one having a sneeze
the one with improper or no lights on
the amber gambler
the middle lane hogger
the no signal turner
the one with defective brake lights
the bald tyre surfer
the unlit trailer puller

or ..to cut the list somewhat short, lets just jail everybody who reaches for their car keys, just to be sure to be sure.

please, let's get our heads out of the "speed kills" propaganda and look at the issue of dangerous driving rationally instead.

MagicMarker

LookBehindYou wrote: »

Magicmarker, am i missing something ?
I did read all, and i am pissed off with all the tut tut brigade, saints who regard speeding as a mortaller.
I am saying that prison should be for criminals only. Not for a person who goes a bit fast on a MOTORWAY.

You might want to look up ''criminals'' in the dictionary.

copacetic

No.

peasant wrote: »

Indeed it it does.
By the same logic that sends someone to jail for going 200 on a motorway you should also jail these people:
the driver who is on the phone while driving
the schoolrun driver with unbelted children in the back
the driver who fiddles with their radio
the one having a sneeze
the one with improper or no lights on
the amber gambler
the middle lane hogger
the no signal turner
the one with defective brake lights
the bald tyre surfer
the unlit trailer puller

or ..to cut the list somewhat short, lets just jail everybody who reaches for their car keys, just to be sure to be sure.

please, let's get our heads out of the "speed kills" propaganda and look at the issue of dangerous driving rationally instead.

it's laughable to call for 'rational' detabe after that post and the rest of your posts on this thread.:rolleyes:

SoupyNorman

jhegarty wrote: »

Just jail everyone , then there will be no car accidents.

Thats a pretty pathetic angle to take on my post, I mean your view on it has nothing to do with what I said, you must not get the concept of sarcasm.

jhegarty wrote: »

Anyone who puts a key in a ignition has a risk of killing someone.

Well of course, but those who do not drive sensibly and/or drive at 200kph have a greater chance of causing an accident.

ninty9er

Only if the speed causes an accident.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Well of course, but those who do not drive sensibly and/or drive at 200kph have a greater chance of causing an accident.

It would be required to prove in a courtroom that it is insensible to drive at 200 km/h on the M7.

There is an argument to say that it is, but it is also possible to logically argue that it isn't.

MagicMarker

ninty9er wrote: »

It would be required to prove in a courtroom that it is insensible to drive at 200 km/h on the M7.

There is an argument to say that it is, but it is also possible to logically argue that it isn't.

The law says it is.

cabrwab

Only if the speed causes an accident.

These guys got a bad deal they were fined heavily and banned, to be jailed is crazy, im not condoning that type of speed or speeding, law is the law.
But 3months for driving over the limit while miles over the limit is so inconsistent.

You have robbers out there go to jail for 3months for robbing a shop.

Dangerous driving is different to speeding, these guys weren't targeted for dangerous driving! Speed brought them to the attention of the gardai. Glad they were caught, but as we've seen we need a court system which needs consistency.

Personally i think 100KMH in a 50Kmh zone is 20times worse then what these guys did.

I know if they lost control it'd of being a complete mess.

Overature

Only if the speed causes an accident.

The guy who was driving at 200K/h obvously needed to drive at that speed, he was proberly late for something or had just bought a new car and wanted to open it up and see what it could do. Both very reasonable excuses that the gaurds should have listened to, if nobody was hurt then he should not get into trouble. Simple as

MagicMarker

Overature wrote: »

The guy who was driving at 200K/h obvously needed to drive at that speed, he was proberly late for something or had just bought a new car and wanted to open it up and see what it could do. Both very reasonable excuses that the gaurds should have listened to, if nobody was hurt then he should not get into trouble. Simple as